Qual Quant (2016) 50:399–420

DOI 10.1007/s11135-014-0155-z

Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility

reports: the case of reporting practices in selected
European Union member states

Patrycja Ha˛bek · Radosław Wolniak

Published online: 9 January 2015

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract The organization may communicate its engagement in sustainability and may
presents results achieved in this field by creating and publishing corporate social responsibility
(CSR) reports. Today, we can observe a growing number of companies issuing such reports as
a part of their annual reports or as stand-alone CSR reports. Despite the increase in the number
of such reports their quality is different. CSR reports do not always provide complete data
that readers desire, which in turn intensifies the problem with the evaluation and comparison
of the organization’s results achieved in this scope. Differences also occur between reporting
models used in different EU countries caused by, inter alia, differently applied EU legislation
on the disclosure of non-financial information in different Member States. This paper is one of
the first attempts to perform a quantitative and qualitative analysis of corporate sustainability
reporting practices in several European Union countries. The purpose of this article is to
present the current state of CSR reporting practices in selected EU Member States and
identify the differences in the quality and level of this kind of practices, taking into account
the mandatory and voluntary model of disclosure. The study included separate CSR reports
as well as annual reports with CSR sections and integrated reports published in 2012 in
six selected EU Member States. The authors have used a specific evaluation tool in the
examination of the individual reports. The assessment questionnaire consists of seventeen
criteria grouped into two categories (relevance and credibility of information). In order to
assess the quality of examined reports, the authors aggregated the indicators related with
the reporting practices. The findings show that the quality level of the studied reports is
generally low. Referring to its components, the relevance of the information provided in the
assessed reports is at the higher level than its credibility. The study also indicates that the
legal obligation of CSR data disclosure has a positive effect on the quality of CSR reports.

P. Ha˛bek (B) · R. Wolniak

Faculty of Organization and Management, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
e-mail: [email protected]
R. Wolniak
e-mail: [email protected]

123
400 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

Keywords Corporate social responsibility · CSR reporting · European Union ·

Sustainability report · Quality assessment · Evaluation tool

1 Introduction

Promoting transparency and disclosure of non-financial information is a key issue on the

European Union agenda. Europe and especially its western part is also the most active region
in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting (Ha˛bek 2013). According to GRI statistics
(GRI 2012), 47 % of sustainability reports published worldwide in the year 2012 came from
Europe. A CSR report is a communication tool that it is intended to provide information, both
internally and externally, about the company’s approach and its maturity in the implemen-
tation of the CSR concept. Because the concept is often perceived as reflecting companies’
contribution to sustainable development (Kleine and von Hauff 2009; European Commis-
sion 2002; Carrasco-Monteagudo and Buendía-Martínez 2013; Szewczyk et al. 2003), reports
containing this type of information are published under a wide variety of names (Davis and
Searcy 2010; KPMG 2013), such as sustainability reports, sustainable development reports,
triple bottom line reports and CSR reports. In this paper, the authors accept that these names
are equivalent and use them interchangeably.
Initially, the idea of CSR reporting was used by large corporations (Kolk 2008), especially
from industry (Abbott and Monsen 1979; Dierkes 1979). In the beginning of the process,
corporations began to produce special “social reports” published particularly by businesses
from Western Europe (Fifka 2013). In the years 1990-2000, the focus shifted from social
reporting to environmental reporting. The reason for this was the importance of environmental
aspects in production and the growth of sustainable development concepts (Welford and
Gouldson 1993; Azzone and Bertele 1994; Welford 1995). After 2000, both dimensions
(social and environmental) were merged in the concept of non-financial reports. Those reports
had a broader remit and also included economic issues (Rikhardsson et al. 2002; Hedberg
and von Malmborg 2003; Kolk 2003, 2004; Delbard 2008; Gebauer and Hoffmann 2009;
Vormedal and Ruud 2009; Morhardt 2010).
Nowadays we can observe an increase in the number of such reports, but problems arise
with the quality of information they disclose. CSR reports do not always provide the complete
data that readers seek, which in turn intensifies the problem of the evaluation and comparison
of the results achieved by the company in this regard. Differences also occur between reporting
models used in different EU countries caused by, inter alia, differently applied EU legislation
on the disclosure of non-financial information in different Member States.
Despite the high level of disclosure, still fewer than 10 % of the largest EU companies dis-
close sustainability information regularly (European Commission 2013). The impact assess-
ment undertaken by the services of the European Commission identified issues concerning
the inadequate transparency of non-financial information. Specific issues have been high-
lighted with regard to both the quantity and quality of information (European Commission
2011). These facts, inter alia, led the European Commission, on 16 April 2013, to propose an
amendment to existing accounting legislation in order to improve the transparency of certain
large companies on social and environmental matters (Pinar 2014).
The purpose of this paper is to present the current state of sustainability reporting in
selected EU Member States and to identify the differences in the quality and level of these
kinds of practice, taking into account the mandatory and voluntary models.
To examine individual CSR reports, a specific evaluation tool was used in the study. The
assessment questionnaire consists of 17 criteria grouped into two categories (relevance and

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 401

credibility of information). In order to evaluate the sustainability reporting practices in the

selected EU countries, the current study is divided into eight sections. The first is the literature
review, which details the research process and an assessment tool, followed by a section which
describes the current state of sustainability reporting practices in the selected countries. The
next sections present the research in the following order: the quality of sustainability reports
with regional differences; level of sustainability reporting practices; and the presentation of
the differences between the mandatory and voluntary model of sustainability reporting. The
last section sums up the main results, and points out limitations and possibilities for future
research.

2 Literature review

Although CSR is an idea with a global nature (Midor 2012), there are some researches that
suggest that it is applied differently across different social, economic, cultural, legal and
political contexts (Matten and Moon 2004; Habisch et al. 2005; GjØlberg 2009; Ertuna and
Tükel 2010; Ryan et al. 2010; Kuznetsov and Kuznetsova 2010). Sustainability reporting is
an inherent part of the CSR concept; thus, these assumptions must also be true for this type of
business practice. Freundlieb and Teuteberg (2013) emphasize this impression, claiming that
stakeholders in different countries have different requirements and expectations regarding
CSR reporting. Companies are affected by their stakeholders and report on CSR differently
(Miska et al. 2013). Furthermore, studies conducted by different authors show that sustain-
ability reports vary widely even within a country (Daub 2007; Vormedal and Ruud 2009;
Skouloudis et al. 2010; Mio and Venturelli 2013; Sierra et al. 2013; Ha˛bek 2014). We can
also find a very detailed review of studies on responsibility reporting carried out by Fifka
(2013). He examined whether research approaches with regard to responsibility reporting
differ across countries or regions. Some studies also suggest that there are country-specific
differences in the extent of CSR reports (Maignan and Ralston 2002; Chen and Bouvain
2009; Muhammad et al. 2013; Noronha et al. 2013). There are strong indications that CSR
reporting varies across different cultures (Habisch et al. 2010; Fifka 2011; Fifka and Drabble
2012, Fifka 2012). Companies do not operate in isolation; they adapt, refine and develop their
strategies and competitive advantages in an interplay with their institutional environments
(GjØlberg 2009; O’Brien et al. 2011). An action classified as a voluntary CSR initiative in
one country may be classified as regulatory compliance in another (Matten and Moon 2008).
The same applies to CSR reporting practices.
An interesting analysis was conducted by Jackson and Apostolakou concerning the influ-
ence of liberal market economies (LMEs) and coordinated market economies (CMEs) on
CSR practices (Jackson and Apostolakou 2010). The authors found that a national institu-
tional environment can foster systematic differences in strategy coordination amongst cor-
porate stakeholders (Aguilera et al. 2006; Campbell 2007; Matten and Moon 2008; Jamali
et al. 2009). Countries with an LME type of economy are characterized by equity financ-
ing, dispersed ownership, active markets for corporate control, weak inter-firm cooperation
and flexible labour markets. By contrast, countries with CME type economies can be char-
acterized by long-term debt finance, ownership by large block-holders, weak markets for
corporate control, strong inter-firm cooperation and a rather rigid labour market. At the core
of these differences are different patterns of corporate governance, which foster different
patterns of stakeholder involvement in corporate decision making across countries (Aguilera
and Jackson 2003; Jackson and Apostolakou 2010). In LME economies where stakeholder
involvement is not strongly institutionalized, corporations may want to tackle the problem by

123
402 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

voluntarily adopting more explicit policies and practices related to CSR (Khanna and Palepu
2006). Jackson and Apostolakou found higher levels of adoption of CSR amongst firms in
LME countries, where stakeholder coordination is weaker. By contrast, firms in CME coun-
tries can rely on many implicit forms of CSR. This effect is much stronger in the adoption
of minimum standards than best practices (Jackson and Apostolakou 2010).
This paper presents the results of quality assessment of CSR reports from EU Member
States which can be classified as both CME and LME economies.
Due to the subject of the paper, it is interesting to describe existing studies related to CSR
reporting in those countries where the problem of CSR reporting practices has been empiri-
cally studied by authors (the UK, The Netherlands, Sweden, France, Denmark). According
to Fifka’s findings (2013), the largest number of studies on CSR reporting problems can be
found in the UK. Authors there concentrate on equal opportunities disclosure (Adams et al.
1995; Brammer and Pavelin 2005), correlation between social performance and reporting
(Moore 2001), impact of industry on reporting practices (Robertson and Nicholson 1996;
Clarke and Gibson-Sweet 1999; Stray and Ballantine 2000; Campbell 2003; Campbell et al.
2003; Haddock 2005; Brammer and Pavelin 2008), impact of managerial attitudes (Colli-
son et al. 2003; Martin and Hadley 2008; Spence 2009), and analysis of external variables
(Gray et al. 1995; Campbell et al. 2003; Haddock 2005; Brammer and Pavelin 2008). In the
case of the Netherlands, there are some studies concerning CSR reporting. Schreuder exam-
ined what content employees in this country can expect to find in social reports (Schreuder
1981). Quaak performed a very detailed study about sustainability reporting on seven Dutch
breweries of different sizes (Quaak et al. 2007). The first study on CSR reporting in Swe-
den was published in 1977 (Gröjer and Stark 1977). The main studies about CSR reporting
in Sweden concentrated on correlations between size, measured by market capitalization
and industry correlated with reporting (Cerin 2002), sustainability reporting according to
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) (Hedberg and von Malmborg 2003), and the correlations
between size and profitability and the content of the reports (Tagesson et al. 2009). In France,
there is a study published by Cromier and Magnan conducted on a sample of 50 companies,
in which the authors examined a large number of internal determinants in reporting (Cromier
and Magnan 2003). Delbard analysed problems in the French legislation on compulsory sus-
tainability reporting for publicly-listed companies (Delbard 2008). The number of studies
in Denmark is smaller (Fifka 2013). There is only an overview of environmental report-
ing practices in Danish companies given by Rikhardsson (1996). The same approach was
taken by Holgaard and Jørgensen (2005), who provided a qualitative discussion of mandatory
environmental reporting in Denmark.
Currently, we can observe two models of sustainability reporting. Some companies prepare
sustainability reports voluntarily, and some disclose CSR data to meet legal requirements
(in some countries, e.g., Sweden, sustainability reporting is mandatory for specific groups
of companies). The voluntary nature of sustainability reporting and the lack of a single,
generally recognized standard according to which these reports can be developed, are the
reasons for the differences occurring in the content and quality of sustainability reports. For
example, companies reporting on a voluntary basis may (Lydenberg et al. 2010):

• choose different time periods in which to report—some may report annually, some bian-
nually, some at irregular intervals, and some only once and then not at all;
• report on different indicators—companies in the same industry may choose to report on a
variety of different key indicators;
• report in different formats and using different metrics—even when reporting on the same
indicators, companies may report data covering different time periods, using different

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 403

units of measurements, or choosing different benchmarks against which to measure per-

formance.
On the other hand, regulating the reporting practices does not always improve the com-
munication process or the quality of disclosed information. In some cases, companies with
passive or indifferent corporate environmental strategies will focus on reducing their reporting
costs in order to meet the regulatory requirements (Schaltegger 1997). This is why regulation
can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it could increase the level of reporting; on
the other hand, it could limit opportunities for a company to distinguish itself on the market
and reduce the quality of the reports. Another problem is that in the process of preparing
the reports, ethical problems can arise that affect the reliability of the information disclosed
(Maruszewska 2014).
The aforementioned studies highlight the fact that current sustainability reporting practices
are differently implemented across countries, and even within one country they may not be
fully understood and still need improvement. In the European Union, we can find different
approaches to sustainability reporting, and therefore this article tries to contribute to the
knowledge concerning the current patterns of those practices.

3 Research design

The study refers to sustainability reporting practices in the selected EU Member States.
Since 2005, based on the European Modernization Directive, companies are required to
analyse and disclose non-financial key performance indicators relevant for the particular
business, including information relating to environmental and employee matters. All Member
States have implemented the requirements of the Directive (Knopf et al. 2011). For the
study, the authors have chosen those countries which have developed additional mandatory
requirements (for certain groups of companies) relating to CSR data disclosure. The Member
States selected for analysis are: Denmark, Sweden, France, the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands. Poland participated in the study as the only Member State in the study where
additional mandatory requirements going beyond those arising from the transposition of the
European Modernization Directive have not yet been implemented. The criteria for country
selection also covered a longer time period than Poland’s experience in the implementation of
the CSR concept. The study included all reports published in 2012, developed by companies
which disclose CSR information on a voluntary as well as a mandatory basis.
The evaluation of the admitted reports was based on an assessment tool specially designed
for the purpose. For statistical analysis, non-parametric tests were used (because not all
variables meet the assumption of normality). For checking whether the values of the samples
taken from two independent populations are equally large, a U Mann-Whitney test was used.
In order to verify whether the values of samples taken from three or more independent
populations are equal, ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis analysis was used. To check the relationships
between variables, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was also used (due to the fact
that the tested variables had a ranked character which was allocated during the testing).
Analyses were conducted at the level of statistical significance α = 0.05 when analysing the
relationship between the countries, and α = 0.001 for the examination of the relationships in
the entire studied population. To better illustrate the analysed phenomena and the relationship
between them, a scatter plot was also used.
The analysis presented in the paper focuses on three of the following research questions:
1. What is the current state of sustainability reporting in the selected EU Member States?
(What types of companies publish CSR reports? What types of report are these? According

123
404 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

to which guidelines are these reports prepared? Are the data in these reports subject to
external verification? What is the quality of these reports?)
2. What regional differences exist between sustainability reporting practices in those coun-
tries? (What are the differences between reports from selected countries, relating to the
level of CSR reporting - the amount of prepared reports and their quality?)
3. What are the quality differences between the mandatory and voluntary model of sustain-
ability reporting?
For each examined report, the following have been determined:
• company size, type and sector,
• type of report,
• whether or not the CSR report was verified by a third party,
• whether or not the CSR report was prepared according to the GRI guidelines,
• whether or not the company was a member of the UN Global Compact Initiative,
• whether or not the company had an obligation to prepare a CSR report, based on previ-
ous authors’ studies (Ha˛bek 2014, 2013; Wolniak and Ha˛bek 2013; Ha˛bek and Wolniak
2013b).

3.1 Data collection

The information about sustainability reports published in 2012 was obtained from the online
directory of sustainability reports—corporateregister.com. The study included separate CSR
reports, annual reports with CSR sections and integrated reports (financial and non-financial
information contained in a single document which shows their mutual impact). After a pre-
liminary analysis of the reports placed in the database, we proceeded to select for further
study only a part of them (see Table 1). The premise of the research was the evaluation of
CSR reports; therefore, the authors excluded from the study environment reports, UN GC
Communication on Progress which contained only general statements, citizenship plans, col-
lective industry reports, occupational safety and health (OHS) reports, and several pages of
brochures. The excluded reports would score too low in the assessment process, and for this
reason would not contribute to the overall conclusions. Additionally, several issues had an
impact on the final number of reports that underwent the evaluation process: repeats in the
database, and the fact that some companies ceased their activities. Only reports that were

Table 1 Number of reports admitted to the assessment compared with population of active enterprises in
selected EU member states
Country No. of reports in No. of reports finally Population of active
the database admitted to the assessment enterprises*

Denmark 94 39 218,082
France 297 62 2,977,599
Poland 41 25 1,983,731
Sweden 246 67 715,879
United Kingdom 650 254 2,027,600
The Netherlands 254 60 921,689
Total 1,582 507 8,844,580
* data according to: business demography by size class in 2011 (NACE Rev. 2), Eurostat, http://www.appsso.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=bd_9ac_l_form_r2&lang=en

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 405

published in English were selected for this study. The reports published in English, together
with those that were available with regard to the above considerations, finally gave a total of
507 CSR reports admitted to the study.

3.2 Assessment tool

The evaluation tool used in the study is intended to assess the quality of CSR reports and not
the CSR performance of the reporters. In other words, the quality of CSR reports equals the
quality of the information provided in these types of report. The quality of information, for
the purposes of this study, is defined as the relevance and credibility of the information.
To assess the quality of the CSR reports, 11 criteria have been identified in the category
of relevance of information, and six criteria in the category of credibility. The structure and
explanation of the quality assessment criteria is shown in Table 2.
For assessment processing purposes, a five-point scale was applied (from 0 to 4). Zero
points was given when a report contained no mention of information concerning individual
criteria; one point when there was some, but little mention; two points when the most impor-
tant aspects were included; three points when the report gave detailed information that was
better than average; and four points were given for best practices and a creative approach.

4 The current state of sustainability reporting in the selected EU countries

Although the number of companies publishing CSR reports has grown significantly in recent
years, it should be borne in mind that this number still constitutes a small share of the
population of active enterprises (likewise in EU countries—see Table 2). Five hundred and
seven reports from the selected EU Member States were evaluated in the study. Half of the
reports in the sample came from the United Kingdom, 13 % from Sweden, 12 % from France,
12 % from the Netherlands, 8 % from Denmark and 5 % from Poland.
Almost all of the examined reports were published by large companies. This situation
applies to all countries except Sweden, where among reporters there were five medium-sized
and two small enterprises. The largest number of reports in the sample was issued by listed
companies; in France as many as 90 % of the reports came from this group. State-owned
companies have the smallest share in the sample with only 3 %. In this case, Sweden also
stands out, as 13 % of reporters were state-owned companies (see Table 3). This is due to
mandatory requirements that came into force in Sweden from 1 January 2008. From that date,
all state-owned entities in Sweden are required to present an annual sustainability report based
on the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative. The reporters in the sample came from
different sectors. Most of them were from manufacturing (33 %), followed by information
and communication (11 %), transportation and storage (10 %), professional, scientific and
technical activities (10 %). Other sectors were represented at a level below 10 %. The sectors
in the study were classified according to the NACE rev. 2 nomenclature.
The vast majority of reports in the sample (80 %) were separate CSR reports. Nineteen
percent of reports were represented by annual reports with a section dedicated to CSR issues.
Most reports of this type were published in Sweden and the UK, accounting for 28 % of
Swedish and 26 % of UK reports. Integrated reports were the least represented in the sample.
Nearly half of the reports have been prepared in accordance with GRI guidelines, while only
25 % of studied reports were verified by an independent body (see Table 4).
Most of the externally verified reports were published in Denmark— 33 % of Danish
reports had undergone such verification, followed by the Dutch and Swedish, with 32 and

123
406 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

Table 2 Structure of an assessment tool

Assessment criteria Comments

Relevance of information
R1 Sustainability strategy The report presents the business strategy which
relates to the aspects of sustainable development
R2 Key stakeholders The report contains identification of organization’s
stakeholders, their expectations and a way of
engagement with individual groups
R3 Targets The report presents targets for the future, targets set
in the previous reporting period and the level of
their achievements
R4 Trends over time The report contains indicators shown over several
reporting periods indicating this way direction of
change and ensuring their comparability
R5, R6, R7, R8 Performance indicators: R5 The report contains quantitative information
market place, R6 concerning organization’s performance achieved
workplace, R7 in particular areas (market place, workplace,
environment, R8 environment, community).
community
R9 Improvement actions The report describes improvement activities
undertaken by the organization to meet the
objectives of sustainable development; e.g.
programs to increase resource efficiency, reduction
of emission etc.
R10 Integration with business The report contains information confirming that the
processes aspects of sustainable development are included in
the decision making process and implemented in
the basic processes (purchasing, sales, marketing,
production, etc.)
R11 Executive summary The report provides a concise and balanced
overview of key information and indicators from
the reporting period
Credibility of information
C1 Readability The report has a logical structure, uses a graphical
presentation of the data, drawings, and
explanations where required or uses other tools to
help navigate through the document
C2 Basic reporting principles The reporting period, scope and entity is defined in
the report as well as limitations and target audience
C3 Quality of data The report describes the processes, procedures of
collection, aggregation and transformation of data
and determines the source of the data
C4 Stakeholder dialogue The report contains a description of the
outcomes stakeholders’ dialogue and the results of this
dialogue in relation to aspects of sustainable
development (surveys, consultations, focus
groups, round tables, programs, engagement, etc.)
C5 Feedback The report contains a mechanism that allows
feedback process (contact point for suggestions or
questions, hotline, e-mail, reply card,
questionnaire etc.)
C6 Independent verification The report contains a statement of independent body
attesting the authenticity of data presented in the
report as well as proposals for future
improvements

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 407

Table 3 Company size and type in the sample

Company size Company type

Large Medium Small Listed Private State-owned Other

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Denmark 97 3 – 59 33 3 5
France 97 3 – 90 10 – –
Poland 100 – – 72 24 4 –
Sweden 89 8 3 75 10 13 2
United Kingdom 98 2 – 61 38 1 –
The Netherlands 100 – – 73 23 4 –
Total sample 97 2 1 68 28 3 1

30 %, respectively. In the sample, the most frequently chosen application level according to
GRI guidelines was B level (42 %). Twenty-four companies reported at level C and 19 in
accordance with the broadest reporting level— A. Not all companies reporting according to
GRI guidelines clearly declared their application level. Signatories of the Global Compact
Initiative represented 36 % of all reporters participating in the research.

5 Quality of sustainability reports

In order to assess and determine the relationship between the quality level of examined
sustainability reports and other variables, the authors aggregated the indicators related to
reporting practices. Two indicators were identified:
• R—relevance of information indicator,
• C—credibility of information indicator.
Indicators were specified using the arithmetic mean of sub-indicators constituting a given
indicator (R and C). The indicator of relevance consists of 11 sub-indicators and the indicator
of credibility consists of six sub-indicators (see Table 2). In the first step, individual indicators
were calculated for each of the analysed reports (Rr and Cr indicators).
R1 + R2 + · · · + R11
Rr = (1)
11
Rr—R indicator for particular sustainability report
C1 + C2 + · · · + C6
Cr = (2)
6
Cr—C indicator for particular sustainability report
Then, on this basis, values of the Rc, Cc, and Qc indicators were calculated for each
analysed country. Finally, the aggregate quality of the sustainability reports’ indicator for a
sample (Qs) was calculated, which is the arithmetic mean of the Rs and Cs indicators.
n
Rr
Rc = i=1 (3)
n
Rc—R indicator for particular country
n—number of reports in particular country

123
 408

123
Table 4 Characteristic of reports in the sample and in individual member state

Report type Reports prepared in accordance Reports with external Signatory to the UN
with GRI Guidelines (%) verification (%) Global Compact (%)

Separate (%) Annual with CSR Integrated (%)

section (%)

Denmark 82 13 5 54 33 79
France 94 5 1 39 27 52
Poland 88 8 4 80 16 48
Sweden 69 28 3 91 30 51
United Kingdom 73 26 1 34 21 19
The Netherlands 100 – – 57 32 40
Total sample 80 19 1 49 25 36
P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 409

n
i=1 Cr
Cc = (4)
n
Cc—C indicator for particular country
n—number of reports in particular country

Rc + Cc
Qc = (5)
2
Qc—Q indicator for particular country

m
i=1 Rc
Rs = (6)
m
Rs—R indicator for a sample
m—number of countries in a sample

m
i=1 Cc
Cs = (7)
m
Cs—C indicator for a sample
m—number of countries in a sample

Rs + Cs
Qs = (8)
2
Qs—Q indicator in the sample
Individual variables were assessed with a five-point scale from 0 to 4, where 4 represents
the highest level of the indicator. For all calculations in the paper, STATISTICA 10 software
was used.
The overall quality level of the 507 assessed reports was 1.56, wherein the relevance
of the information indicator was at a much higher level (1.76) compared to the credibility
of the information indicator which amounted to 1.36. This means that the relevance of the
information provided in the assessed reports is at a higher level than its credibility. Table 5
summarizes the values of the individual sub-indicators which make up the final value of
the quality indicator of CSR reports. The data collected in the table show that in terms of
the relevance of information, issues concerning sustainability strategy (R1) are highest rated
(2.06), followed by performance indicators related to organization’s activities in the areas
of workplace (R6, 2.02), and environment (2.13), while the R11 sub-indicator (executive
summary) is rated the lowest (0.89).
In the case of sub-indicators relating to the credibility of information, readability of the
report—C1—is highest rated (2.4). In most of the reports, information is provided clearly, has
a logical structure and is illustrated with graphical material. The problems of the assessed
reports are especially the lack of independent verification—C6 (0.71)—and the C5 sub-
indicator related to the feedback process (0.7). It turns out that the assessed reports very
rarely contain information that would allow stakeholders to contact the person responsible
for the development of the report.

123
410 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

Table 5 Sub-indicators of CSR reports quality

Sub-indicators Values of the individual Standard deviation

sub-indicators

R1 Sustainability strategy 2.06 1.12

R2 Key stakeholders 1.81 1.02
R3 Targets 1.99 1.15
R4 Trends over time 1.58 1.07
R5 Performance indicators: market place 1.69 0.95
R6 Performance indicators: workplace 2.02 0.87
R7 Performance indicators: environment 2.13 0.89
R8 Performance indicators: community 1.55 0.98
R9 Improvement actions 1.53 0.94
R10 Integration with business processes 1.73 1.02
R11 Executive summary 0.89 0.98
C1 Readability 2.40 0.84
C2 Basic reporting principles 1.54 1.07
C3 Quality of data 1.25 1.25
C4 Stakeholder dialogue outcomes 1.05 1.11
C5 Feedback 0.70 0.84
C6 Independent verification 0.71 1.28

Table 6 Relevance of information, credibility of information and quality of CSR reports indicators for indi-
vidual countries
Country Relevance of Credibility of Quality of CSR
information indicator information indicator reports indicator

Poland (N = 25) 1.59 1.25 1.42

Sweden (N = 67) 1.76 1.44 1.60
Denmark (N = 39) 1.48 1.28 1.38
United Kingdom (N = 254) 1.58 1.07 1.33
France (N = 62) 2.13 1.57 1.85
The Netherlands (N = 60) 2.01 1.60 1.81

5.1 Regional differences in quality of sustainability reports

The intention of the authors was also to identify differences in quality of sustainability reports
that exist among studied countries. Table 6 summarizes the values of individual indicators
(R, C and Q) for the studied reports in the selected countries. To examine whether among
these countries statistically significant differences occur in the quality of CSR reports, a
nonparametric ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis test was used at the statistical significance level of
α = 0.001. Calculations show that there are statistically significant differences among all
studied variables.
The results show that the highest level of quality indicator is represented by reports from
France (1.85) and the Netherlands (1.81), while the lowest level among the six studied
countries is represented by reports from United Kingdom (1.33). Taking into account the scale

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 411

Table 7 Sub-indicators of quality of CSR reports for individual countries

Sub-indicators Poland Sweden Denmark United Kingdom France The Netherlands

(N = 25) (N = 67) (N = 39) (N = 254) (N = 62) (N = 60)

R1 2.24 2.36 1.90 1.67 2.79 2.65

R2 2.40 2.06 1.36 1.61 2.19 2.02
R3 1.92 1.85 1.82 1.89 2.45 2.22
R4 1.40 1.84 1.36 1.21 2.39 2.23
R5 1.80 1.69 1.36 1.48 2.37 2.10
R6 1.88 1.99 1.79 1.93 2.31 2.32
R7 1.92 2.04 1.82 2.10 2.52 2.27
R8 1.44 1.06 1.03 1.47 2.24 2.08
R9 1.64 0.85 1.87 1.58 1.71 1.65
R10 2.32 2.00 2.10 1.83 1.26 1.05
R11 1.00 1.12 0.44 0.58 1.61 1.45
C1 2.28 2.63 2.33 2.29 2.61 2.47
C2 2.00 1.88 1.72 1.26 1.84 1.68
C3 1.28 1.27 1.38 0.69 2.32 2.35
C4 1.80 1.09 0.87 0.67 1.69 1.75
C5 1.04 0.73 0.64 0.80 0.35 0.48
C6 0.44 0.81 0.92 0.63 0.84 0.77

of assessment, according to which the reports were evaluated (0 to 4), it can be concluded
that the assessment process was rigorous for most of the reporters. None of the countries
has even reached a quality level of 2. Such a low average level of reporting proves that
generally there is space for quality improvement in sustainability reporting in all studied
countries.
Table 7 summarizes the values of individual sub-indicators for each of the analysed coun-
tries. To analyse differences between countries, a nonparametric ANOVA Kruskal-Wallis test
was used.
It turns out that among 13 variables (R1, R2, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R10, R11, C2, C3,
C4, C5) differences exist at a statistical significance level of α = 0.001. In most cases, sub-
indicators have a higher value in those countries where the aggregated quality of the report
indicator has a higher value. The exceptions include the following sub-indicators:

• R2—Polish reports are top rated for identification of organization’s stakeholders, their
expectations and the approach to engagement with individual groups (score 2.4);
• R9—a very low range of information on improvement activities is seen in the reports from
Sweden (score 0.85);
• R10—integration with business processes—a high rating is seen for Polish (2.32), Danish
(2.1) and Swedish (2) reports, and a low rating for Dutch (1.05) and French (1.26) reports;
• C2—developing a report according to the basic reporting practices is fulfilled at the highest
level by Polish reporters (score 2);
• C4—issues relating to stakeholders dialogue are also best described in Polish reports
(score 1.8);
• C6—the independent verification process is best described in Danish reports (score 0.92).

123
412 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

Table 8 Number of reports in

Country No. of reports No. of No. of reports per
selected countries and number of
enterprises million enterprises
reports per million enterprises
Poland 25 1,983,731 12.60
Sweden 67 715,879 93.59
Denmark 39 218,082 178.83
United Kingdom 254 2,027,600 125.27
France 62 2,977,599 20.82
The Netherlands 60 921,689 65.10

6 Level of sustainability reporting

We are witnessing a global trend in the development of business practices concerning report-
ing of sustainability issues. Europe is the leader in this field (GRI: Sustainability Reporting
Statistics 2013), but the level of companies’ disclosures varies across countries. Table 8 sum-
marizes the number of assessed reports for individual countries (we examined all reports from
those companies that published them), the number of active enterprises in selected countries
(based on business demography data from Eurostat), and calculates an index of published
reports per million enterprises.
Figure 1 shows a scatter plot of the relationship between the number of reports per million
enterprises and a quality indicator of sustainability reports. Between the variables, there is
no correlation; however, the graph helps to detect some regularity. We can distinguish two
groups of countries:
• countries with a high level of report quality combined with the low number of reports per
million enterprises—the Netherlands and France,
• countries with a low level of report quality combined with a large number of reports per
million enterprises—the United Kingdom and Denmark.
An exception in the analysis is Poland, a country that is characterized by both low quality
of reports and a low number of reports per million enterprises. When Poland is excluded from
the analysis (as a country in which few reports were published), correlation exists between
the variables of the other countries. There is a strong Spearman correlation (statistically
significant at the significance level of α = 0.05) between the number of published reports
per million enterprises and the quality of CSR report indicator. The value of the correlation
is -0.9. This means that in countries where sustainability reports are published by many
organizations, the level of their quality is much lower than in countries where such reporting
is much less common. The relationship is linear and strong. We can risk a statement that,
with the increase in the number of reporting enterprises in a country, the elite nature of this
type of practice is lost, which results in a decrease in the quality of these reports.

7 Mandatory and voluntary model of sustainability reports

In the European Union, despite the Modernization Directive, we can find different national
solutions relating to sustainability reporting practices. The authors wanted to find out what
the quality level of sustainability reports developed on both a mandatory and a voluntary
basis is in selected EU Member States.
Table 9 summarizes the R, C and Q indicators for reports developed on a voluntary and
mandatory basis in a sample. From 507 examined reports, 304 were from organizations

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 413

200

Denmark
180

160
Raports per milion of organisations

140
United Kingdom
120

100 Sweden

80
Netherlands
60

40

France
20 Poland

0
1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9
Q

Fig. 1 The relationship between the number of reports per million enterprises and the quality indicator of
sustainability reports (Q)

Table 9 Quality level and its

Indicators Mandatory report Voluntary report
components for mandatory and
(N = 304) (N = 203)
voluntary reports in a sample
Relevance of information 1.85 1.54
indicator
Credibility of information 1.38 1.11
indicator
Quality of CSR reporting 1.61 1.33
indicator

that are subject to mandatory disclosure of CSR data. The use of non-parametric U Mann-
Whitney test allows us to conclude that between the abovementioned indicators and the
reporting obligation a relationship exists at the level of statistical significance α = 0.001.
Reports of organizations that are not subject to mandatory reporting have lower-level quality
indicators than reports that are prepared on a mandatory basis. Voluntary reports achieve an
average quality level of 1.33 while mandatory reports a level of 1.61.
The authors also decided to examine whether a correlation relationship exists between
the quality of report indicator Q and the reporting obligation. As one of the variables is
an interval variable, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were used (Luszniewicz and
Słaby 2008; Rutkowska and Socha 2005). This interpretation is analogous to the classical
interpretation of correlation coefficients: it takes a value from < 0.1 >; the higher the value,
the higher correlation exists. It turns out that there is little correlation between the variables

123
414 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

Table 10 Number of voluntary

Country Voluntary report Mandatory report
and mandatory reports in
individual countries
Poland 25 0
Sweden 56 10
Denmark 0 39
UK 98 156
France 7 55
Netherlands 16 44

Table 11 Quality of CSR report

Country Voluntary report Mandatory report
indicator for voluntary and
mandatory reporting
Poland 1.64 –
Sweden 1.46 2.05
Denmark – 1.42
UK 1.12 1.4
France 1.44 1.93
Netherlands 1.54 1.88

(0.18), statistically significant at the significance level of α = 0.001. This means that the
legal obligation of CSR data disclosure has a positive effect on CSR reports’ quality.
Table 10 presents a summary of mandatory and voluntary reporting in the six examined
countries.
Data collected in the table show that in countries such as Denmark and France voluntary
reporting in general is not present, or is very rare. In the case of the United Kingdom, we deal
with the parallel occurrence of mandatory and voluntary reporting with a large predominance
of the first model. In Sweden, only 10 reports were prepared on a mandatory basis and in
Poland mandatory reporting does not occur at all. The data indicate that the analysed countries
differ greatly in this respect. There are countries where there are reports prepared only on
a mandatory basis, e.g., Denmark, and those in which we are dealing only with voluntary
reporting, e.g., Poland. As has been demonstrated previously, the quality level of mandatory
reports is higher compared with the quality level of voluntary reports. Solutions that are used
in individual countries explain the differences between the quality levels.
Table 11 summarizes the values of the quality of CSR report indicators for voluntary and
mandatory reports published in individual countries. The data indicate that in all countries
mandatory reporting is characterized by a higher level of quality reports in comparison with
the voluntary model. On this basis, we can risk a statement that the legal reporting obligations
in the area of CSR issues have an impact on the quality of published CSR reports.

8 Conclusions

This paper describes the analysis of the current state of sustainability reporting in the selected
EU Member States, including quality assessment of CSR reports, and points out national dif-
ferences as well as the differences between the mandatory and voluntary models of sustain-
ability reporting. The number of companies publishing CSR reports still constitutes a small
proportion of the active enterprises in the EU. The vast majority of sustainability reporters
in the studied sample are large listed companies (the example of Sweden stands out, where

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 415

there is also visible representation of reports prepared by small and medium enterprises as
well as state-owned companies). Nearly half of the reports have been prepared in accordance
with GRI guidelines. In Sweden, 91 % of the reports are being developed in accordance with
these guidelines (CSR reporting according to GRI guidelines is mandatory for stated-owned
companies in Sweden), while in the UK only 34 % are. External verification is not a popular
practice among reporters. Only 25 % of reports from the sample were externally verified,
which had a direct impact on the overall level of CSR reports’ quality.
According to the criteria used in the assessment process, the quality level of the studied
reports is generally low, and there is space for improvement in all studied countries. Referring
to the components of the quality indicator, the relevance of the information provided in the
assessed reports is at a higher level than its credibility. In terms of relevance of information, the
highest rated sub-indicators were sustainability strategy (2.06) and performance indicators (in
areas of the environment at 2.13 and the workplace at 2.02). In these areas, the most detailed
information was disclosed. The lowest rated sub-indicator was R11, executive summary
(0.89). Reporters in the study seemed not to recognize the benefits of the report’s summary.
A well-prepared executive summary is helpful (especially when a report contains a dozen or
more pages) and enables the readers to take on board essential information in a short period
of time. In most of the studied reports, such a summary was not provided.
In the case of the credibility of information, the highest rated sub-indicator was C1,
relating to the report’s readability (2.4). The lowest rated were sub-indicators C5, feedback
process (0.70), and C6, independent verification (0.71). The feedback should be designed
to improve the reporting process. Unfortunately, the assessed reports very rarely contain
information that would allow readers to contact the person responsible for the development
of the report or for the reader to express his or her opinion. This situation probably resulted
in a low score for the C4 sub-indicator (outcomes of stakeholder dialogue). If there is no
feedback mechanism, the dialogue with stakeholders is difficult or completely blocked. The
most worrying result relates to independent verification of the reports. Ensuring credibility
is a complex issue, especially bearing in mind the recent global financial crisis. There has
been a general sense of distrust regarding companies’ ability to self-regulate (Trustbarometer
2009) and a conviction that information disclosures made by companies are incomplete and
do not give an accurate picture of past results and future prospects (e.g., Kaplan and Norton
1992; Simnett et al. 2009). External verification is an important factor influencing report
credibility, but it is not a popular practice among reporters, as is also confirmed by this study.
The highest level of the quality indicator was achieved by reports from France (1.85)
and the Netherlands (1.81). Reflecting on these results, it should be mentioned that France
has already introduced national sustainability reporting requirements in annual reports since
2001. Additionally, Article 225 of Grenelle II, dated July 2010, arguably represents the
strongest stance yet taken by any country in requiring transparency from businesses on the
environmental, social and governance front (Ernst and Young 2012). The second-highest
quality level was achieved by reports from the Netherlands. This result could be affected
by several factors. Firstly, the Netherlands is one of the few countries which have a specific
(accountant) standard for assurance of sustainability reports - COS 3410 of the Royal NIVRA
(Wolniak and Ha˛bek 2013a; Ha˛bek and Wolniak 2013). Secondly, the Global Reporting
Initiative—the organization which pioneered the development of the world’s most widely
used sustainability reporting framework—is located in the Netherlands, which could affect
the level of sustainability reporting awareness in the country. Moreover, the Dutch government
supports reporting companies through initiating or participating in various initiatives aimed
at developing this type of reporting, e.g., Transparency Benchmark (Ha˛bek and Wolniak
2013a).

123
416 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

An interesting case in the study is the Polish reports. In Poland, as yet, few companies are
choosing to report on CSR performance. Reporters are mostly big companies. Poland is also
the only Member State in the sample in which additional mandatory requirements that go
beyond those arising from the transposition of the European Modernization Directive have
not yet been implemented. Despite this fact, the quality of Polish reports is higher than the
British and Danish reports. Moreover, Polish reports have been top rated in several assessment
criteria (R2, R10, C2, C4). These results could probably be explained by the fact that a
high percentage of Polish reports (80 %) were prepared according to the GRI sustainability
reporting framework. These guidelines help the user to build a reporting system. CSR reports
developed in accordance with the framework contain quantified and comparable data which
could affect the report’s quality (also understood in terms of credibility of disclosure).
The results of the research indicate that in countries where sustainability reports are
published by many organizations, for example in the UK and Denmark (number of reports
per million enterprises: 178.8 and 125.3, respectively), the level of their quality is lower than
in countries where such reporting is much less common, for example in France (20.8) and
the Netherlands (65.1). Reports from these latter two achieved the highest level of quality.
The possible explanation is that in countries where CSR reporting is not yet popular, it can be
perceived as an elite practice which enables the company to distinguish itself in the market.
In this case, the analysis could be broadened to include other factors that may have an impact
on this relationship. For example, a study could take into account the distinctive nature of
national business systems (liberal market economies versus coordinated market economies)
in Member States selected for the study, as well as the level of implementation of the CSR
concept in these countries.
The results of the study also indicate that the legal obligation of CSR data disclosure
has a positive effect on the quality of CSR reports. The reports in the sample developed
on a mandatory basis achieved a higher level of quality than voluntary reports. This means
that obligation of sustainability reporting is a factor affecting the quality of the reports, but
simultaneously we need to be aware that it is not the only one. We should bear in mind other
aspects. Some national regulations in this view indicate that the obligatory report should be
prepared according to an international standard or framework, or must be externally verified,
which also raises credibility. Thus, the construction of the regulation may also affect the
quality of the reports. Each country has its own individual policy for the development of
this type of reporting, which may additionally more or less support companies in developing
reports of high quality.
Presented in this paper is an assessment tool created for measuring the quality of CSR
reports which could be considered a practical implication of the study. This tool can help
those organizations which demonstrate willingness to conduct a self-assessment of their CSR
reports and/or improve their reporting process. The purpose of using this tool is to develop
reports of higher quality. Well-prepared report could also provide a valuable tool for social
responsibility management.
This study has some limitations. The authors analysed sustainability reports published
only in English and Polish (the latter is the authors’ mother tongue), but we have to bear
in mind that not all organizations are publishing these reports in English (the authors were
guided by the conviction that a report is able to reach a larger group of readers if it is published
in English). There are organizations which prepare such reports only in their mother tongue
and those have not been analysed. The second issue is the fact that the reporting obligation
usually does not require a separate form for the CSR report, and furthermore, most national
regulations in this regard refer to the integration of CSR data in organizations’ annual reports.
In the studied sample, a majority of reports were separate CSR reports. However, sometimes

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 417

a company integrates the issues of the CSR in its annual report, and additionally develops a
detailed, separate CSR report, but such information was not attainable by the authors. The
third limitation of the study is that there are companies that develop CSR reports regardless
of the existence of the reporting obligation, which makes it difficult to classify the report to
the voluntary or mandatory group.
The authors see some opportunities for future research. The research could focus on sus-
tainability reporting practices in the remaining European Union Member States. The study
could also refer to other factors that impact on the quality of sustainability reports (e.g., exter-
nal verification, basic reporting framework, managerial awareness or management practices).
It would also be interesting to investigate the impact of national financial, educational, labour
and cultural systems on patterns of sustainability reporting.

Acknowledgments This publication has been prepared under the project funded by the National Science
Centre Poland awarded on the basis of a decision number DEC 2011/03/B/HS4/01790.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which
permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source
are credited.

References

Abbott, W.F., Monsen, R.J.: On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: self-reported disclosures
as a measurement of corporate, social involvement. Acad. Manag. J. 22, 501–515 (1979)
Adams, C.A., Coutts, A., Harte, G.: Corporate equal opportunities (Non-) disclosure. Br. Acc. Rev. 27, 87–101
(1995)
Aguilera, R.V., Jackson, G.: The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: dimensions and determi-
nants. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 447–465 (2003)
Aguilera, R.V., Williams, C.A., Conley, J.M., Rupp, E.D.: Corporate governance and social responsibility: a
comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corp. Gov. 14, 147–158 (2006)
Azzone, G., Bertele, U.: Exploiting green strategies for competitive advantage. Long Range Plan. 27, 69–81
(1994)
Brammer, S., Pavelin, S.: Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 17, 120–136 (2008)
Campbell, D., Craven, B., Shrives, P.: Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on per-
ception and legitimacy. Account. Audit. Account. J. 16, 558–581 (2003)
Campbell, D.: Intra- and intersectoral effects in environmental disclosures: evidence for legitimacy theory?
Bus. Strat. Environ. 12, 357–371 (2003)
Campbell, J.L.: WhyWould corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of
corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 946–967 (2007)
Carrasco-Monteagudo, I., Buendía-Martínez, I.: Corporate social responsibility: a crossroad between changing
values, innovation and internationalization. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 7(3), 295–314 (2013)
Cerin, P.: Characteristics of environmental reporters on the OM Stockholm exchange. Bus. Strat. Environ. 11,
298–311 (2002)
Chen, S., Bouvain, P.: Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility report-
ing in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. J. Bus. Ethics 87(1), 299–317 (2009)
Clarke, J., Gibson-Sweet, M.: The use of corporate social disclosures in the management of reputation and
legitimacy: a cross sectoral analysis of UK Top 100 Companies. Bus. Ethics: A Eur. Rev. 8, 5–13 (1999)
Collison, D., Lorraine, N., Power, D.: An exploration of corporate attitudes to the significance of environmental
information for stakeholders. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 10, 199–211 (2003)
Daub, C.H.: Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: an alternative methodological approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 14(1), 75–85 (2007)
Davis, G., Searcy, C.: A review of Canadian corporate sustainable development reports. J. Glob. Responsib.
1(2), 316–329 (2010)
Delbard, O.: CSR legislation in France and the European regulatory paradox: an analysis of EU CSR policy
and sustainability reporting practice. Corp. Gov. 8, 397–405 (2008)

123
418 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

Dierkes, M.: Corporate social reporting in Germany: conceptual developments and practical experience.
Account. Organ. Soc. 4, 87–107 (1979)
Ernst & Young: Implications of the French Grenelle II law and Article 225 for US companies. http://www.
ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Frances_sustainability_law_to_impact_US_companies/$FILE/How_
Frances_new_sustainability_reporting_law.pdf (2012). Accessed 20 May 2014
Ertuna, B., Tükel, A.: Traditional versus international influences: CSR disclosures in Turkey. Eur. J. Int. Manag.
4(3), 273–289 (2010)
European Commission: Commission moves to enhance business transparency on social and environmental
matters. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_IP-13-330_en.htm (2013). Accessed 20 July 2014
European Commission: communication from the Commission concerning Corporate Social Responsibility: a
business contribution to sustainable development, COM 347 final. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0347:FIN:en:PDF (2002). Accessed 20 May 2014
European Commission: summary report of the responses received to the public consultation on disclo-
sure of non-financial information by companies, Directorate General for the internal market and ser-
vices. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2010/non-financial_reporting/summary_
report_en.pdf (2012). Accessed 20 May 2014
Fifka, M.S.: Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective: a review of
the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22, 1–35 (2013). doi:10.1002/bse.729
Fifka, M.S.: The development and state of research on social and environmental reporting in global comparison.
J. für Betriebswirtschaft 21, 45–84 (2012). doi:10.1007/s11301-012-0083-8
Freundlieb, M., Teuteberg, F.: Corporate social responsibility reporting: a transnational analysis of online
corporate social responsibility reports by market-listed companies: contents and their evolution. Int. J.
Innov. Sustain. Dev. 7(1), 1–26 (2013)
Gebauer, J., Hoffmann, E.: Evaluating extra-financial reporting: the case of the german ranking of sustainability
reports. J. Appl. Account. Res. 10, 224–234 (2009)
GjØlberg, M.: Measuring the immeasurable? Constructing an index of CSR practices and CSR performance
in 20 countries. Scand. J. Manag. 25, 10–22 (2009)
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., Lavers, S.: Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and
a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Account. Audit. Account. J. 8(2), 47–77 (1995)
GRI: (2012) https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Reporting-Trends-2011.pdf; The statistics
are from the Sustainability Disclosure Database and include information as at 19 April 2012. Accessed
20 May 2014
GRI: sustainability reporting statistics. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-Repor
ting-Trends-2011.pdf (2013). Accessed 20 May 2014
Gröjer, J.E., Stark, A.: Social accounting: a Swedish attempt. Account. Organ. Soc. 2, 349–385 (1977)
Ha˛bek, P., Wolniak, R.: Analysis of approaches to CSR reporting in selected European Union countries. Int.
J. Econ. Res. 4(6), 79–95 (2013a)
Ha˛bek, P., Wolniak, R.: European Union Regulatory Requirements Relating to Sustainability Reporting. The
case of Sweden. Sci. J. Marit. Univ. Szczecin 34, 40–47 (2013b)
Ha˛bek, P.: Analysis of the European Union Regulatory Requirements with Implications for Sustainability
Reporting. Annals of the University of Bucharest. Econ. Adm. Ser. 7(1), 23–42 (2013)
Ha˛bek, P.: Evaluation of sustainability reporting practices in Poland. Qual. Quan. 48(3), 1739–1752 (2014).
doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9871-z
Habisch, A., Patelli, L., Pedrini, M., Schwarz, C.: Different talks with different folks: a comparative survey of
stakeholder dialog in Germany, Italy, and the U.S. J. Bus. Ethics 100, 381–404 (2010)
Habisch, A., Jonker, J., Wegner, M. (eds.): Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe. Springer, Berlin
(2005)
Haddock, J.: Consumer influence on internet-based corporate communication of environmental activities: the
UK food sector. Br. Food J. 107, 792–805 (2005)
Hedberg, C.J., von Malmborg, F.: The global reporting initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in
Swedish companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 10, 153–164 (2003)
Holgaard, J.E., Jørgensen, T.H.: A decade of mandatory environmental reporting in Denmark. Eur. Environ.
15, 362–373 (2005)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-330_en.htm; Accessed 20 May 2014
Jackson, G., Apostolakou, A.: Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: an institutional mirror or
substitute? J. Bus. Ethics 94, 371–394 (2010)
Jamali, D., Sidani, Y., El-Asmar, K.: A three country comparative analysis of managerial CSR perspectives:
insights from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. J. Bus. Ethics 85, 173–192 (2009)
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 70
(January/February), 71–79 (1992).

123
Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports 419

Khanna, T., Palepu, K.: Strategies that fit emerging markets. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84, 60–69 (2006)
Kleine, A., von Hauff, M.: Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: application
of the integrative sustainability triangle. J. Bus. Ethics 85(3), 517–533 (2009)
Knopf, J. Kahlenborn, W., Hajduk, T., Weiss, D., Feil, M., Fiedler, R., Klein, J.: Corporate Social Responsi-
bility. National Public Policies in the European Union. European Commission. Directorate-General for
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Unit C2, Publications Office of the European Union, http://
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6716&langId=en (2011). Accessed 20 May 2014
Kolk, A.: Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring multinationals’ reporting prac-
tices. Bus. Strat. Environ. 17, 1–15 (2008)
Kolk, A.: Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Bus. Strat. Environ. 12, 279–291 (2003)
KPMG: The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013. KPMG International, https://www.
kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Documents/
corporate-responsibility-reporting-survey-2013-exec-summary.pdf (2013). Accessed 30 June 2014
Kuznetsov, A., Kuznetsova, O.: The role of stakeholders in shaping managerial perceptions of CSR in Russia.
Eur. J. Int. Manag. 4(3), 257–272 (2010)
Luszniewicz, A., Słaby, T.: Statystyka z pakietem komputerowym STATISTICA PL. Teoria i zastosowanie,
CH. H. Beck, Warszawa, 283–286 (2008)
Lydenberg, S., Rogers, J., Wood, D.: From transparency to performance. Industry: based sustainabil-
ity reporting on key issues, The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University
and initiative for responsible investment. http://hausercenter.org/iri/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/IRI_
Transparency-to-Performance.pdf (2010). Accessed 20 May 2014
Maignan, I., Ralston, D.A.: Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: insights from businesses’
self-representations. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 33(3), 497–514 (2002)
Martin, A.D., Hadley, D.J.: Corporate environmental non-reporting: a UK FTSE 350 perspective. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 17, 249–259 (2008)
Maruszewska, E.W.: Discussion about the importance of ethics in modern accounting, Conference Proceedings
SGEM. Int. Multidiscip. Sci. Conf. Soc. Sci. Arts 2014, 217–224 (2014)
Matten, D.A., Moon, J.: Implicit and explicit CSR, a conceptual framework for understanding of corporate
social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33, 404–424 (2008)
Midor K.: Ekonomia zrównoważonego rozwoju alternatywa˛ dla współczesnej gospodarki światowej, in: Sys-
temy wspomagania w inżynierii produkcji, (eds.) Witold Biały, Jan Kaźmierczak. Gliwice : Wydawnictwo
Pracowni Komputerowej Jacka Skalmierskiego, pp. 56–68 (2012)
Mio, Ch., Venturelli, A.: Non-financial information about sustainable development and environmental policy
in the annual reports of listed companies: evidence from Italy and the UK. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
Manag. 20(6), 340–358 (2013). doi:10.1002/csr.1296
Miska, C.H., Stahl, G.S., Mendenhall, M.E.: Intercultural competencies as antecedents of responsible global
leadership. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 7(5), 550–569 (2013)
Moore, G.: Corporate social and financial performance: an investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. J.
Bus. Ethics 34, 299–315 (2001)
Morhardt, J.E.: Corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting on the internet. Bus. Strat. Environ.
19, 436–452 (2010)
Muhammad, A., Cory, S., Paulo, S., David, K.: A review of Dutch corporate sustainable development reports.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 20(6), 321–339 (2013). doi:10.1002/csr.1284
Noronha, C., Tou, S., Cynthia, M.I., Guan, J.J.: Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: an overview
and comparison with major trends. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 20(1), 29–42 (2013). doi:10.
1002/csr.1276
O’Brien, D., Zong, L., Dickinson, H.: The reach and influence of social capital for career advancement and
firm development: elite managers and russia’s exit from socialism. Manag. Organ. Rev. 7(2), 303–327
(2011). doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00231.x
Pinar, F.A.: Social identification and altruism in diverse teams. Eur. J. Intern. Manag. 8(1), 55–72 (2014)
Quaak, L., Aalbers, T., Goedee, J.: Transparency of corporate social responsibility in Dutch Breweries. J. Bus.
Ethics 76, 293–308 (2007)
Rikhardsson, P.M., Andersen, A.J.R., Bang, H.: Sustainability reporting on the internet: a study of the Global
Fortune 500. Greener Manag. Int. 40, 57–75 (2002)
Rikhardsson, P.M.: Developments in Danish environmental reporting. Bus. Strat. Environ. 5, 269–272 (1996)
Robertson, D.C., Nicholson, N.: Expressions of corporate social responsibility in U.K. firms. J. Bus. Ethics
15, 1095–1106 (1996)
Rutkowska, L., Socha, J.: Statystyczna analiza danych z wykorzystaniem programu STATISTICA. Katedra
Dendrometrii, Kraków (2005)

123
420 P. Ha˛bek, R. Wolniak

Ryan, A., O’Malley, L., O’Dwyer, M.: Responsible business practice: re-framing CSR for effective SME
engagement. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 4(3), 290–302 (2010)
Schaltegger, S.: Information costs, quality of information and stakeholder involvement. Eco-Manag. Audit.
4(11), 87–97 (1997)
Schreuder, H.: Employees and the corporate social report: the Dutch case. The Account. Rev. 56, 294–308
(1981)
Sierra, L., Zorio, A., García-Benau, M.A.: Sustainable development and assurance of corporate social respon-
sibility reports published by Ibex-35 companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 20(6), 359–370
(2013). doi:10.1002/csr.1303
Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., Chua, W.F.: Assurance on sustainability reports: an international comparison.
Account. Rev. 84(3), 937–967 (2009)
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., Kourmousis, F.: Assessing non-financial reports according to the Global
Reporting Initiative guidelines: evidence from Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 18(5), 426–438 (2010)
Spence, C.: Social and environmental reporting and the corporate ego. Bus. Strat. Environ. 18, 254–265 (2009)
Stray, S., Ballantine, J.: A sectoral comparison of corporate environmental reporting and disclosure. Eco-
Manag. Audit. 7, 165–177 (2000)
Szewczyk, P., Bugla, P., Molenda, M.: Zrównoważony rozwój. Problemy Jakości 8, 33–35 (2003)
Tagesson, T., Blank, V., Broberg, P., Collin, S.O.: What explains the extent and content of social and envi-
ronmental disclosures on corporate websites: a study of social and environmental reporting in Swedish
listed corporations. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 16, 352–364 (2009)
Trustbarometer. Edelman. http://www.edelman.com/p/6-a-m/edelman-trust-barometer-2009-paradise-lost/
(2009). Accessed 14 February 2013
Welford, R., Gouldson, A.: Environmental Management and Business Strategy. Pitman, London (1993)
Welford, R.: Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development. Routledge, London (1995)
Wolniak, R., Ha˛bek, P.: CSR reporting in France and The Netherlands. Sci. J. Marit. Univ. of Szczecin 34,
91–96 (2013)

123