Skip to main content
Log in

Corporate social responsibility reporting platforms: enabling transparency for accountability

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 28 September 2014

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting from an information processing perspective. It begins with a brief literature review of CSR, sustainable consumption, socially responsible investment, and sustainability reporting, followed by a summary of the reporting process in the context of the Global Reporting Index and the industry that has grown up around it. We begin model development by clarifying the sub-dimensional structure of organizational transparency in terms of IT capability and transparency culture, and distinguishing transparency from sustainability. We then dimensionalize the CSR report itself, and identify design characteristics of the reporting platform that support these dimensions. Following this, we discuss believability of the data relative to the needs of different constituents, primarily investors and ethical consumers. We then discuss the implications of the theoretical model and the future research streams it identifies. We close with a discussion of how reporting platforms can be designed with particular data users in mind, and describe the challenges of designing for the needs of ethical consumers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.celsias.com/article/general-motors-draws-zero-waste-blueprint-auto-ind/.

  2. http://hausercenter.org/iri/about/global-csr-disclosure-requirements.

  3. http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Pages/de-facto-business-law.aspx.

  4. Because these reports are variously called either CSR reports or sustainability reports, these terms are used interchangeably throughout this paper.

  5. http://database.globalreporting.org/search.

  6. These reports are listed in the searchable GRI database at http://database.globalreporting.org/search.

  7. Calculated by combining results of two searches, one for “corporate social responsibility”, and the other for “CSR” in the topic field of SSCI search functionality.

  8. Some of these companies also do original research and analyses.

References

  1. Abbott WF, Monsen RJ (1979) On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Acad Manag J 22(3):501–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson TW, Cunningham WH (1972) The socially conscious consumer. J Mark 36(3):23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Argote L (1982) Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. Adm Sci Q 27:420–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Armstrong CS, Guay WR, Weber JP (2010) The role of information and financial reporting in corporate governance and debt contracting. J Account Econ 50(2–3):179–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bezencon V, Blili S (2010) Ethical products and consumer involvement: what’s new? Eur J Mark 44(9–10):1305–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown HS, de Jong M, Levy DL (2009) Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. J Clean Prod 17:571–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carrington MJ, Neville BA, Whitwell GJ (2010) Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. J Bus Ethics 9:139–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Caruana R, Crane A (2008) Constructing consumer responsibility: exploring the role of corporate communications. Org Stud 29:1495–1519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chiu S-C, Sharfman M (2011) Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: an investigation of the instrumental perspective. J Manag 37(6):1558–1585

    Google Scholar 

  10. Clarkson PM, Li Y, Richardson GD, Vasvari FP (2008) Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an empirical analysis. Account Organ Soc 33:303–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Comyns B, Figge F, Hahn T, Barkemeyer R (2013) Sustainability reporting: the role of “search”, “experience”, and “credence” information. Account Forum 37:231–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32(5):554–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davies IA, Lee Z, Ahonkhai I (2012) Do consumers care about ethical luxury? J Bus Ethics 106:37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Delmas M, Blass VD (2010) Measuring corporate environmental performance: the trade-offs of sustainability ratings. Bus Strategy Environ 19(4):245–260

    Google Scholar 

  15. Devinney TM, Auger P, Eckbardt GM (2010) The myth of the ethical consumer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2013) The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Harvard Business School working paper 12-035

  17. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14(1):57–74

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fenton (2012). http://www.fenton.com/files/goodguide_case_study.pdf

  19. Fifka MS (2011) Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective: a review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Bus Strategy Environ 22:1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fonseca A, McAllister ML, Fitzpatrick P (2012) Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach. J Clean Prod. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050

  21. Fournier S, Alvarez C (2012) Brands as relationship partners: warmth, competence, and in-between. J Consum Psychol 22(2):177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fung A, Graham M, Weil D (2008) Full disclosure: the perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Granados N, Gupta A, Kauffman R (2010) Information transparency in business-to consumer markets: concepts, framework, and research agenda. Inf Syst Res 21(2):207–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB, Griskevieius V (2008) A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res 35(3):472–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grande C (2007) Ethical consumption makes mark on branding. FT.com. (Retrieved 18 Dec 2011)

  27. Gray R (2001) Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything) have we learned? Bus Ethics Eur Rev 10:9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Greening DW, Turban DB (2000) Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Bus Soc 39(3):254–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. GSIA (2012) Global sustainability investment review. http://gsiareview2012.gsi-alliance.org/pubData/source/Global%20Sustainable%20Investement%20Alliance.pdf

  30. Hahn R, Kühnen M (2013) Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J Clean Prod 59:5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Harrison R (2005) Pressure groups, campaigns and consumers. In: Harrison R, Newholm T, Shaw D (eds) The ethical consumer. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 55–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoeffler S, Bloom PN, Keller KL (2010) Understanding stakeholder responses to corporate citizenship initiatives: managerial guidelines and research directions. J Pubic Policy Mark 29(1):78–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hovland CI (1951) Changes in attitude through communication. Abnorm Soc Psychol 46:424–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Huang P, Zhang Y (2012) Does enhanced disclosure really reduce agency costs? Evidence from the diversion of corporate resources. Account Rev 87(1):199–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Husted BW, Salazar J (2006) Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance. J Manag Stud 43(1):75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Keen P (1991) Shaping the future: business design through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  38. KPMG (2013) The KPMG survey of corporate social responsibility reporting. http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Documents/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2013.pdf

  39. Leite P, Cortez MC (2014) Style and performance of international socially responsible funds in Europe. Res Int Bus Financ 30:248–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lockett A, Moon J, Visser W (2006) Corporate social responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources. J Manag Stud 43(1):115–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu TC, Wang CY, Wu LW (2010) Moderators of the negativity effect: commitment, identification and consumer sensitivity to corporate social performance. Psychol Mark 27(1):54–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Luo XM, Bhattacharya CB (2009) The debate over doing good: corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. J Mark 73(6):198–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Moneva JM, Archel P, Correa C (2006) GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Account Forum 30:121–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Margolis JD, Walsh JP (2003) Misery loves company: rethinking social initiatives by business. Admin Sci Q 48:268–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Margolis JD, Elfenbein HA, Walsh JP (2007) Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. In: Proceed Acad of Manage, Philadelphia, PA. Pace University, New York, NY

  46. McGinnies E, Ward CD (1980) Better liked than right: trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 6(3):467–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McGoldrick PJ, Freestone OM (2008) Ethical product premiums: antecedents and extent of consumers’ willingness to pay. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res 18(2):185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McGuire JM (1963) Business and society. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. McWilliams A, Siegel DS (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or mis-specification? Strategy Manag J 21:603–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. McWilliams A, Siegel DS (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26:117–127

    Google Scholar 

  51. McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright PM (2006) Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications (Guest editors introduction). J Manag Stud 43(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Montiel I, Delgado-Ceballos I (2014) Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: are we there yet? Organ Environ 27(2):113–139

  53. Mowen JC, Wiener JL, Joag S (1987) An information integration analysis of how trust and expertise combine to influence source credibility and persuasion. Adv Consum Res 14:564

    Google Scholar 

  54. Nicholls AJ (2002) Strategic options in fair trade retailing. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 30(1):6–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Org Sci 5(1):14–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Oh CH, Park J-H, Ghauri PN (2013) Doing right, investing right: socially responsible investing and shareholder activism in the financial sector. Bus Horiz 56:703–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Orlizky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Org Stud 24:403–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rawls A (1971) Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  59. Preston L, Post J (1975) Private management and public policy: the principle of public responsibility. Stanford Business Classics, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  60. Redman TC (ed) (1996) Data quality for the information age. Artech House, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rezabakhsh B, Bornemann D, Hansen U, Schrader U (2006) Consumer power: a comparison of the old economy and the internet economy. J Consum Policy 29(1):3–36

  62. Robinson M, Kleffner A, Bertels S (2011) Signaling sustainability leadership: empirical evidence of the value of DJSI membership. J Bus Ethics 101(3):493–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Scholtens B (2014) Indicators of responsible investing. Ecol Indic 36:382–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Schueth S (2003) Socially responsible investing in the United States. J Bus Ethics 43(3):89–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Shankaranarayanan G, Watts S (2003) A relevant, believable approach for data quality assessment. In: Proceedings of the information quality conference (IQ2003), Cambridge, MA

  66. Siegel DS, Vitaliano DF (2007) An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. J Econ Manag Strategy 16(3):773–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Spence M (2002) Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. Am Econ Rev 92(3):434–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Strong C (1996) Features contributing to the growth in ethical consumerism—a preliminary investigation. Mark Intell Plan 14(5):5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sussman SW, Siegal W (2003) Informational influence in organizations: an integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Inf Syst Res 14(1):47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Szmigin I, Carrigan M, McEachem MG (2009) The consious consumer: taking a flexible approach to ethical behavior. Int J Consum Stud 33(2):224–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Tayi GK, Ballou DP (1998) Examining data quality. Commun ACM 41(2):57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tomlinson B (2012) Greening through IT: information technology for environmental sustainability. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  73. Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad Manag Rev 3:613–624

    Google Scholar 

  74. Viviers S, Eccles NS (2012) 35 years of socially responsible investing (SRI) research—general trends over time. S Afr J Bus Manag 43(4):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  75. Waddock SA (2004) Parallel universes: companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Bus Soc Rev 109:5–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Wall SP (1996) Public justification and the transparency argument. Philos Q 46(185):501–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wang RY, Storey VC, Firth CP (1995) A framework for analysis of data quality research. IEEE Trans Data Knowl Eng 7(4):623–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wang RY, Strong DM (1996) Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data users. J Manag Inf Syst 12(4):5–33

    Google Scholar 

  79. Watts SA, Wyner G (2011) Designing and theorizing the adoption of mobile technology-mediated ethical consumption tools. Inform Technol People 24(3):257–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Weick KE (1990) Technology as equivoque. In Goodman PS, Sproull LS (eds) Technology and organizations, chap 1. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

  81. Weiner JL, Mowen JC (1986) Source credibility: on the independent effects of trust and expertise. Adv Consum Res 13:306–310

    Google Scholar 

  82. Wood DJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Acad Manag Rev 16:691–718

    Google Scholar 

  83. Wood D (2010) Measuring corporate social performance: a review. Int J Manag Rev 12(10):50–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Zhang Y, Wiersema MF (2009) Stock market reaction to CEO certification: the signaling role of CEO background. Strateg Manag J 30:693–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Watts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watts, S. Corporate social responsibility reporting platforms: enabling transparency for accountability. Inf Technol Manag 16, 19–35 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0192-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0192-2

Keywords

Navigation