IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i17p7711-d1471704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tensions between Materiality Assessments and Stakeholder Engagements in Thai Corporate Sustainability Leaders

Author

Listed:
  • Farrell Tan

    (School of Global Studies, Thammasat University, Bangkok 10200, Thailand)

  • K. C. Dipendra

    (College of Sustainability and Tourism, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Beppu 874-8577, Japan)

Abstract

This study examines how leading Thai companies implement materiality assessments and stakeholder engagements in their sustainability reporting. While the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework emphasizes these processes as being central to effective reporting, research on their concurrent implementation remains limited. Through a content analysis of GRI-aligned sustainability reports from top Thai firms, this study found that companies appear comprehensive in identifying material topics and stakeholders initially. However, a deeper analysis revealed primarily information-gathering approaches with stakeholders and limited disclosure of stakeholder impacts. Materiality assessments lacked clear information on how material issues affect both the organization and stakeholders. The findings indicate that materiality assessments are more rigorous than stakeholder engagement efforts in practice. This suggests that even when using stakeholder-focused standards like the GRI, actual stakeholder engagement may be superficial. Such superficial implementation of reporting standards potentially limits the ability of these standards to generate stakeholder engagement, which is an important pre-requisite for organizational transformation and accountability. This study contributes to understanding the practical application of these key reporting processes in an emerging market context. It highlights areas for improvement in corporate reporting practice and proposes directions for future research on enhancing the effectiveness of sustainability reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Farrell Tan & K. C. Dipendra, 2024. "Tensions between Materiality Assessments and Stakeholder Engagements in Thai Corporate Sustainability Leaders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7711-:d:1471704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7711/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7711/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Boiral & Iñaki Heras-Saizarbitoria & Marie-Christine Brotherton, 2019. "Assessing and Improving the Quality of Sustainability Reports: The Auditors’ Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 703-721, March.
    2. Hess, David, 2008. "The Three Pillars of Corporate Social Reporting as New Governance Regulation: Disclosure, Dialogue, and Development," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 447-482, October.
    3. Carol A. Adams & Frank Mueller, 2022. "Academics and policymakers at odds: the case of the IFRS Foundation Trustees’ consultation paper on sustainability reporting," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 13(6), pages 1310-1333, May.
    4. Laurence Vigneau & Carol A. Adams, 2023. "The failure of transparency as self-regulation," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(4), pages 852-876, February.
    5. Maria Aluchna & Maria Roszkowska-Menkes & Ewa Jastrzębska & Leszek Bohdanowicz, 2023. "Sustainability reporting as a social construct: the systematic literature review within socio-political view," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(8), pages 1535-1554, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Sveinung Jørgensen & Aksel Mjøs & Lars Jacob Tynes Pedersen, 2021. "Sustainability reporting and approaches to materiality: tensions and potential resolutions," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 13(2), pages 341-361, October.
    8. Cho, Charles H. & Patten, Dennis M., 2007. "The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(7-8), pages 639-647.
    9. Carol A. Adams, 2004. "The ethical, social and environmental reporting‐performance portrayal gap," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 17(5), pages 731-757, December.
    10. 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.
    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. Angus W. H. Yip & William Y. P. Yu, 2023. "The Quality of Environmental KPI Disclosure in ESG Reporting for SMEs in Hong Kong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-26, February.
    2. Nicole Darnall & Hyunjung Ji & Kazuyuki Iwata & Toshi H. Arimura, 2022. "Do ESG reporting guidelines and verifications enhance firms' information disclosure?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1214-1230, September.
    3. Silvia Ruiz-Blanco & Silvia Romero & Belen Fernandez-Feijoo, 2022. "Green, blue or black, but washing–What company characteristics determine greenwashing?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4024-4045, March.
    4. Petra F. A. Dilling, 2016. "Reporting on Long-Term Value Creation—The Example of Public Canadian Energy and Mining Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-26, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Raf Orens & Walter Aerts & Denis Cormier, 2010. "Web‐Based Non‐Financial Disclosure and Cost of Finance," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9‐10), pages 1057-1093, November.
    8. Roszkowska-Menkes, Maria & Aluchna, Maria & Kamiński, Bogumił, 2024. "True transparency or mere decoupling? The study of selective disclosure in sustainability reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    9. Francesco De Luca & Andrea Cardoni & Ho-Tan-Phat Phan & Evgeniia Kiseleva, 2020. "Does Structural Capital Affect SDGs Risk-Related Disclosure Quality? An Empirical Investigation of Italian Large Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, February.
    10. Linsley, Philip M. & Shrives, Philip J., 2006. "Risk reporting: A study of risk disclosures in the annual reports of UK companies," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 387-404.
    11. Ishmael Tingbani & Lyton Chithambo & Venancio Tauringana & Nikolaos Papanikolaou, 2020. "Board gender diversity, environmental committee and greenhouse gas voluntary disclosures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2194-2210, September.
    12. Abdullah, Azrul Bin & Ismail, Ku Nor Izah Ku, 2018. "Hedging Activities Information and Risk Management Committee Effectiveness: Malaysian evidence," SocArXiv kxfqe, Center for Open Science.
    13. Bing Wang & Si Xu & Kung-Cheng Ho & I-Ming Jiang & Hung-Yi Huang, 2019. "Information Disclosure Ranking, Industry Production Market Competition, and Mispricing: An Empirical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    14. Deshani C. Hettiarachchi, 2023. "Effects of Non-Financial Performance Management and Risk Disclosures on Not-For-Profit Financial Vulnerability: Evidence from The Australian Aged Care Not-For-Profit Sector," Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Faculty of Accounting and Management Information Systems, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 22(4), pages 723-745, December.
    15. Gałkiewicz, Dominika Paula, 2015. "Loss potential and disclosures related to credit derivatives: A cross-country comparison of corporate bond funds under U.S. and German regulation," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2015-017, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    16. Ahmed A. Elamer & Collins G. Ntim & Hussein A. Abdou & Alaa Mansour Zalata & Mohamed Elmagrhi, 2019. "The impact of multi-layer governance on bank risk disclosure in emerging markets: the case of Middle East and North Africa," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 246-281, April.
    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. 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.
    19. Malafronte, Irma & Porzio, Claudio & Starita, Maria Grazia, 2016. "The nature and determinants of disclosure practices in the insurance industry: Evidence from European insurers," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 367-382.
    20. Rodríguez Domínguez, Luis & Noguera Gámez, Ligia Carolina, 2014. "Corporate reporting on risks: Evidence from Spanish companies," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 116-129.

    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:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7711-:d:1471704. 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.