IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v42y2024i4p492-502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standardization cycles in sustainability reporting within the Global Reporting Initiative

Author

Listed:
  • van Oorschot, Kim E.
  • Aas Johansen, Vilde
  • Lynes Thorup, Nanna
  • Aspen, Dina Margrethe

Abstract

To analyze whether Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards could reduce transparency in sustainability reporting, we performed a longitudinal content analysis of sustainability reports for 15 large Norwegian organizations from 2010 to 2020 (inclusive). The content of reports increased by 90%, in contrast to an increase of only 18% in transparency. The content of GRI standards increased by more than 500%. For further examination, we develop a system dynamics model using a multilevel perspective including the standardization organizations, the organizations writing sustainability reports, and their audiences. Our model demonstrates how multilevel interactions may produce unintended results. More standards could impede transparent reporting for organizations, which in turn hinders stakeholders in making fair judgments about the sustainability of organizations. This condition then may trigger a new cycle in which standardization organizations define even more standards. We conclude that for sustainability reporting standards, less is more. Our findings have implications for both researchers and practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • van Oorschot, Kim E. & Aas Johansen, Vilde & Lynes Thorup, Nanna & Aspen, Dina Margrethe, 2024. "Standardization cycles in sustainability reporting within the Global Reporting Initiative," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 492-502.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:42:y:2024:i:4:p:492-502
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2024.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237324000537
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2024.04.001?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.

    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:eee:eurman:v:42:y:2024:i:4:p:492-502. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    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.