IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/jeapmx/v15y2013i03ns1464333213500129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Credible Claim Or Corporate Spin?: A Checklist To Evaluate Corporate Sustainability Reports

Author

Listed:
  • LIDEWIJ VAN DER PLOEG

    (Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • FRANK VANCLAY

    (Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In response to the establishment of universally-accepted principles about sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporations are now producing Sustainability Reports (SRs). Corporations are expected to document their positive and negative impacts on society. However, the veracity of the information in these reports is being questioned. To what extent is it greenwashing? While the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides a framework for reporting, effective mechanisms to evaluate reports are lacking. We propose a Sustainability Reporting Assessment Checklist of 10 questions as a functional tool for use by stakeholders to evaluate the content of SRs. For a demonstration of the effectiveness of the checklist, it is applied to a real but anonymous company. The questions cover: accessibility; readability; the use of an established framework (e.g. GRI); incorporation of CSR and sustainability into long-term strategy; consideration of all relevant aspects of operations; use of evidence to support claims; documented stakeholder engagement; supply chain responsibility; documented impacts on all stakeholders (including vulnerable groups and negatively affected groups); and assurance assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Lidewij Van Der Ploeg & Frank Vanclay, 2013. "Credible Claim Or Corporate Spin?: A Checklist To Evaluate Corporate Sustainability Reports," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 1-21.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:15:y:2013:i:03:n:s1464333213500129
    DOI: 10.1142/S1464333213500129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1464333213500129
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1464333213500129?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Donna Marshall & Lucy McCarthy & Marius Claudy & Paul McGrath, 2019. "Piggy in the Middle: How Direct Customer Power Affects First-Tier Suppliers’ Adoption of Socially Responsible Procurement Practices and Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(4), pages 1081-1102, February.
    2. Frank Vanclay & Philippe Hanna, 2019. "Conceptualizing Company Response to Community Protest: Principles to Achieve a Social License to Operate," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-31, June.
    3. Marthinus Jacobus Botha & Sanlie. L. Middelberg, 2016. "Evaluating the Adequacy of Water-Related Reporting and Disclosure by High-Impact users in South Africa," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Tony Kealy, 2017. "Does an Embedded Wind Turbine Reduce a Company’s Electricity Bill? Case Study of a 300 kW Wind Turbine in Ireland," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 417-428, October.
    5. Wan Nordin Wan-Hussin & Ameen Qasem & Norhani Aripin & Mohd Shazwan Mohd Ariffin, 2021. "Corporate Responsibility Disclosure, Information Environment and Analysts’ Recommendations: Evidence from Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-27, March.

    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:wsi:jeapmx:v:15:y:2013:i:03:n:s1464333213500129. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/jeapm/jeapm.shtml .

    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.