IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v14y2024i4p72-d1371251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Occupational Health and Safety Reporting in the Top 100 Australian Companies: Does Organisational Risk Profile Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Jodi Oakman

    (Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3083, Australia)

  • Suzanne Young

    (La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3083, Australia)

  • Victoria P. Weale

    (Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3083, Australia)

  • Alison Pattinson

    (Centre for Ergonomics and Human Factors, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3083, Australia)

Abstract

Increasingly, good quality and safe working conditions that promote employee health are expected by stakeholders. The aim of this study is to examine the extent and quality of occupational health and safety (OHS) reporting in the Top 100 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). Method: Publicly available annual reports from the Top 100 ASX companies were reviewed using a policy scorecard against five dimensions drawn from the Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012–2022. The dimensions were: OHS information, legislation, leadership, work health disorders, prevention and best practice. Results: Mean rank scores of high and low-risk industry sectors were compared. High-risk sectors provided more explicit coverage of OHS information across all five domains in comparison to low-risk sectors ( p > 0.05). The Information Technology sector scored the lowest across all five dimensions. Conclusion: Higher quality reporting from those in high-risk sectors may be influenced by stakeholder expectations, as well as industry norms. The current analysis suggests that relying on stakeholders to drive improved reporting may be problematic, as those industries that are perceived to have a low OHS risk profile may not consider the need to provide transparent reporting on their strategies to ensure they are providing good quality working conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jodi Oakman & Suzanne Young & Victoria P. Weale & Alison Pattinson, 2024. "Occupational Health and Safety Reporting in the Top 100 Australian Companies: Does Organisational Risk Profile Matter?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:72-:d:1371251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/14/4/72/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/14/4/72/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emiel Duuren & Auke Plantinga & Bert Scholtens, 2016. "ESG Integration and the Investment Management Process: Fundamental Investing Reinvented," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 525-533, October.
    2. Abraham, Santhosh & Shrives, Philip J., 2014. "Improving the relevance of risk factor disclosure in corporate annual reports," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 91-107.
    3. Kerry A. Humphreys & Ken T. Trotman, 2022. "Judgment and decision making research on CSR reporting in the COVID‐19 pandemic environment," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 739-765, March.
    4. Jan Bebbington & Carlos Larrinaga & Jose M. Moneva, 2008. "Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(3), pages 337-361, March.
    5. Aditya Jain & Stavroula Leka & Gerard Zwetsloot, 2011. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Psychosocial Risk Management in Europe," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(4), pages 619-633, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pruthiranjan Dwibedi & Debasis Pahi & Antarjyami Sahu, 2024. "Mapping the landscape of environmental, social and governance research: A bibliometric analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 3745-3767, September.
    2. Feng, Zhi-Yuan & Wang, Ying-Chieh & Wang, Wen-Gine, 2024. "Corporate carbon reduction and tax avoidance: International evidence," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2).
    3. Castaldo, Sandro & Ciacci, Andrea & Penco, Lara, 2023. "Perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction in grocery retail: A comparison between low- and high-productivity stores," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Tan, Yafei & Zhu, Zhaohui, 2022. "The effect of ESG rating events on corporate green innovation in China: The mediating role of financial constraints and managers' environmental awareness," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    5. Millar, John & Mueller, Frank & Carter, Chris, 2024. "Mediating ESG: Mapping individual responses to a changing field," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Heidi Reed, 2024. "“When money is more valuable than people…”: The pandemic as a call for business to care," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 435-455, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Elsayed, Mohamed & Elshandidy, Tamer, 2021. "Internal control effectiveness, textual risk disclosure, and their usefulness: U.S. evidence," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    9. Konstantinos Evangelinos & Stefanos Fotiadis & Antonis Skouloudis & Nadeem Khan & Foteini Konstandakopoulou & Ioannis Nikolaou & Shaun Lundy, 2018. "Occupational health and safety disclosures in sustainability reports: An overview of trends among corporate leaders," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 961-970, September.
    10. Clementino, Ester & Perkins, Richard, 2020. "How do companies respond to environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103046, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Trinks, Arjan & Ibikunle, Gbenga & Mulder, Machiel & Scholtens, Bert, 2017. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity and the Cost of Capital," Research Report 17017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    12. Mohammed Mahmud Kakanda & Basariah Salim & Sitraselvi a/p Chandren, 2017. "Corporate Governance, Risk Management Disclosure, and Firm Performance: A Theoretical and Empirical Review Perspective," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 7(9), pages 836-845, September.
    13. Kaouther Chebbi & Mohammed Abdullah Ammer, 2022. "Board Composition and ESG Disclosure in Saudi Arabia: The Moderating Role of Corporate Governance Reforms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-25, September.
    14. Torelli, Riccardo & Balluchi, Federica & Furlotti, Katia, 2019. "The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports," OSF Preprints tw6c7_v1, Center for Open Science.
    15. Zou, Jin & Yan, Jingzhou & Deng, Guoying, 2023. "ESG rating confusion and bond spreads," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    16. Tamas Barko & Martijn Cremers & Luc Renneboog, 2022. "Shareholder Engagement on Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 777-812, October.
    17. Maung, Min & Wilson, Craig & Yu, Weisu, 2020. "Does reputation risk matter? Evidence from cross-border mergers and acquisitions," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    18. Lukas Benz & Stefan Paulus & Julia Scherer & Janik Syryca & Stefan Trück, 2021. "Investors' carbon risk exposure and their potential for shareholder engagement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 282-301, January.
    19. Elshandidy, Tamer & Fraser, Ian & Hussainey, Khaled, 2015. "What drives mandatory and voluntary risk reporting variations across Germany, UK and US?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 376-394.
    20. Li, Chao & Keeley, Alexander Ryota & Takeda, Shutaro & Seki, Daikichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2024. "Investor’s ESG Tendency Probed by Pre-trained Transformers," MPRA Paper 122756, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:jadmsc:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:72-:d:1371251. 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.