IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i20p11409-d657316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Principles for Measuring Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure: Evidence from Pakistan

Author

Listed:
  • Hina Ismail

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad 40000, Pakistan
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Muhammad A. Saleem

    (Asia Pacific College of Business and Law, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Dr, Darwin, NT 0810, Australia
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Sadaf Zahra

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad 40000, Pakistan
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Muhammad S. Tufail

    (Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60000, Pakistan
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Rao Akmal Ali

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad 40000, Pakistan)

Abstract

CSR Reporting is an essential mechanism for ensuring the transparency and accountability of companies towards sustainability performance. To further promote that sustainable development agenda, CSR-related regulations and policies have emerged worldwide, including in Pakistan. Therefore this study assesses the quality of corporate social responsibility in annual reports issued by firms listed at the Pakistan Stock Exchange. This study has operationalized the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) principles for examining the quality of CSR disclosures. The paper sample comprised 540 annual reports of 90 financial or non-financial companies from the years 2012 to 2017. Content analysis is performed to look for six quality principles and measures, i.e., balance, comparability, accuracy, clarity, reliability, and timeliness. Results suggested that most Pakistani firms provide precise and on-time information and put less emphasis on the balance of information and comparable information. Moreover, this study also highlighted that organizations should implement the GRI principle for disclosing qualitative CSR report.

Suggested Citation

  • Hina Ismail & Muhammad A. Saleem & Sadaf Zahra & Muhammad S. Tufail & Rao Akmal Ali, 2021. "Application of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Principles for Measuring Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure: Evidence from Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11409-:d:657316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11409/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/20/11409/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Boiral, 2013. "Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(7), pages 1036-1071, September.
    2. Denis Cormier & Michel Magnan & Barbara Van Velthoven, 2005. "Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 3-39.
    3. Michelon, Giovanna & Pilonato, Silvia & Ricceri, Federica, 2015. "CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 59-78.
    4. Peter Dobers & Minna Halme, 2009. "Corporate social responsibility and developing countries," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(5), pages 237-249, September.
    5. Archel, Pablo & Husillos, Javier & Spence, Crawford, 2011. "The institutionalisation of unaccountability: Loading the dice of Corporate Social Responsibility discourse," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 327-343.
    6. Dominique Diouf & Olivier Boiral, 2017. "The quality of sustainability reports and impression management," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 30(3), pages 643-667, March.
    7. Beretta, Sergio & Bozzolan, Saverio, 2004. "Reply to: Discussions of "A framework for the analysis of firm risk communication"," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 303-305.
    8. Waris Ali & Jedrzej George Frynas & Zeeshan Mahmood, 2017. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 273-294, July.
    9. Martin, Patrick R. & Moser, Donald V., 2016. "Managers’ green investment disclosures and investors’ reaction," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 239-254.
    10. Carol A. Adams & Geoffrey R. Frost, 2006. "Accessibility and functionality of the corporate web site: implications for sustainability reporting," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 275-287, July.
    11. J. Emil Morhardt, 2010. "Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the Internet," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(7), pages 436-452, November.
    12. Botosan, Christine A., 2004. "Discussion of a framework for the analysis of firm risk communication," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 289-295.
    13. van Staden, Chris J. & Hooks, Jill, 2007. "A comprehensive comparison of corporate environmental reporting and responsiveness," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 197-210.
    14. Eduardo Ortas & Isabel Gallego‐Alvarez & Igor Álvarez Etxeberria, 2015. "Financial Factors Influencing the Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Disclosure: A Quantile Regression Approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 362-380, November.
    15. Masulis, Ronald W. & Wang, Cong & Xie, Fei, 2012. "Globalizing the boardroom—The effects of foreign directors on corporate governance and firm performance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 527-554.
    16. Kim Hammond & Samantha Miles, 2004. "Assessing quality assessment of corporate social reporting: UK perspectives," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 61-79, March.
    17. Stephen Brammer & Stephen Pavelin, 2008. "Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(2), pages 120-136, February.
    18. Khaleed Omair Alotaibi & Khaled Hussainey, 2016. "Determinants of CSR disclosure quantity and quality: Evidence from non-financial listed firms in Saudi Arabia," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 13(4), pages 364-393, November.
    19. Jose‐Manuel Prado‐Lorenzo & Isabel Gallego‐Alvarez & Isabel M. Garcia‐Sanchez, 2009. "Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership structure effect," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 94-107, March.
    20. Gray, Rob, 2010. "Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability...and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 47-62, January.
    21. Everaert, Patricia & Bouten, Lies & Van Liedekerke, Luc & De Moor, Lieven & Christiaens, Johan, 2007. "Voluntary disclosure of corporate social responsibility by Belgian listed firms: a content analysis of annual reports," Working Papers 2007/29, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    22. Zeeshan Mahmood & Rehana Kouser & Waris Ali & Zubair Ahmad & Tahira Salman, 2018. "Does Corporate Governance Affect Sustainability Disclosure? A Mixed Methods Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, January.
    23. Beretta, Sergio & Bozzolan, Saverio, 2004. "A framework for the analysis of firm risk communication," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 265-288.
    24. Matthias S. Fifka, 2013. "Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta‐analysis," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 1-35, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Razvan HOINARU & Daniel BUDA & Jonel SUBIC & Adela JANSEN, 2023. "Financial and Non-Financial Disclosures for Agriculture: is there any Connection in between GRI 13 and IAS 41?," REVISTA DE MANAGEMENT COMPARAT INTERNATIONAL/REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE MANAGEMENT, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 24(2), pages 158-172, May.
    2. Evgeniya V. Nekhoda & Nurali U. Arabov & Aleksandr L. Bogdanov & Maria V. German & Tatyana V. Kuklina, 2022. "Decent work in non-financial reporting of Russian companies: Assessing the disclosure quality," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 34-56, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giorgio Mion, 2020. "Organizations with Impact? A Study on Italian Benefit Corporations Reporting Practices and Reporting Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    2. Giorgio Mion & Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2019. "Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure and Its Consequences on the Sustainability Reporting Quality of Italian and German Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Beck, A. Cornelia & Campbell, David & Shrives, Philip J., 2010. "Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 207-222.
    4. Silvia Romero & Silvia Ruiz & Belen Fernandez‐Feijoo, 2019. "Sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement in Spain: Different instruments, different quality," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 221-232, January.
    5. Mariappanadar, Sugumar & Maurer, Iris & Kramar, Robin & Muller-Camen, Michael, 2022. "Is it a sententious claim? An examination of the quality of occupational health, safety and well-being disclosures in global reporting initiative reports across industries and countries," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(2).
    6. Waris Ali & Jedrzej George Frynas & Zeeshan Mahmood, 2017. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 273-294, July.
    7. Silvia Ruiz & Silvia Romero & Belen Fernandez‐Feijoo, 2021. "Stakeholder engagement is evolving: Do investors play a main role?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1105-1120, February.
    8. Isabel Gallego‐Alvarez & Eduardo Ortas & José Luis Vicente‐Villardón & Igor Álvarez Etxeberria, 2017. "Institutional Constraints, Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate Environmental Reporting Policies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 807-825, September.
    9. Gonçalves, Tiago & Gaio, Cristina & Costa, Eva, 2020. "Committed vs opportunistic corporate and social responsibility reporting," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 417-427.
    10. Akrum Helfaya & Mark Whittington, 2019. "Does designing environmental sustainability disclosure quality measures make a difference?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 525-541, May.
    11. Musa Ghazwani & Mark Whittington & Akrum Helfaya, 2023. "Assessing the Anti-Corruption Disclosure Practices in the UK FTSE 100 Extractive Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-33, March.
    12. Elżbieta Izabela Szczepankiewicz & Windham Eugene Loopesko & Farid Ullah, 2022. "A Model of Risk Information Disclosures in Non-Financial Corporate Reports of Socially Responsible Energy Companies in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-34, April.
    13. Balluchi, Federica & Furlotti, Katia & Torelli, Riccardo, 2020. "Italy Towards Mandatory Sustainability Reporting. Voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure of Italian Companies and Legislative Decree 254/2016 Statements. A Quantitative Analysis of the L," OSF Preprints 9agvf, Center for Open Science.
    14. Nadia Gulko & Catriona Hyde, 2022. "Corporate perspectives on CSR disclosure: audience, materiality, motivations," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(4), pages 389-412, December.
    15. Łukasz Matuszak & Ewa Różańska, 2017. "CSR Disclosure in Polish-Listed Companies in the Light of Directive 2014/95/EU Requirements: Empirical Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Matthias S. Fifka, 2013. "Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta‐analysis," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 1-35, January.
    17. Shrives, Philip J. & Brennan, Niamh M., 2015. "A typology for exploring the quality of explanations for non-compliance with UK corporate governance regulations," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 85-99.
    18. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    19. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    20. Ki‐Hoon Lee, 2017. "Does Size Matter? Evaluating Corporate Environmental Disclosure in the Australian Mining and Metal Industry: A Combined Approach of Quantity and Quality Measurement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 209-223, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:20:p:11409-:d:657316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.