IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p14917-d969751.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of and the Extent to Which Large and Medium Logistics Organisations Report on Social Sustainability—The Case of South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Tumo Paulus Kele

    (Tshwane School for Business and Society, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria 0183, South Africa)

  • Mokheseng Makhetha

    (School of Business Leadership, University of South Africa, Pretoria 0183, South Africa)

Abstract

Despite the importance of the logistics sector to the South African economy and the significant negative impact of the sector on South African society, little research has been conducted to determine the extent to which South African logistics companies report their social sustainability and the effectiveness of their social sustainability reporting. The objectives of this study were to determine the extent to which South African logistics companies report on social sustainability performance and to evaluate the effectiveness of social sustainability reporting practices of South African logistics companies. A documentary analysis of the sustainability information of the logistics companies was conducted using a control list and a judgment scale. A purposive sample of 50 companies was used. The majority of the companies in the sample are private companies that are not listed. Of the sample group, 20% are family-owned, and 16% of the companies are publicly listed in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). The results indicate that social sustainability reporting by logistics companies is very low. The range of scores is from a minimum of 0% to a maximum of 57%. Only two companies attained a score above 50%. About 61% of the companies did not disclose any of the stated themes of social sustainability, while 25% of the companies disclosed the themes in narrative form, and 12.1% disclosed them relative to prior periods of disclosure by the companies. Only 1.4% disclosed themes relative to the targets set by the company, and 0.3% of the companies disclosed them relative to industry standards. Regarding the effectiveness of social sustainability reporting, nine companies (18%) had a score of 50% and above. Only 13 companies (26%) have a score of 40% or higher. This is indicative of the fact that, in general, road logistics companies are not effective in their reporting of social sustainability activities. We endeavour for the study to assist South African logistics companies in being aware of elements to consider when reporting on their social sustainability, as well as assist them in improving their reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Tumo Paulus Kele & Mokheseng Makhetha, 2022. "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of and the Extent to Which Large and Medium Logistics Organisations Report on Social Sustainability—The Case of South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-26, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:14917-:d:969751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/14917/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/14917/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sibel Hoştut & Seçil Deren van het Hof, 2020. "Greenhouse gas emissions disclosure: comparing headquarters and local subsidiaries," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(6), pages 899-915, April.
    2. Leonardo Rinaldi & Jeffrey Unerman & Charl de Villiers, 2018. "Evaluating the integrated reporting journey: insights, gaps and agendas for future research," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(5), pages 1294-1318, June.
    3. Arifur Khan & Mohammad Muttakin & Javed Siddiqui, 2013. "Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures: Evidence from an Emerging Economy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 207-223, May.
    4. Nikolas K. Kelling & Philipp C. Sauer & Stefan Gold & Stefan Seuring, 2021. "The Role of Institutional Uncertainty for Social Sustainability of Companies and Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 173(4), pages 813-833, November.
    5. Todd Litman & David Burwell, 2006. "Issues in sustainable transportation," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(4), pages 331-347.
    6. ., 2019. "Socially responsible investment," Chapters, in: Intergenerational Equity, chapter 6, pages 90-154, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Khalid Zaman & Muhammad Khalid Anser & Usama Awan & Wiwik Handayani & Hailan Salamun & Abdul Rashid Abdul Aziz & Mohd Khata Jabor & Kamalularifin Subari, 2022. "Transportation-Induced Carbon Emissions Jeopardize Healthcare Logistics Sustainability: Toward a Healthier Today and a Better Tomorrow," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Mumbi Maria Wachira & Thomas Berndt & Carlos Martinez Romero, 2019. "The adoption of international sustainability and integrated reporting guidelines within a mandatory reporting framework: lessons from South Africa," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(5), pages 613-629, June.
    9. Jonathon Hanks & Louise Gardiner, 2012. "Integrated Reporting : Lessons from the South African Experience," World Bank Publications - Reports 11052, The World Bank Group.
    10. Maria Persdotter Isaksson & Hana Hulthén & Helena Forslund, 2019. "Environmentally Sustainable Logistics Performance Management Process Integration between Buyers and 3PLs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, May.
    11. Ciliberti, Francesco & Pontrandolfo, Pierpaolo & Scozzi, Barbara, 2008. "Logistics social responsibility: Standard adoption and practices in Italian companies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 88-106, May.
    12. Shan Zhou & Roger Simnett & Wendy Green, 2017. "Does Integrated Reporting Matter to the Capital Market?," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 53(1), pages 94-132, March.
    13. Collins Ntim & Teerooven Soobaroyen, 2013. "Black Economic Empowerment Disclosures by South African Listed Corporations: The Influence of Ownership and Board Characteristics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 121-138, August.
    14. Clarkson, Peter M. & Li, Yue & Richardson, Gordon D. & Vasvari, Florin P., 2008. "Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(4-5), pages 303-327.
    15. Kumar, Aalok & Anbanandam, Ramesh, 2022. "Assessment of environmental and social sustainability performance of the freight transportation industry: An index-based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 43-60.
    16. Z. Goosen & E. J. Cilliers, 2020. "Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third Places: A Theory-Based Framework," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 835-866, August.
    17. Wim Lambrechts & Semen Son-Turan & Lucinda Reis & Janjaap Semeijn, 2019. "Lean, Green and Clean? Sustainability Reporting in the Logistics Sector," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-23, January.
    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. Yanqi Sun & Pui San Ip & Michael Jones & Jenny Jing Wang & Yi An, 2021. "Determinants of Animal Welfare Disclosure Practices: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Lin Liao & Yukun Pan & Daifei (Troy) Yao, 2023. "Capital market liberalisation and voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from a quasi‐natural experiment in China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2677-2715, June.
    3. Amir Hossain & Sudipta Bose & Abul Shamsuddin, 2023. "Diffusion of integrated reporting, insights and potential avenues for future research," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2503-2555, June.
    4. Nooraisah Katmon & Zam Zuriyati Mohamad & Norlia Mat Norwani & Omar Al Farooque, 2019. "Comprehensive Board Diversity and Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from an Emerging Market," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 447-481, June.
    5. Mohammed S. Y. Omran & Mohammad A. A. Zaid & Aladdin Dwekat, 2021. "The relationship between integrated reporting and corporate environmental performance: A green trial," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 427-445, January.
    6. Bui, Binh & Houqe, Muhammad Nurul & Zaman, Mahbub, 2020. "Climate governance effects on carbon disclosure and performance," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    7. Anup Banerjee & Mattias Nordqvist & Karin Hellerstedt, 2020. "The role of the board chair—A literature review and suggestions for future research," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 372-405, November.
    8. Nicola Raimo & Filippo Vitolla & Valentina Minutiello & Arcangelo Marrone & Patrizia Tettamanzi, 2022. "Readability of integrated reports: Evidence from worldwide adopters," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 524-534, May.
    9. Mohammad A. A. Zaid & Sara T. F. Abuhijleh & María Consuelo Pucheta‐Martínez, 2020. "Ownership structure, stakeholder engagement, and corporate social responsibility policies: The moderating effect of board independence," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 1344-1360, May.
    10. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Mohammad Nurunnabi & Seong Mi Bae, 2018. "The effects of corporate governance on environmental sustainability reporting: empirical evidence from South Asian countries," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-26, December.
    11. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Mohammad Sharif Hossain & Jong Dae Kim, 2018. "Is Green Regulation Effective or a Failure: Comparative Analysis between Bangladesh Bank (BB) Green Guidelines and Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Cerbone, Dannielle & Maroun, Warren, 2020. "Materiality in an integrated reporting setting: Insights using an institutional logics framework," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    13. Rongbing Huang & Yubo Huang, 2020. "Does Internal Control Contribute to a Firm’s Green Information Disclosure? Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, April.
    14. repec:ehu:cuader:55446 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Govindan, Kannan & Kilic, Merve & Uyar, Ali & Karaman, Abdullah S., 2021. "Drivers and value-relevance of CSR performance in the logistics sector: A cross-country firm-level investigation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    16. Martina Nannelli & Stefania Oliva, 2021. "The rise of the sharing economy and its relationship with sustainable development. A critical literature review," Working Papers - Business wp2021_03.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    17. Ahmed A. Sarhan & Basil Al‐Najjar, 2023. "The influence of corporate governance and shareholding structure on corporate social responsibility: The key role of executive compensation," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 4532-4556, October.
    18. Niccol? Comerio & Patrizia Tettamanzi, 2019. "Systematic literature network analysis in accounting: A first application on integrated reporting research," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(2), pages 73-95.
    19. Ge Wang & Huijin Zhang & Saixing Zeng & Xiaohua Meng & Han Lin, 2023. "Reporting on sustainable development: Configurational effects of top management team and corporate characteristics on environmental information disclosure," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 28-52, January.
    20. Campa, Domenico & Zijlmans, Evy Wilhelmina Anna, 2019. "Corporate social responsibility recognition and support for the arts: Evidence from European financial institutions," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 818-827.
    21. Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez & Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero & María‐Antonia Garcia‐Benau, 2019. "Integrated reporting: The mediating role of the board of directors and investor protection on managerial discretion in munificent environments," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 29-45, January.

    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:14:y:2022:i:22:p:14917-:d:969751. 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.