User Needs in Sustainability Reporting-Perspectives

User Needs in Sustainability
Reporting: Perspectives of
Stakeholders in Ireland
BRENDAN ODWYER
, JEFFREY UNERMAN
AND
ELAINE HESSION
University of Amsterdam,

Royal Holloway, University of London and
PricewaterhouseCoopers
(Received June 2004; accepted March 2005)
ABSTRACT By means of a questionnaire survey, this paper ascertains and analyses the
views of a number of Irish stakeholders regarding the adequacy and potential of corporate
sustainability reporting to meet their information needs and help them hold corporations
to account. The study focuses on ascertaining the views of a sample of Irish social and
environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), who we argue constitute an
important group of non-nancial stakeholders. This emphasis on examining NGO
perceptions represents an attempt to ll a gap in the academic sustainability reporting
research literature whereby the views of non-managerial stakeholders are largely
absent. The paper represents the second phase of a determined effort to examine the
adequacy of sustainability reporting from the perspective of less economically powerful
stakeholders in Ireland and responds specically to ODwyers (2002) call for research
to examine the nature of stakeholder demand for sustainability reporting in Ireland in
order to inform the future development of Irish sustainability reporting practices. The
results present evidence of a widespread demand for mandated, externally veried
sustainability reporting in either the annual report or a separate stand-alone report.
This demand is primarily driven by a desire to gain knowledge of companies
commitment to responsible business practices but is also, albeit to a lesser extent,
inuenced by the perceived ability of sustainability reporting to facilitate increased
NGO pressure on companies. Current sustainability reporting practice is viewed
negatively with regard to its credibility and sufciency, as well as the opportunities it
European Accounting Review
Vol. 14, No. 4, 759787, 2005
Correspondence Address: Brendan ODwyer, Professor of Accounting, Amsterdam Graduate
Business School, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tel: 31 20 525 4260; E-mail: b.g.d.odwyer@uva.nl
0963-8180 Print=1468-4497 Online=05=04075929 # 2005 European Accounting Association
DOI: 10.1080/09638180500104766
Published by Routledge, Taylor & Francis on behalf of the EAA
provides for engagement with companies, particularly among environmental NGO
respondents. While respondents tended to be suspicious of corporate motives for
sustainability reporting, many were optimistic about the potential for NGO engagement
with companies aimed at tackling social and environmental issues and improving
current sustainability reporting practice. Drawing on the survey results, the paper
makes some recommendations for future research aimed at improving sustainability
reporting practices in Ireland and more broadly.
1. Introduction
Practitioner and academic engagement with corporate social responsibility (CSR)
intensied throughout the 1990s, with recent indications suggesting this will
continue strongly into the 21st century (Logsdon and Lewellyn, 2000; Elkington,
2001; Owen et al., 2001; Ernst and Young, 2002; The FORGE Group, 2002;
Gray, 2002; Hopkins, 2002; World Economic Forum, 2002; The Observer,
2003). A considerable part of this engagement has focused on the development
of so-called sustainability accounting mechanisms, with a key element of sustain-
ability accounting deemed to involve reporting to external stakeholders by way of
corporate social disclosures. These corporate social disclosure (CSD) practices
have been proposed as a crucial mechanism through which corporations can
account for their social, environmental and ethical performance and policies to
a variety of stakeholders (Gray et al., 1997; Owen et al., 2001; Adams, 2002,
2004; Crawford, 2002; Deegan, 2002; Gray, 2002; Zadek, 2002a, 2002b).
While several academic studies have examined the use of CSD from a managerial
standpoint regarding communication to external stakeholders (Deegan and
Rankin, 1996; Adams, 2002, 2004; Deegan et al., 2002; Milne and Patten,
2002; ODonovan, 2002; ODwyer, 2002; Campbell et al., 2003), there has
been a relative absence of studies examining CSD from the perspective of
non-managerial stakeholders. The few studies that have considered this issue
have been inclined to examine the information needs and views of stakeholders
who are relatively economically powerful with regard to particular corporations
(Buzby and Falk, 1978; Rockness and Williams, 1988; Epstein and Freedman,
1994; but see, Tilt, 1994, 2003; Azzone et al., 1997; Deegan and Rankin,
1997, 1999; Deegan and Blomquist, 2001; Fiedler and Deegan, 2002).
Despite recent calls in the literature for a focus on the voices of and, in particu-
lar, dialogue with less economically powerful stakeholders (Calton and Kurland,
1995; Owen and Swift, 2001; Owen et al., 2001; Swift, 2001; Friedman and
Miles, 2002; ODwyer, 2002; Unerman and Bennett, 2004) there remains an
almost complete absence of studies published to date which consider the views
and expectations of these so-called secondary stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995)
regarding the provision of CSD (but see, Tilt, 1994, 2003; Azzone et al., 1997).
This paper advances an ongoing research agenda addressing this gap in the
literature. Its aim is to ascertain and analyse the opinions of a sample of less econ-
omically powerful stakeholders regarding the current and potential adequacy
760 B. ODwyer et al.
of CSD to meet their information needs, and to help them hold corporations to
account (see, ODwyer et al., 2005). In addressing this aim, its objective is to
ascertain and analyse the views towards CSD held by leaders of Irish-based
social and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which claim
to represent specic stakeholder groups. NGOs were selected as they often
play a crucial role in representing the views of specic groups of less economi-
cally powerful citizens (such as people with disabilities or ethnic minorities) or
on specic issues such as the environment (The European Commission, 2000;
Onishi, 2002; The Economist, 2003; Kovach et al., 2003; SustainAbility, 2003;
ODwyer et al., 2005). Hence, they often act to balance the activities and
opinions of more economically powerful interests in society (The European
Commission, 2000). This survey, which is based on a detailed questionnaire,
therefore provides a voice on emerging CSD developments in Ireland to some
of these economically marginalised, non-managerial stakeholders.
This emphasis on examining NGO perceptions marks the second phase of
a concerted effort to examine the adequacy of sustainability reporting from the
perspective of less economically powerful stakeholders in Ireland. The rst
phase involved a series of intensive, in-depth interviews with leaders of eight of
these NGOs which investigated perceptions on sustainability reporting and its
future development in Ireland (see, ODwyer et al., 2005). These interviews
were used to informthe survey administered in this study. The paper also responds
specically to ODwyers (2002) call for research to examine the nature of stake-
holder demand for sustainability reporting in Ireland in order to inform the poten-
tial advancement of Irish sustainability reporting practices. ODwyer (2002)
made this call in response to the relative absence and poverty of Irish sustainability
reporting practice compared to the UK and many other Western European
countries (see, ODwyer and Gray, 1998; ODwyer, 2001, 2003a).
1
The paper proceeds as follows. The following section briey sketches prior
studies of NGO/pressure group perspectives on sustainability reporting along
with an outline of our motives for focusing specically on the perspectives of
NGOs in this paper. We then proceed to sketch specic contextual factors in
Ireland which are relevant to understanding the perspectives gained in this
study. The survey research method is then delineated and this is succeeded
with a presentation of the ndings emanating from the questionnaire survey.
The nal section summarises and discusses these ndings and concludes with
some comments on their implications for the future development of accountable
sustainability reporting in Ireland and more broadly.
2. Prior Studies of Users of Sustainability Reports
As noted above, prior survey research into user perspectives on sustainability
reporting has tended to focus on the views of stakeholders who are relatively econ-
omically powerful in relation to specic corporations. For example, Epstein and
Freedman (1994) investigated whether individual investors demanded social
User Needs in Sustainability Reporting 761
information and, if they did, what type of information they required, while Buzby
and Falk (1978) surveyed mutual fund directors to determine if social information
was considered in their investment decisions. Deegan and Rankin (1997), while
broadening their focus to include some economically marginalised stakeholders,
focused primarily on eliciting the views of shareholders, stockbrokers and represen-
tatives of nancial institutions on the demand for environmental disclosure while
Rockness and Williams (1988) surveyed ethical mutual funds directors and
found a strong demand for many types of social information.
Three studies which have focused extensively on the views of NGOs as less
economically powerful stakeholders are those by Tilt (1994, 2003) and Azzone
et al. (1997). Azzone et al. (1997) found that although environmental reports
were required by NGOs there was a signicant amount of scepticism attached to
their information content. A fear existed that these reports were merely a mechan-
ism designed to detract from real issues. NGOs felt that the public had a right to
receive environmental information and that this should be reected in environ-
mental reports. They wished to see evidence that a company had complied with
all relevant legislation and required information to assess the performance of a
company over time. They also wanted the introduction of some standardisation
of the reporting process in order to enhance comparability with differing reporting
formats being used to report to different target groups. An early 1990s Australian
study by Tilt (1994) found that while pressure groups used CSD extensively it was
widely perceived as lacking in credibility and sufciency. Similar results among
pressure groups were found in an update of this study 10 years later (Tilt, 2003).
2
In focusing on the views of NGOs in this study, we espouse a broad and inclus-
ive denition of stakeholders such as that offered by Hummels (1998, p. 1408):
. . . [stakeholders are] individuals and groups who have a legitimate claim on
the organisation to participate in the decision making process simply because
they are affected by the organisations practices, policies and actions.
Along with many other social accounting scholars we regard sustainability reporting
as meaningless if it is not grounded within concepts of accountability and democ-
racy centred on the rights, needs and empowerment of all stakeholders upon
whom the accounting organisation has an impact, no matter how economically
insignicant, powerless, illegitimate and/or lacking in salience (see, Mitchell
et al., 1997) some of these stakeholders might be fromthe organisations perspective
(see, Gray et al., 1997; Owen et al., 1997, 2001; Bebbington et al., 1999; Adams and
Harte, 2000; Gray, 2000, 2001; Gray and Bebbington, 2000; ODwyer, 2001; Owen
and Swift, 2001; Swift, 2001; Adams, 2002; Unerman and Bennett, 2004).
3. Prior CSD Research in Ireland
Recent in-depth studies of sustainability reporting practice in Ireland indicate that
there has been only a minimal expansion of sustainability reporting in this context
over the past decade from a very low base (ODwyer and Gray, 1998; ODwyer,
2001, 2003a). The quality of much of this reporting has also been criticised
(ODwyer, 2001a). In order to gain some deeper understanding of the relative
absence of sustainability reporting practice and quality, ODwyer (2002)
explored, using a legitimacy theory framework, the motives for CSD presence
and absence among senior executives in Irish listed companies. He concluded
that while legitimacy concerns may have initially motivated companies to
engage in sustainability reporting (however, minimal), its practice was widely
perceived as failing to secure a state of legitimacy. Hence, he contended that
many Irish companies neglected to engage consistently in sustainability reporting
due to a perceived negative and suspicious reaction among various report readers.
This absence of any substantial development of sustainability reporting
practice in Ireland over the past decade (see, ODwyer and Gray, 1998,
ODwyer, 2001, 2003a) reects the lack of attention to, and discussion of,
issues surrounding CSR over the same period (Alderson and Kakabadse, 1994;
Murphy, 1994, 1995; Hoven Stohs and Brannick, 1996, 1999; ODwyer, 2002,
2003b; Roche, 2003). Furthermore, the relative absence of sustainability report-
ing driven by stakeholder engagement exists in stark contrast to developments at
the broader economic and social policy level where a stakeholder approach
labelled social partnership has established a system of social participation
which has played a major role in the conduct of Irish economic and social
policy since 1987.
3
Recent public scrutiny of corrupt business and political practices has, however,
served to give voice to concerns surrounding aspects of corporate activity in this
context (ODwyer, 2002, 2003b; Canning and ODwyer, 2003). There are also
recent indications that Irish consumers are critical and sceptical of Irish compa-
nies concern for their social responsibilities, and claim these perceptions inu-
ence their purchasing choices (Business in the Community Ireland, 2003a).
Hence, some large Irish companies are now nally considering the development
of comprehensive sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement mechan-
isms. This is evident in research by Business in the Community Ireland (BITCI)
regarding high prole member advancement in the area of sustainability report-
ing (Business in the Community Ireland, 2003b) and in the increased numbers
and, in some cases, quality of entrants to the ACCA Ireland Environmental
Reporting awards scheme.
4
For example, according to a recent BITCI communi-
cation, both the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) and Waterford Crystal, two
large, high prole companies, have launched their rst corporate responsibility
reports with many more aiming to follow suit.
5
Furthermore, a number of large
high prole companies also publicly alluded to their plans to engage in sustain-
ability reporting at a major business-led CSR conference held in Dublin in March
2003 opened by the Irish President and attended by one of the authors. To meet
the rising business demand for CSR services generally, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Dublin ofce launched a CSR practice in January 2004 (Pricewaterhouse-
Coopers, 2004). The development of sustainability reporting practice is,
however, proceeding cautiously as many managers appear reluctant to engage com-
prehensively in this practice due to the doubts expressed above about its ability to
legitimise their current business operations given its perceived potential to engender
public scepticism (ODwyer, 2002). Notably, less economically powerful external
stakeholder voices have not, to date, been to the fore in the ongoing discussions
surrounding the development of sustainability accounting, reporting or CSR.
4. Research Design and Method
Questionnaire Design
A questionnaire was designed specically for this study and used primarily
closed form questions, with responses requested on either a ve-point Likert
scale or through the ranking (on a scale of 14) of certain statements. There
were 19 Likert scale questions out of a total of 21 closed questions included in
the questionnaire. An open-ended question was included at the end of the ques-
tionnaire in order to capture the full richness and complexity of the perspectives
held by the respondents (Denscombe, 1998). The core content of the question-
naire was informed by a series of intensive in-depth, exploratory interviews
with leading members of eight major Irish social and environmental NGOs.
These interviews investigated perceptions on CSD and its future development
in Ireland (see ODwyer et al., 2005). While not specically referring to Tilts
(1994, 2003) questionnaires, a number of similar issues were addressed. Given
the extensive use of Likert scales, all statistical analysis was undertaken using
non-parametric tests which do not require the assumption that the data be of an
interval nature (Moser and Kalton, 1975).
The questionnaire commenced with an explanatory paragraph providing a de-
nition of CSD along with some examples of CSD issues that might be covered by
companies.
6
It was then divided into four main sections. Each section contained a
number of questions and addressed the following issues: the extent and nature of
respondent demand for CSD; respondent perceptions of current CSD practice in
Ireland; respondent perceptions of corporate motives for CSD; respondent per-
ceptions of the nature of their relationship with business entities.
7
The questionnaire was pre-tested (Dillman, 1978) among fellow academics
and postgraduate students in order to ensure all questions were clear and precise.
Individuals were asked to complete the questionnaire, discuss any problems they
had encountered and suggest any modications they felt would make the ques-
tionnaire more user friendly. The questionnaire was then pilot-tested on two
NGO representatives in order to identify questions that may have been ambi-
guous or misleading and the content was further revised accordingly.
Nature of Sample, Sample Selection and Questionnaire Administration
There is no widely agreed denition of an NGO. They tend to be variously
dened as autonomous, non-prot making, self-governing and campaigning
organisations with a focus on the well-being of others (Bebbington et al., 2004).
However, one common view of an NGO is of an organisation that supplies
welfare services to disadvantaged groups. NGOs also act as advocacy groups
who represent, for example, business interests or trade union rights at inter-
national conferences (Kovach et al., 2003, p. 21). They often play a vital role
in representing the views of specic groups of citizens (such as people with dis-
abilities and ethnic minorities) or on specic issues (such as the environment,
animal welfare, world trade) (The European Commission, 2000, p. 5) and
possess the ability to reach the poorest and most disadvantaged and to provide
a voice for those not sufciently heard through other channels. In doing so,
they can act to balance the activities and opinions of other more economically
powerful interests in society (The European Commission, 2000; Onishi, 2002;
SustainAbility, 2003). One denition of an NGO that reects many of the
NGOs surveyed in this study derives from Vakil (1997, p. 2060). It states that
NGOs are self-governing, private, not-for-prot organisations that are geared
to improving the quality of life of disadvantaged people. This is not all encom-
passing but does capture some environmental groups through viewing future
generations as potentially disadvantaged persons.
Our study initially sought to identify the entire population of social and
environmental NGOs in Ireland that could be expected to have a general interest
in issues surrounding sustainability reporting. We used a variety of sources,
including public listings, the Internet and the Institute of Public Administration
journal (2003) which contained an extensive list of environmental and social
NGOs. The latter list was thoroughly examined by two of the authors for appli-
cability to the research project. Applicability to the research project was decided
by rating the interest which the organisations would be likely to have in sustain-
ability reporting. This attempt at rating was, in practice, rendered largely redun-
dant as, rstly, we did not discover a large number of NGOs in absolute terms and
secondly, we agreed that almost all of the NGOs identied could have some inter-
est in the issue of CSD, or at least we could not presume that they would have no
interest in CSD. We identied a total population of 53 organisations comprising
35 social NGOs and 18 environmental NGOs. The membership size of these
organisations ranged from 14 ofcial members to 200,000.
8
The majority of
NGOs surveyed had membership bases of between 250 and 999 members
(53%) (see Table 1).
The Nature of Social and Environmental NGOs Surveyed
Both social and environmental NGO categories were divided into sub-categories.
We categorised the 35 social NGOs into four groupings on the basis of their
apparent core focus. These comprised: development NGOs; human rights
NGOs; underprivileged group direct support NGOs; and CSR promotion
NGOs (see Table 2).
The environmental NGOs surveyed were divided into three broad categories
comprising sustainable development promotion NGOs, forestry and protection
of the natural and built environment NGOs, and recycling and energy efciency
NGOs (see Table 3). A key observation from the above breakdown of NGOs
surveyed is that the social NGOs surveyed are not as homogeneous in their
concerns as those of the environmental group and tend to focus on a broader
range of issues.
Each organisation was contacted by telephone in order to obtain their
cooperation prior to sending the questionnaires. The authors explained the
purpose of the study and the reason why the organisation had been selected.
We also obtained the name of a senior contact within the organisation to
Table 1. Size of NGOs surveyed measured by approximate membership base
Membership base of NGOs surveyed
Large
(.1,000)
Medium
(250999)
Small
(,250) Total
Social NGOs 10 (28%) 22 (63%) 3 (9%) 35 (100%)
Environmental NGOs 5 (28%) 6 (33%) 7 (39%) 18 (100%)
Total 15 (28%) 28 (53%) 10 (19%) 53 (100%)
Table 2. Main social NGO categories
Focus of social NGO activity Primary activities
Development Primarily involved in promoting sustainable
development in so-called developing nations.
Active in calling for greater corporate
responsibility in developing nations from Irish-
based companies. Examples include Christian Aid
Ireland and Oxfam Ireland.
Human rights Primary activity involves the promotion of workers
rights, equality in the workplace and the wider
society as well as the concerns of disadvantaged
sections of Irish society. Examples include
employee trade unions such as the Services,
Industrial Professional and Technical Union
(Ireland) (SIPTU).
Underprivileged group
direct support
Provision of direct assistance/advice to
underprivileged groups such as the homeless and
refugees. Examples include Focus Ireland which
advances the rights of homeless people.
Corporate social responsibility
promotion
Primary focus is on highlighting and promoting
corporate social responsibility among the
corporate sector in Ireland. Examples include
Business in the Community Ireland.
whom the questionnaire should be addressed (or conrmed our prior identi-
cation of this contact) as well as ascertaining the organisations preference for
distribution of the questionnaire, that is, via post or e-mail. The questionnaire,
whether e-mailed or posted, was accompanied with a detailed covering letter
addressed to the senior representative explaining the purpose of the research.
A stamped addressed return envelope was included with all postal send outs.
Questionnaires were sent out in the rst week of June 2003. A deadline date of
30 June for return of the questionnaire was stated in the covering letter.
One week before the deadline date for submission of replies, all non-replying
organisations were once again contacted by telephone. This telephone conversa-
tion merely served as a follow-up with the main purpose of ensuring that the
questionnaires were returned. On the telephone, the researcher reminded the
representative that the deadline for submission of completed questionnaires
was approaching and that we would be extremely grateful if the organisation
could return the questionnaire as soon as possible. The organisations that
failed to return the questionnaires following the deadline date were once again
contacted by telephone.
9
5. Results
Response Rates and Tests for Bias
In total, 28 usable questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate
of 52.8% (see Table 4). This is similar to the response rate achieved by Tilt
(1994) while Fowler (1988) notes that a response rate of less than 20% is unlikely
to provide credible statistics about a population. To test for response bias, the
responses of early and late responders were compared (Oppenheim, 1966,
p. 34; Moser and Kalton, 1975). For each of the 19 Likert scale questions (out
Table 3. Main environmental NGO categories
Focus of environmental NGO
activity Primary activities
Sustainable development promotion Promotion of sustainable development with
particular reference to corporate impacts.
Examples include Friends of the Earth
Ireland and Sustainable Ireland.
Forestry and protection of the
natural and built environment
Promotion of protection of Irish forests and
woodlands and the natural environment
generally. Evidence of campaigning
regarding corporate impacts on the natural
environment. Examples include Crann,
Forest Friends Ireland and VOICE.
Recycling and energy efciency Promotion of and campaigning on recycling
issues. Examples include The Rehab Group.
of a total of 21 closed questions in the questionnaire), a series of MannWhitney
U-tests were conducted for both social and environmental NGO groups. A
respondent was deemed to be early if the response was received within two
weeks of the questionnaire being sent to them, prior to the rst reminder phone
calls, and late if the response was received after the due date to respond. There
were no signicant differences in the questionnaire answers between those who
responded early when compared with those who responded late for both groups.
Despite the limitations of tests such as this (Wallace et al., 1990), these results
provide little indication that response bias is a major threat to the validity of
our results. However, we accept that comparisons between respondents and
non-respondents can never prove the absence of bias; at best, they can reassure
us that the nal sample is not badly out of line (Moser and Kalton, 1975, p. 182,
cited in Deegan and Rankin, 1997).
The responses received were divided between those received from social
NGOs and those received from environmental NGOs. Of the 28 responses, 15
(53%) came from social NGOs and the remaining 13 (46%) came from the
environmental NGOs. A greater proportion of the environmental NGOs than
social NGOs surveyed (72% versus 43%) responded to the questionnaire (see
Table 4). While it might be expected that the size of the NGOs may have inu-
enced their propensity to respond, there were no clear trends among respondents.
All ve large environmental NGOs surveyed responded while six of the seven
small environmental NGOs surveyed responded. Among social NGOs, 40%
(four) of the large NGOs surveyed responded compared to 33% (one) of the
small NGOs and 45% (10) of the medium NGOs. A potential reason for the
higher response rate among environmental NGOs emanates from an analysis of
the additional comments sections of the returned questionnaires. Eight out of the
13 environmental NGO respondents (62%) provided detailed and highly
informed comments while only four of the 15 social NGO respondents (27%)
provided any additional comment and these tended, in the main, to be less detailed
than those of the environmental NGO respondents. The environmental NGOs
comments clearly exhibited a focus on issues of engagement with companies
on CSD and other issues of concern to them. Furthermore, the response rate
from environmental NGOs was 50% or more in all three main environmental
Table 4. Categories of survey subjects and respondents
Category
Survey subjects Respondents
Number surveyed Number received
Proportion of
category
surveyed (%)
Social NGOs 35 15 43
Environmental NGOs 18 13 72
Total 53 28 53
NGO categories (see Table 5) whereas among social NGOs there was a particu-
larly low response rate among underprivileged support group NGOs (see Table 6)
which may represent a limitation in our sampling as they may not have viewed
CSD as relevant to their concerns despite our assessment in this regard.
The Nature and Extent of the Demand for CSD
Subjects were rstly asked to what extent they would like to see Irish companies
engaging in extensive levels of CSD. A ve-point Likert scale with 1 representing
strongly agree and 5 representing strongly disagree was used. Ninety-six per cent
of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the suggestion that Irish com-
panies should engage in more extensive levels of CSD (see Table 7). There was a
substantial demand for this disclosure to be mandated with 86% of respondents
strongly agreeing or agreeing that CSD should be mandatory for all publicly
quoted companies and only slightly less (82%) in favour of making it mandatory
for large private companies. Azzone et al. (1997) also found this demand for regu-
lation within certain industry sectors among NGOs they interviewed while Tilts
(1994) sample of pressure groups felt legislation, or at least standards, were needed
Table 5. Environmental NGO categories surveyed
Focus of environmental NGO activity
Number
surveyed
Number
received
Proportion of
category
surveyed (%)
Sustainable development promotion 5 4 80
Forestry and protection of the
natural and built environment
8 4 50
Recycling and energy efciency 4 4 100
Other 1 1 100
Total 18 13 72
Table 6. Social NGO categories surveyed
Focus of social NGO activity
Number
surveyed
Number
received
Proportion of
category
surveyed (%)
Development 9 4 44
Human rights 16 7 44
Underprivileged group support 6 1 17
Corporate social responsibility promotion 4 3 75
Total 35 15 43
to ensure that companies were disclosing information on their societal impacts.
MannWhitney U-tests were carried out to determine if there were signicant
differences in the views held by social and environmental NGOs. It was found
that environmental NGOs were signicantly more inclined to agree with the
view that CSD should be mandatory for all large privately owned companies.
With respect to the other two statements concerning the demand for CSD in
Table 7, no signicant differences in views were discovered.
Subjects were also asked to rate their level of agreement regarding the most
effective mediums through which CSD could be disseminated. The preferred
mediums were a stand-alone social/environmental report produced by the entity,
the annual report and, to a lesser extent, company websites (see Table 7). Four
NGO representatives (14%) (two from each NGO category) did not view the
company website as their preferred medium of disclosure. Some other mediums
of disclosure were also identied as being important and these included media
reports and articles, social audited accounts and separate product information.
Tilt (1994) identied the annual report as being the most preferred medium for
Table 7. Demand for CSD and preferred medium of CSD dissemination
Mean SD
Percentage who
strongly agree
or agree
with the
statement (%)
Percentage who
strongly disagree
or disagree
with the
statement (%)
Demand for CSD:
I would like to see Irish
companies engaging in
extensive levels of CSD
1.43 0.879 96 4
CSD should be a mandatory
requirement for all publicly
quoted Irish companies
1.50 0.839 86 4
CSD should be a mandatory
requirement for all large
privately owned Irish
companies
1.64 0.869 82 4
Preferred medium of CSD
dissemination:
CSD is most effectively
disseminated through the
medium of:
The company annual report 1.96 0.99 86 11
A separate stand-alone
social/environmental
report
1.57 0.88 82 4
The company website 2.25 1.08 71 14
Notes: 1 strongly agree; 2 agree; 3 neither agree nor disagree; 4 disagree; 5 strongly
disagree; SD standard deviation.
disclosing information followed by a separate booklet. Azzone et al. (1997)
suggested that different reporting mechanisms could be used to address different
NGOs. However, they claimed that it was important that the company retained a
central master document which compiled all appropriate information and was
available if required. One social NGO representative felt that a summarised
account of activities should feature in the annual report with the full details pre-
sented in a separate stand-alone report. This individual indicated that both of
these should be available from the company website. An environmental NGO
representative stated that presentation of CSD in the annual report was only bene-
cial when the information was contained in a specic section of the report and
not scattered throughout.
The Motives Driving NGO Demand for CSD
Four key factors which could potentially motivate NGO demand for CSD were
outlined and subjects were asked to rank these in their preferred order (14)
(see Table 8). These factors were drawn from the in-depth interviews undertaken
prior to the questionnaire formulation (see, ODwyer et al., 2005). Gaining know-
ledge of a companys commitment to responsible business practices was ranked
highest by almost half (47%) of the respondents. Fifty-four per cent of environ-
mental NGOs and 40% of social NGOs ranked this motive highest. The ranking
was spread among the various categories of NGOs within the two broad NGO
groupings and emanated from NGOs of various sizes. Checking compliance of
companies to law and regulations relating to social and environmental concerns
was ranked rst by only two (7%) respondents, one small development social
NGO and one large sustainable development promotion environmental NGO.
Verication of CSD
The interview study brought forth strong views on the need for verication of
CSD in order to improve its credibility. The survey results also exposed a
Table 8. Top ranked motives driving NGO demand for CSD
Motive
Percentage of
respondents ranking
motive rst (%)
To gain knowledge of the companys commitment to
responsible business practices
47
To investigate whether the company is reporting in line with
their actual social and environmental impacts
25
To assist in putting pressure on the company to improve their
social and environmental performance
21
To check compliance of the company to law and regulations
relating to social and environmental concerns
7
strong demand for verication especially from a person or body external to the
company (see Table 9). Verication by a social/environmental auditor was
most favoured (89%) followed closely by verication by an external body such
as an NGO (79%) which was supported by 11 social and 11 environmental
NGOs of varying sizes. There was greater disagreement with the suggestion
that verication by those with expertise within the company would enhance
credibility, with 39% of respondents (six social NGOs and ve environmental
NGOs) either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with this suggestion. Included
in the seven social NGOs who either agreed or strongly agreed with this sugges-
tion were three of the four CSR promotion NGOs. This suggests a widespread
desire, particularly among environmental NGOs, for robust external verication.
The following comment made by the director of a small environmental NGO
supports this view:
CSD can only be of value if it is complying with best practice and is inde-
pendently assessed with quantitative and qualitative indicators agreed by
all relevant stakeholders. A forum comprised of stakeholder rep[resenta-
tive]s or a citizen jury independently facilitated is the best approach to
come up with such indicators.
Table 9. Verication of CSD
Demand for verication Mean SD
Percentage who
strongly agree
or agree
with the
statement (%)
Percentage who
strongly disagree
or disagree
with the
statement (%)
CSD reports should be
veried by independent
bodies external to the
organisation
1.5 0.79 89 4
Preferred veriers
The credibility of CSD
reports would be enhanced
if they were veried by:
an independent social/
environmental auditor
1.59 0.89 89 4
an external body such as an
NGO
1.74 0.86 79 4
an independent consultant
within the industry
2.73 1.19 43 22
those with expertise within
the company
3.30 1.16 25 40
a nancial auditor 3.50 1.07 21 50
Half of the respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the sugges-
tion that CSDcredibility would be enhanced if a nancial auditor was used. Thirty-
three per cent (ve) of social NGOs (two development and three human rights
NGOs) and 69% (nine) of environmental NGOs (spread among all responding
categories) expressed this view. Only four social NGOs (27%) and two environ-
mental NGOs (15%) either agreed or strongly agreed with this suggestion.
Environmental NGOs resistance to this suggestion appears more widespread
although for all suggestions MannWhitney U-tests did not report statistically
signicant differences in the views of the environmental and social NGOs.
Current CSD in Ireland
One section of the questionnaire was devoted to discovering the level of satisfac-
tion that NGOs felt with regard to current CSD in Ireland. This section aimed to
discover views on the sufciency, credibility and usefulness of current CSD to
these NGOs. The evidence suggests widespread dissatisfaction with current
CSD practice regardless of NGO size (see Table 10). For example, over 80%
of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed that current CSD was suf-
cient and/or credible, the latter view tying in with the widespread demand for
Table 10. Current CSD practice in Ireland
Characteristics of current
CSD practice Mean SD
Percentage who
strongly agree
or agree
with the
statement (%)
Percentage who
strongly disagree
or disagree
with the
statement (%)
Current CSD in Ireland is
useful
3.39 1.06 29 54
Current CSD allows NGOs to
comprehensively monitor
company activities
3.88 1.12 11 75
CSD in Ireland is credible 4.11 0.89 4 82
There is ample opportunity
and/or encouragement to
supply feedback to the
producers of CSD
3.96 0.96 4 68
The extent of CSD is usually
sufcient to enable a user
of such information to gain
an overall understanding of
the social and environ-
mental impacts of a
companys activities
4.00 0.88 4 82
external verication above. Eleven of the 13 environmental NGOs (85%) either
strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement that current CSD was credible
compared to 12 of the 15 social NGOs (80%). However, environmental NGOs
were more likely to strongly disagree with this statement with six of this group
responding in this manner compared to three of the social NGOs. Sixty-eight
per cent of respondents did not perceive ample opportunities and/or encourage-
ment to supply feedback to the producers of CSD (comprising 10 (77%) environ-
mental NGOs and nine (60%) social NGOs). While eight (29%) respondents
found current CSD to be in some way useful only one of these was an environ-
mental NGO respondent. These ndings are similar to those of Tilt (1994) who
discovered that pressure groups in Australia viewed CSD as insufcient and
lacking in credibility. MannWhitney U-tests also indicated that environmental
NGOs expressed signicantly less satisfaction with the credibility and usefulness
of CSD and were less likely to agree that ample opportunities and/or encourage-
ment to supply feedback to the producers of CSD was facilitated (see Table 11).
Corporate Motives for CSD
Subjects were also asked what they perceived as the primary motives driving
current CSD in Ireland (see Table 12). Any notion that CSD might be driven
by moral/ethical or accountability motives was largely discounted. For example,
only four NGOs felt that CSD was driven by a moral/ethical imperative, all of
which represented social NGOs from each of the four main social NGO category
groups. The results indicate that the NGOs surveyed perceive the primary corpo-
rate motive for CSD derives from companies desire to be left to their own
devices. Hence, a desire to demonstrate true accountability to the wider society
was not deemed to be a primary motivating factor. This supports the message
from organisationally centred research which indicates that corporations
engage in CSD for stakeholder management as opposed to stakeholder account-
ability purposes (see, Deegan and Rankin, 1997; Belal, 2002; Deegan, 2002;
Milne and Patten, 2002; ODonovan, 2002; Campbell et al., 2003). Over two-
thirds of respondents felt that CSD was part of a desire on the part of companies
to stave off potential regulation (split between 10 (67%) social NGOs and nine
environmental NGOs (69%)) with only two respondents (both environmental
NGOs) either strongly disagreeing or disagreeing with this suggestion. Sixty-
four per cent of respondents felt it was primarily motivated by political pressure
for enhanced corporate transparency (10 (67%) social NGOs and eight (62%)
environmental NGOs) which contrasts somewhat with the interviewees percep-
tion of a lack of political concern for corporate accountability. Over half of the
sample felt that it represented a desire to build trust through enhanced public
relations while 29% of respondents (ve social NGOs (33%) and three environ-
mental NGOs (23%)) felt it was inuenced to some extent by a desire to divert
attention from irresponsible activities. Of the six NGOs (21%) who disagreed
or strongly disagreed with the statement, ve were social NGOs. These
predominant perceptions of the motives for CSD are consistent with the primarily
negative attitudes to current CSD practice among the majority of respondents.
Using MannWhitney U-tests, no signicant differences in the views of the
environmental and social NGOs were found with regard to these potential
motives for disclosure.
The Potential for NGO/Corporate Engagement in the Future Development of
Sustainability Reporting
The nal section of the questionnaire was designed to inform how future devel-
opments of sustainability reporting in Ireland may evolve. In particular, the
extent to which future initiatives would involve engagements between NGOs
and the Irish corporate sector, as have happened elsewhere, was addressed (see
Table 13). The interviews which informed the formulation of the questionnaire
Table 11. Comparing social and environmental NGO perceptions of current CSD practice
Characteristics of current
CSD practice
Mean
social
NGOs
Mean
environmental
NGOs
MannWhitney
U
Signicance
(two-tailed)
Current CSD in Ireland is
useful
2.92 3.92 50.50 0.02
Current CSD allows

NGOs to
comprehensively
monitor company
activities
3.57 4.23 68.50 0.15
Corporate social
disclosure in Ireland is
credible
3.93 4.31 61.00 0.07
There is ample
opportunity and/or
encouragement to
supply feedback to the
producers of CSD
3.71 4.25 62.50 0.09
The extent of CSD is

usually sufcient to
enable a user of such
information to gain an
overall understanding
of the social and
environmental impacts
of a companys
activities
3.86 4.15 69.00 0.15
Signicant at p , 0.10;

signicant at p , 0.05.
suggested that, in many instances, NGO/corporate relations in Ireland were pri-
marily antagonistic, hence impeding the potential for mutual exchanges on the
future development of CSD practice (ODwyer et al., 2005). However, half of
the respondents in this study regarded their relationship with business entities
as either extremely amicable or amicable while only 11% considered their
relationship to be antagonistic or extremely antagonistic. Of the six NGOs
(11%) who considered their relationship antagonistic or extremely antagonistic,
Table 12. Perceived corporate motives for CSD in Ireland
Motive for CSD Mean SD
Percentage who
perceive motive
as having an
overwhelming
inuence or
signicant
inuence (%)
Percentage who
perceive motive
as having an
insignicant
inuence or no
inuence
whatsoever (%)
A desire to stave off potential
regulation
2.18 0.86 68 7
Political pressure for
enhanced corporate
transparency
2.36 0.87 64 7
An attempt to build trust
through enhanced public
relations
2.39 0.92 54 11
Pressure from stakeholders
such as NGOs
3.04 1.04 39 32
A desire to divert attention
from irresponsible
activities
2.93 0.98 29 21
A moral or ethical imperative 3.46 1.11 14 50
A duty to be accountable to
the wider society
3.46 0.99 7 36
Notes: 1 overwhelming inuence; 2 signicant inuence; 3 slight inuence; 4 insignicant
inuence; 5 no inuence whatsoever; SD standard deviation.
Table 13. The potential for NGO/corporate engagement on CSD in Ireland (1) the
nature of NGO/corporate relations
Which of the following best describes the nature
of your organisations relationship with Irish
business entities? Percentage of respondents (%)
Extremely amicable 14
Amicable 36
Neither amicable nor antagonistic 39
Antagonistic 7
Extremely antagonistic/hostile 4
ve were environmental NGOs of varying sizes representing different environ-
mental NGO categories. Three of the four NGOs who indicated their relationship
was extremely amicable were social NGOs (one large and one medium sized
human rights NGO and one large development NGO). Of the 36% of NGOs indi-
cating an amicable relationship with Irish business entities four were social
NGOs and ve were environmental NGOs. Two of these four social NGOs
represented employee interests which might indicate the impact of the social part-
nership process in Ireland.
Eighty-six per cent of respondents felt that NGOs and the Irish corporate sector
could work together to effectively tackle social and environmental issues. All
social NGOs agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Seventy-ve
per cent of respondents felt there was potential for stakeholder groups such as
NGOs to be allowed an input into the formulation of CSD reports in the future
in Ireland (see Table 14). No social NGO disagreed or strongly disagreed with
this statement with 93% of this category agreeing or strongly agreeing. The
ve environmental NGOs who disagreed or strongly disagreed with this state-
ment emanated from all three main environmental NGO categories and varied
in size.
Just over half of the NGOs did not currently engage in activities to exert an
inuence over the CSD practices of companies. Environmental NGOs were
more likely to engage in such activity as only one respondent in this category
either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement (compared to six
(40%) social NGOs) while eight (62%) agreed or strongly agreed with the state-
ment (compared to ve (33%) social NGOs). Half of the respondents agreed to
some extent that they had the ability to exert signicant inuence over the
actions of companies which had a potentially adverse social and/or environ-
mental impact. Nine of these were social NGOs (60%) while ve were environ-
mental NGOs (38%). Within the latter group it was evident that these NGOs were
active campaigners who had had some success in inuencing corporate actions in
the environmental domain in Ireland in the recent past. Despite evident differ-
ences outlined above, MannWhitney U-tests indicated no statistically signi-
cant differences in the views of the environmental and social NGOs with
respect to these issues.
6. Summary and Conclusions
Using a questionnaire survey, this paper has discovered and analysed the perspec-
tives of a sample of Irish-based social and environmental NGOs (which claim to
represent specic stakeholder groups) regarding the current and potential
adequacy of sustainability reporting to meet their information needs, and to
help them hold corporations to account. Our results present evidence of a wide-
spread demand among respondent NGOs for mandated, externally veried sus-
tainability reporting in either the annual report, a separate stand-alone report
or, to a lesser extent, the company website. Recent reporting by large, high prole
Irish companies uses these mediums to varying degrees with a particular focus
placed on the annual report. For example, a number of high prole Irish compa-
nies entering the 2004 Association of Chartered Certied Accountants (ACCA)
Ireland environmental reporting awards scheme, such as Cement Roadstone
Holdings (CRH), Vhi Healthcare, the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) and Airtri-
city Holdings, focused primarily on engaging in CSD through the annual report.
However, apart from ESB, none of these companies indicated any desire to move
to stand-alone reporting with the rare stand-alone reports among entrants coming
from companies in the pharmaceutical and chemicals industries. Only two of the
18 entrants to the awards scheme produced web-based reports as their only
disclosure mechanism. Disclosure among entrants also tended to be, with only
Table 14. The potential for NGO/corporate engagement on CSD in Ireland (2) the
nature of NGO/corporate relations
Statement Mean SD
Percentage who
strongly agree or
agree with the
statement (%)
Percentage who
strongly disagree
or disagree with
the statement (%)
Social and environmental
NGOs and the Irish
corporate sector can
work together to
effectively tackle social
and environmental
issues
2.071 0.86 86 7
There is the potential for
stakeholder groups such
as NGOs to be allowed
an input into the
formulation of CSD
reports in the future in
Ireland
2.286 1.05 75 18
Social and environmental
NGOs have the ability
to exert signicant
inuence over the
actions of companies
especially those with a
potentially adverse
social and/or
environmental impact
2.714 0.90 50 25
My organisation engages
in activities to exert
inuence on the CSD
practices of companies
2.704 1.17 47 18
a few exceptions, brief, general and self-congratulatory thus supporting much
of the evident disdain for current CSD among the respondents.
The widespread desire for external verication of sustainability reports is
being met by an increase in the verication of reports at a European level
(Kolk, 2003; ODwyer and Owen, 2005). However, this trend is at variance
with the practice of leading Irish reporters. For example, only one of the 11
entrants to the 2003 ACCA Ireland environmental reporting awards scheme
included any form of assurance while only two of the 18 entrants to the 2004
scheme did likewise. The apparent animosity to nancial auditors role in veri-
cation, particularly among environmental NGOs, conrms the scepticism exhi-
bited by interviewees in the ODwyer et al. (2005) study. This resistance to
nancial auditors in verication also contrasts with recent evidence that nancial
auditors have increased their involvement in sustainability report verication at
a European level (ODwyer and Owen, 2005). It also suggests that the recent
entry of PricewaterhouseCoopers into the CSR market in Ireland may be
viewed with some scepticism. Furthermore, the implicit suggestion that external
social and environmental auditors, the most preferred veriers, will produce
high quality verication is questioned by ODwyer and Owen (2005) who indi-
cate some concern with the transparency and accountability of recent verication
practice in Europe among leading sustainability reporters whoever veries
the reports.
Environmental NGOs appear more sceptical of CSD practice and the potential
for its future development in Ireland. For example, the perspectives on current
CSD practice indicate that environmental NGOs are less satised with the credi-
bility and usefulness of CSD. They were also less likely to perceive ample oppor-
tunities to supply feedback to CSD preparers and were stronger in their calls for
mandatory reporting among large private companies. This relative scepticism is
at least partially driven by evidence of their more active and, at times, antagon-
istic engagement with companies on issues of concern. For example, ve of the
six NGOs who described their relationship with companies as antagonistic or
extremely antagonistic came from the environmental NGO group. All of these
NGOs have publicly attacked certain Irish companies for their environmental
policies and impacts in the recent past. They vary in size with even the smallest
of them effectively using publicity to pressurise companies. Environmental
NGOs were also less likely to disagree with the statement that CSD was inu-
enced by a desire to divert attention from irresponsible activities while no
environmental NGO believed that CSD was driven by a moral or ethical impera-
tive. This relatively high level of scepticism appears to emanate from the environ-
mental NGOs greater awareness of many of the issues surrounding CSD
deriving from their greater experience of engagement with companies evident
in the responses generally and in the additional comments provided. The social
NGOs relative inexperience with engagement may reect a limitation in our
sample given that many of these NGOs are development oriented and might
not need to continually engage with companies on issues of concern to them.
Despite the primarily negative perspectives toward CSD and its future deve-
lopment permeating many of the environmental NGO perspectives, respondents
in general were optimistic about the potential for engagement with companies
aimed at tackling corporate social impacts and improving current sustainability
reporting practice. For example, excluding the ve environmental NGOs men-
tioned above (and one social NGO), all NGOs claimed to have either a neutral,
amicable or extremely amicable relationship with companies. This contrasts
somewhat with the perspectives emanating from the interview study which
reected a more antagonistic relationship. The current study, however, is more
wide ranging and less focused on the views of a small specic set of stakeholder
leaders, hence a broader range of perspectives are garnered. Furthermore, the
NGO leaders interviewed in the prior study came primarily from a focused set
of relatively large, highly active, well-known advocacy environmental and
social NGOs focused specically on inuencing the policies of public authorities,
business and public opinion generally. In this study, our sample also includes
smaller, less obviously active and lesser known NGOs.
In line with their more positive attitude toward CSD and its potential future
development, all social NGOs recognised the potential for working with compa-
nies to effectively tackle social and environmental issues. This is consistent with
the calls for constructive critical engagement among the NGO leaders inter-
viewed. However, as mentioned above, social NGOs have less experience of
engagement and this inexperience may have fuelled their relative optimism.
This optimism also contrasts somewhat with recent evidence of tense relations
between certain NGOs and the Irish corporate sector (ODwyer, 2002;
ODwyer et al., 2005). For example, ODwyer (2002) argued that antagonistic
relations had partially contributed to the widespread reluctance by many Irish
companies to engage in comprehensive sustainability reporting. Several execu-
tives interviewed in his study claimed that they felt engaging in sustainability
reporting risked placing their head above the parapet only to have it cut off by
vigilant and unsympathetic pressure groups such as NGOs. The apparent open-
ness to engagement among many of the respondents to our survey, especially
among social NGOs, indicates they believe that, despite potential corporate con-
cerns, there may be some scope for greater corporate/NGO interaction aimed at
improving sustainability reporting practice. Intriguingly, all of the environmental
NGOs who stated that they had an antagonistic relationship with companies also
felt they had the ability to exert signicant inuence over corporate actions which
had a potentially adverse social and/or environmental impact included.
This study in conjunction with the interview study examining similar perspec-
tives provides us with a relatively clear indication of the desires of this set of Irish
NGOs with regard to CSD. However, it is apposite to consider to what use this
information could be put if it was provided and consideration of context is
crucial in this regard. The most popular reason for receiving this information
was to gain knowledge of a companys commitment to responsible practices.
Almost half of the respondents viewed the information as enabling them to
either investigate if reporting was in line with actual corporate social and
environmental impacts or to facilitate pressure on companies to improve their
social and environmental performance. The interview study illuminated concerns
surrounding the marginalisation and powerlessness of NGOs in Ireland, their
fragmented nature, public apathy towards many of them, and corporate unwill-
ingness to engage in dialogue with them. These perspectives suggest that even
if CSD is produced in the more complete, credible form desired, many NGOs
may nd difculty inuencing actions based on the information in the improved
reporting. One comment from a small environmental NGO director indicated
some of the problems, particularly resource related, that currently exist for Irish
environmental NGOs trying to inuence CSD practice in partnership with
companies:
Most ENGOs [environmental NGOs] in Ireland are very under-resourced
(due to small population equals small membership) and so do not have
the capacity to oversee CSD. There would be problems with signing up
to a CSD report you did not have the capacity to properly vet and thus legi-
timising something that might not be legitimate. Generally, companies
have far more staff, money etc. than NGOs and so it would be a very
unequal partnership.
Hence, it may be that for many Irish NGOs, the mere provision of the infor-
mation desired will not necessarily enable them to inuence corporate practice
and companies may be aware of this, hence their reluctance to engage in an
activity for what they view as a marginal set of stakeholders. Furthermore, given
perceptions of resource constraints and potential NGO marginalisation, in the
absence of regulation the incentives for companies to produce this information
in an easy to digest and audited form appear not to exist, particularly if there
are signicant costs involved. If NGOs do not possess the power to inuence
company actions, then they are more likely to be ignored. If they do possess
this power, will Irish companies voluntarily provide information which, as over
half of our respondents claim, may be used to question their actions? The recent
trends among Irish companies suggest that this form of reporting will only
emanate if there is a clear business case for it and if it is primarily controlled
by companies, which in our view would be undesirable from a stakeholder
accountability and social justice perspective. Hence, it may only be through
some regulatory route, as desired by most NGOs surveyed, that NGOs will be
able to demand some of the accountable information they claim to require.
However, this route seems unlikely given the interview perceptions indicating
some NGO marginalisation from the Irish government and the wider public
(ODwyer et al., 2005).
Future research needs to establish the extent of openness of the Irish corporate
sector to engagement with NGOs on issues surrounding sustainability reporting
in order to assess whether the pessimistic view above regarding future reporting
practice is likely to transpire. There is little evidence of corporate willingness to
engage with NGOs (see ODwyer, 2002) or of corporate perceptions regarding
the level of inuence NGOs can have on their behaviour and/or reporting prac-
tices. In the Australian context, Tilt (1994) has found that companies do not per-
ceive pressure groups as inuential while, in contrast, Deegan and Blomquist
(2001) illustrate how one large pressure group successfully inuenced Australian
minerals industry disclosure practices. However, as indicated above, recent
initiatives in Ireland are corporate driven and focused exclusively on promoting
the business case for CSR and sustainability reporting. The issue of stakeholder
engagement is beginning to emerge but the focus is very much on key economi-
cally powerful stakeholders who have the potential to inuence business success
(Business in the Community Ireland, 2003a). Furthermore, NGOs are only one
set of non-managerial stakeholders who may have expectations and perspectives
regarding sustainability reporting in Ireland. Future research should also examine
the perspectives of other non-managerial stakeholders such as consumer groups
in order to more fully inform any ongoing development of sustainability report-
ing. Given the discussion above, it may only be by working in conjunction with
other stakeholders that Irish NGOs will be able to inuence future sustainability
reporting practice. Finally, it is surprising that despite the relative prevalence of
sustainability reporting practice in contexts such as the UK and Western Europe,
there has been little systematic examination of non-managerial stakeholder per-
spectives in these contexts. Future research should commence examining these
perspectives in order to ascertain if the relatively advanced developments in
these contexts have enhanced accountability to non-managerial, and potentially
economically weaker, stakeholder groups.
Notes
1
It is important to note that the term sustainability reporting, now in common usage, does not
accord fundamentally with a true development-oriented conception of sustainability (see,
Bebbington, 2001). Sustainability is a global concept and is not merely focused on the efcient
allocation of resources over time. It also concentrates on a fair distribution of resources and
opportunities between the current generation and between present and future generations,
and a scale of economic activity relative to its ecological life support systems (Gray and
Milne, 2002). Hence, it suggests broader ecosystem-based approaches that require an
understanding of cumulative environmental change. So-called sustainability reports are
organisation-centric but sustainability requires a collective and cumulative assessment of
economic activity relative to resources base. As Gray and Milne (2002) argue, there is no sus-
tainability reporting in the true sense of the term in the public domain anywhere in the world
due to the exceptional difculty, or indeed impossibility, of undertaking it (see, Bebbington and
Gray, 2001).
2
Recently, Deegan and Blomquist (2001) investigated, using a case study, the inuence of one of
the major environmental organisations in Australia: the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
on environmental reporting practices in that context and found evidence of changes in the
reporting behaviour of certain Australian minerals companies. Fiedler and Deegan (2002)
have also investigated collaborations between the construction industry and four environmental
organisations in parts of Australia.
3
Social partnership brings together the government and various social partners, namely,
employers representatives, trade unions, farmers, and the community and voluntary sector
for discussions and negotiations on a range of social and economic issues. These partnerships
develop National Agreements on future economic and social development which normally have
a three year implementation period. Their inclusive nature is explicitly outlined with the most
recent National Agreement aiming to realise a vision for Ireland expressed in terms of: econo-
mic inclusion based on full employment, consistent economic development that is socially and
environmentally sustainable, and social inclusion and a commitment to social justice and
continuing adaptation to change (Department of the Taoiseach, 2003, p. 2).
4
For example, entrants to the ACCA awards scheme increased from 11 to 18 companies in 2004.
Observations of the increased quality of some of these entrants reects one of the authors direct
experiences as a member of the ACCA Ireland Environmental Reporting awards scheme from
its inauguration in 2000 to the most recent scheme in 2004. Furthermore, the same author has
also been asked to advise some industry sectors on the state of sustainability reporting world-
wide given certain large companies, especially some large banking institutions, are considering
its introduction.
5
E-mail communication to one of the authors on 6 October 2004 from Tomas Sercovich, corpor-
ate responsibility executive at BITCI. As of 4 November 2004, these reports had not appeared
on the company websites.
6
The denition provided read as follows: corporate social disclosure (CSD) can be dened as the
process by which organisations, particularly business organisations, communicate the social
and environmental impacts of their activities, products and services to particular interest
groups within society and to society at large.
7
We also included a question which asked the respondent to indicate their role in the organis-
ation and how long they had been working with the organisation.
8
We fully accept that this size measure is contestable in that membership can be dened dif-
ferently by different NGOs and may in fact mean paid-up supporter as opposed to an individ-
ual who has a say in the governance of the NGO (see Bebbington et al., 2004, p. 33, for a
discussion of this issue). However, it does provide a broad, if ultimately crude indication of
the relative size of the NGOs surveyed.
9
Some organisations failed to return the questionnaire as they indicated that they had more pres-
sing issues and therefore lacked the time. One of the follow-ups resulted in one of the authors
being informed that the questionnaire had been mislaid and, in this instance, another question-
naire was forwarded to the organisation. The follow up of organisations continued up until one
month following the original deadline of 30 June.
References
Adams, C. A. (2002) Internal organisational factors inuencing corporate social and ethical report-
ing: beyond current theorising, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(2),
pp. 223250.
Adams, C. A. (2004) The social and environmental reportingperformance portrayal gap, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(5), pp. 731757.
Adams, C. A. and Harte, G. (2000) Making discrimination visible: the potential for social accounting,
Accounting Forum, 24(1), pp. 5679.
Alderson, S. and Kakabadse, A. (1994) Business ethics and Irish management: a cross-cultural study,
European Management Journal, 12(4), pp. 432441.
Azzone, G. et al. (1997) A stakeholders view of environmental reporting, Long Range Planning,
30(5), pp. 699709.
Bebbington, J. (2001) Sustainable development: a review of the international development, business
and accounting literature, Accounting Forum, 25(2), pp. 128157.
Bebbington, J. and Gray, R. H. (2001) An account of sustainability: failure, success and a reconcep-
tualisation, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(5), pp. 557588.
Bebbington, J. et al. (1999) Seeing the wood for the trees: taking the pulse of social and environmental
accounting, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12(1), pp. 4752.
Bebbington, J. et al. (2004) NGOs, not-for-prot organisations and civil society: making the people
accountable to capital, paper presented at the Inter-Disciplinary CSR Research Conference, Uni-
versity of Nottingham, 23 October.
Belal, A. R. (2002) Stakeholder accountability or stakeholder management?: a review of UK rms
social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting (SEAAR) practices, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(1), pp. 825.
Business in the Community Ireland (2003a) The First Ever Survey of Consumer Attitudes in Ireland
towards Corporate Responsibility (Dublin: Business in the Community Ireland).
Business in the Community Ireland (2003b) Accountability Report 20002003 (Dublin: Business in
the Community Ireland).
Buzby, S. L. and Falk, H. (1978) A survey of the interest in social responsibility information by mutual
funds, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 3(3/4), pp. 191201.
Calton, J. M. and Kurland, N. B. (1995) A theory of stakeholder enabling: giving voice to an emerging
postmodern praxis of organizational discourse, in: D. M. Boje, R. P. Gephart and T. J. Thatch-
enkery (Eds) Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, pp. 154177 (London: Sage).
Campbell, D. et al. (2003) Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on perception
and legitimacy, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(4), pp. 558581.
Canning, M. and ODwyer, B. (2003) A critique of the descriptive power of the Private Interest Model
of Professional Accounting Ethics: an examination over time in the Irish context, Accounting,
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance, Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp. 92117.
Crawford, K. (2002) Publish and be praised, Ethical Corporation Magazine [Online version]. Avail-
able at: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/printtemplate.asp?idnum 94 (accessed 9 January 2003).
Deegan, C. (2002) Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures a
theoretical foundation, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15(3), pp. 282311.
Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C. (2001) Stakeholder inuence on corporate reporting: an exploration of
the interaction between the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Australian minerals industry,
paper presented at the Third APIRA Conference, Adelaide, July.
Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1996) Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively?
An analysis of environmental disclosures by rms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental
Protection Authority, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(2), pp. 5269.
Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1997) The materiality of environmental information to users of annual
reports, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10(4), pp. 562583.
Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1999) The environmental reporting expectations gap, The British
Accounting Review, 31(3), pp. 313346.
Deegan, C. et al. (2002) An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP
from 19831997: a test of legitimacy theory, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
15(3), pp. 312343.
Denscombe, M. (1998) The Good Research Guide: For Small Scale Social Research Projects
(London: Open University Press).
Department of the Taoiseach (2003) Sustaining Progress: Social Partnership Agreement 20032005
(Dublin: Government of Ireland).
Dillman, D. A. (1978) Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (Santa Barbara, CA:
Wiley Interscience).
Economist, The (2003) Living with the enemy, 7 August.
Elkington, J. (2001) The Chrysalis Economy: How Citizen CEOs and Corporations Can Fuse Values
and Value Creation (Oxford: Capstone).
Epstein, M. J. and Freedman, M. (1994) Social disclosure and the individual investor, Accounting,
Ernst and Young (2002) Corporate Social Responsibility: A Survey of Global Companies (Australia:
Ernst and Young Environment and Sustainability Services).
European Commission, The (2000) The Commission and Non-Governmental Organisations: Building
a Stronger Partnership, Commission Discussion Paper. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/
comm/secretariatgeneral/sgc/ong/introduction.htm (accessed 11 November 2003).
Fiedler, T. and Deegan, C. (2002) Environmental collaborations within the building and construction
industry: a consideration of the motivations to collaborate, Proceedings of the Critical Perspec-
tives on Accounting Conference, New York, April.
FORGE Group, The (2002) Guidance on Corporate Social Responsibility Management and Reporting
for the Financial Services Sector (London: British Bankers Association and Association of
British Insurers).
Fowler, F. J. (1988) Survey Research Methods (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage).
Friedman, A. L. and Miles, S. (2002) Developing stakeholder theory, Journal of Management Studies,
31(1), pp. 121.
Gray, R. H. (2000) Current developments and trends in social and environmental auditing, reporting
and attestation: a review and comment, International Journal of Auditing, 4(3), pp. 247268.
Gray, R. H. (2001) Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything) have
we learnt?, Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), pp. 915.
Gray, R. H. (2002) The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society: privile-
ging engagement, imagination, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 27(7), pp. 687708.
Gray, R. H. and Bebbington, J. (2000) Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability,
Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 1, pp. 144.
Gray, R. H. and Milne, M. (2002) Sustainability reporting: whos kidding whom?, Chartered Accoun-
tants Journal of New Zealand, 81(6), pp. 6670.
Gray, R. H. et al. (1996) Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social
and Environmental Reporting (Harlow: Prentice Hall).
Hopkins, M. (2002) Comment: corporate social responsibility: is it worth it? Available at: http://
www.ethicalcorp.com/printtemplate.asp?idnum 456 (accessed 9 January 2003).
Hoven Stohs, J. H. and Brannick, T. (1996) Irish managers perceptions of business ethics, Irish
Business and Administrative Review, 17, pp. 8393.
Hoven Stohs, J. H. and Brannick, T. (1999) Codes and conduct: predictors of Irish managers ethical
reasoning, Journal of Business Ethics, 22(4), pp. 311326.
Hummels, H. (1998) Organising ethics: a stakeholder debate, Journal of Business Ethics, 17(13),
pp. 14031419.
Institute of Public Administration (2003) Administration Yearbook and Diary 2003 (Dublin: Institute
of Public Administration).
Kolk, A. (2003) Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 500, Business Strategy and
the Environment, 12(5), pp. 279291.
Kovach, H. et al. (2003) The Global Accountability Report 2003: Power without Accountability?
(London: One World Trust).
Logsdon, J. M. and Lewellyn, P. G. (2000) Expanding accountability to stakeholders: trends and
predictions, Business and Society Review, 105(4), pp. 1935.
Milne, M. and Patten, D. (2002) Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case
examining the impact of environmental disclosures, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 15(3), pp. 372405.
Mitchell, R. et al. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identication and salience: dening the prin-
ciple of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853886.
Moser, C. A. and Kalton, G. (1975) Survey Methods in Social Investigation, 2nd edn (London:
Heinemann Educational Books).
Murphy, P. E. (1994) European managers views on corporate ethics, Business Ethics: A European
Review, 3(3), pp. 137144.
Murphy, P. E. (1995) Top managers views on corporate ethics, Irish Marketing Review, 8, pp. 6172.
Observer, The (2003) Corporate Social Responsibility, Separate Section, 2 February.
ODonovan, G. (2002) Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability
and predictive power of legitimacy theory, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
15(3), pp. 344371.
ODwyer, B. (2001) The State of Corporate Environmental Reporting in Ireland (London: Associ-
ation of Chartered Certied Accountants).
ODwyer, B. (2002) Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story, Accounting,
ODwyer, B. (2003a) The ponderous evolution of corporate environmental reporting in Ireland: recent
evidence from publicly listed companies, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 10(2), pp. 91100.
ODwyer, B. (2003b) Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: the nature of managerial capture,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(4), pp. 523557.
ODwyer, B. and Gray, R. H. (1998) Corporate social reporting in the Republic of Ireland: a longitudi-
nal study, Irish Accounting Review, 5(2), pp. 134.
ODwyer, B. and Owen, D. (2005) Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustain-
ability reporting: a critical evaluation, British Accounting Review, 37(2), pp. 205229.
ODwyer, B. et al. (2005) Perceptions on the emergence and future development of corporate social
disclosure in Ireland: engaging the voices of non-governmental organisations, Accounting, Audit-
ing and Accountability Journal, 18(1), pp. 1443.
Onishi, N. (2002) Nongovernmental organisations show their growing power, The New York Times,
22 March, p.A10.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1966) Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement (London: Heinemann).
Owen, D. L. and Swift, T. (2001) Social accounting, reporting and auditing: beyond the rhetoric?,
Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), pp. 48.
Owen, D. L., Gray, R. H. and Bebbington, J. (1997) Green accounting: cosmetic irrelevance or radical
agenda for change?, Asia Pacic Journal of Accounting, 4(2), pp. 175198.
Owen, D. L. et al. (2001) Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in social and ethical
accounting, auditing and reporting, Accounting Forum, 25(3), pp. 264282.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2004) Corporate social responsibility shown to enhance protability and
long term shareholder value says PwC. Available at: http://www.pwc.com/Extweb/ncpressre-
lease.nsf/docid/CB5752E1DCB1BE9A80256E1B002BE744 (accessed 25 January 2004).
Roberts, R. W. (1992) Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure, Accounting, Organi-
zations and Society, 17(6), pp. 595612.
Roche, J. (2003) Ireland and corporate responsibility, Ethical Corporation Magazine, November,
pp. 3537.
Rockness, J. and Williams, P. F. (1988) A descriptive study of social responsibility mutual funds,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(4), pp. 397411.
SustainAbility (2003) The 21st Century NGO: In the Market for Change (London: SustainAbility).
Swift, T. (2001) Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders, Business Ethics: A
European Review, 10(1), pp. 1626.
Tilt, C. A. (1994) The inuence of external pressure groups on corporate social disclosure: some
empirical evidence, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 7(4), pp. 4772.
Tilt, C. (2003) Inuences on corporate social reporting; a look at lobby groups ten years on, paper
presented at the International Congress on Social and Environmental Accounting, Dundee,
September.
Unerman, J. and Bennett, M. (2004) Increased stakeholder dialogue and the Internet: towards greater
corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 29(7), pp. 685707.
Vakil, A. C. (1997) Confronting the classication problem: a taxonomy of NGOs, World Develop-
ment, 25(12), pp. 20572070.
Wallace, R. S. O. et al. (1990) Non response bias in mail accounting surveys: a pedagogical extension,
British Accounting Review, 22(3), pp. 283288.
World Economic Forum (2002) Global Corporate Citizenship; The Leadership Challenge for CEOs
and Boards (Geneva: World Economic Forum and The Prince of Wales International Business
Leaders Forum).
Zadek, S. (2002a) Comment: the business case for non-nancial reporting, Ethical Corporation
Magazine [Online version]. Available at: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/printtemplate. asp?
idnum 431 (accessed 9 January 2003).
Zadek, S. (2002b) Comment: the impact of public reporting, Ethical Corporation Magazine [Online
version]. Available at: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/printtemplate.asp?idnum 397.

User Needs in Sustainability Reporting-Perspectives

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

User Needs in Sustainability Reporting-Perspectives

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

User Needs in Sustainability

Current CSD allows

The extent of CSD is

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi