IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i12p2322-d122823.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CSR Reporting Practices in Visegrad Group Countries and the Quality of Disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Patrycja Hąbek

    (Faculty of Organization and Management, Silesian University of Technology, Roosevelt street 26, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland)

Abstract

Companies around the world more often issue publicly available reports to disclose how responsibly they conduct their business. The practices of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting are more popular in western part of Europe then in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries and empirical studies related to these practices in the region are sporadic and fragmented. The Visegrad Group countries have undergone tremendous changes in political, environmental and social area during the last twenty years. The CSR concept in these countries is relatively new but is rapidly spreading, in particular as part of their integration with the European Union, as well as under the influence of transnational corporations (TNCs) and foreign investors. Therefore, acquisition of knowledge, which presents the functioning of CSR reporting practices in the region seems to be of interest to both the scientific community and enterprises themselves. An important part of the analysis conducted in the study was the assessment of quality of CSR reports issued in this region. The quality indicator of the studied reports was based on seventeen criteria related to relevance and credibility of disclosed information. The findings indicate that CSR reporting practices are not widespread among V4 countries and suggest some area of improvements. Furthermore, the achieved results confirm the existence of a relationship between two factors (external verification of a report and usage of the GRI guidelines when developing a report) and the level of quality of the CSR report.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrycja Hąbek, 2017. "CSR Reporting Practices in Visegrad Group Countries and the Quality of Disclosure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:12:p:2322-:d:122823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/12/2322/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/12/2322/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Radoslaw Wolniak, 2013. "The Role Of Grenelle II In Corporate Social Responsibility Integrated Reporting," Manager Journal, Faculty of Business and Administration, University of Bucharest, vol. 18(1), pages 109-119, December.
    2. Isabelle Maignan & David A Ralston, 2002. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses' Self-presentations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 33(3), pages 497-514, September.
    3. Gray, Rob, 2010. "Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability...and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 47-62, January.
    4. Elżbieta Izabela Szczepankiewicz & Przemysław Mućko, 2016. "CSR Reporting Practices of Polish Energy and Mining Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Stephen Chen & Petra Bouvain, 2009. "Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A Comparison of Corporate Responsibility Reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 299-317, April.
    6. Amparo Baviera-Puig & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Mónica García-Melón & Gabriel García-Martínez, 2015. "Assessing the Communication Quality of CSR Reports. A Case Study on Four Spanish Food Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Michael Freundlieb & Matthias Gräuler & Frank Teuteberg, 2014. "A conceptual framework for the quality evaluation of sustainability reports," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 37(1), pages 19-44, January.
    8. Ariane Berthoin Antal & André Sobczak, 2007. "Corporate social responsibility in France: A mix of national traditions and international influences," Post-Print hal-00765278, HAL.
    9. Stéphane Legendre & François Coderre, 2013. "Determinants of GRI G3 Application Levels: The Case of the Fortune Global 500," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 182-192, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Kaveen Bachoo & Rebecca Tan & Mark Wilson, 2013. "Firm Value and the Quality of Sustainability Reporting in Australia," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 23(1), pages 67-87, March.
    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. María del Mar Miras-Rodríguez & Roberto Di Pietra, 2018. "Corporate Governance mechanisms as drivers that enhance the credibility and usefulness of CSR disclosure," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(3), pages 565-588, September.
    2. Manuel Castelo Branco & Catarina Delgado & Carla Marques, 2018. "How do sustainability reports from the Nordic and the Mediterranean European countries compare," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 917-936, October.
    3. Giorgio Mion, 2020. "Organizations with Impact? A Study on Italian Benefit Corporations Reporting Practices and Reporting Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Giorgio Mion & Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2019. "Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure and Its Consequences on the Sustainability Reporting Quality of Italian and German Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-28, August.
    5. Venturelli, Andrea & Ligorio, Lorenzo & de Nuccio, Elbano, 2023. "Biodiversity accountability in water utilities: A case study," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. Patrycja Hąbek & Radosław Wolniak, 2016. "Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 399-420, January.
    7. Ramona Zharfpeykan, 2021. "Representative account or greenwashing? Voluntary sustainability reports in Australia's mining/metals and financial services industries," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 2209-2223, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Balluchi, Federica & Lazzini, Arianna & Torelli, Riccardo, 2020. "Credibility of Environmental Issues in Non-Financial Mandatory Disclosure: Measurement and Determinants," OSF Preprints g73w5, Center for Open Science.
    10. Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero & Oscar Suárez‐Fernández & Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, 2019. "Obfuscation versus enhancement as corporate social responsibility disclosure strategies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 468-480, March.
    11. Cristian Carini & Laura Rocca & Monica Veneziani & Claudio Teodori, 2018. "Ex-Ante Impact Assessment of Sustainability Information–The Directive 2014/95," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, February.
    12. Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2020. "Sustainability Reporting Quality of Peruvian Listed Companies and the Impact of Regulatory Requirements of Sustainability Disclosures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, February.
    13. Karaman, Abdullah S. & Orazalin, Nurlan & Uyar, Ali & Shahbaz, Muhammad, 2021. "CSR achievement, reporting, and assurance in the energy sector: Does economic development matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    14. Felipe Hernández-Perlines & Nina Rung-Hoch, 2017. "Sustainable Entrepreneurial Orientation in Family Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, July.
    15. Michel Coulmont & Sylvie Berthelot & Vincent Gagné, 2022. "Sustainability performance indicator trends: a Canadian industry-based analysis," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Chiara Mio & Marco Fasan & Carlo Marcon & Silvia Panfilo, 2021. "Carrot or stick? An empirical analysis of the different implementation strategies of the EU directive on nonfinancial information across Europe," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1591-1605, November.
    17. Klarissa Lueg & Rainer Lueg, 2021. "Deconstructing corporate sustainability narratives: A taxonomy for critical assessment of integrated reporting types," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1785-1800, November.
    18. Armando Calabrese & Roberta Costa & Nathan Levialdi & Tamara Menichini & Roberth Andres Villazon Montalvan, 2020. "Does More Mean Better? Exploring the Relationship between Report Completeness and Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Waris Ali & Jedrzej George Frynas, 2018. "The Role of Normative CSR‐Promoting Institutions in Stimulating CSR Disclosures in Developing Countries," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(4), pages 373-390, July.
    20. Hyejoon Rim & Jisu Kim & Chuqing Dong, 2019. "A cross‐national comparison of transparency signaling in corporate social responsibility reporting: The United States, South Korea, and China cases," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1517-1529, November.

    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:9:y:2017:i:12:p:2322-:d:122823. 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.