The increased focus on environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) (ESG) disclosure has become a necessary step toward the integration of sustainability practices into firms’ culture to meet the expectations of stakeholders. The social and environmental implications of firm activities on the environment and surrounding communities have led to the growing demand for useful non-financial information. This paper investigates the impacts of the board’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy and CSR orientation, GRI, and the country–cultural dimensions, based on Hofstede’s measures of ESG disclosure practices within Europe. Using a European dataset from Bloomberg and Refinitiv Eikon, this paper adopts a quantitative research methodology to test the research hypotheses through a statistical analysis of 7840 observations from European companies to analyze the extent of the relationship between micro- and macro-variables and the disclosure of company ESG. Our findings suggest that both board CSR orientation and strategy and the GRI have positively and significantly affected the overall disclosure of ESG practices within Europe. When examining country–cultural dimensions, we find that individualism and feminine cultures are positively associated with increased levels of ESG disclosure. Our findings shed light on factors affecting ESG disclosure practices within Europe and could be of interest to companies, policy makers, and other stakeholders.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a multidimensional model for assessing the quality of corporate environmental reporting (CER) incorporating both preparer- and user-based views. Design/methodology/approach: As opposed to frequently used researcher-chosen proxies, the authors used an online questionnaire asking preparers and users how they assess the quality of a company’s environmental report. Findings: The analysis of the responses of 177 users and 86 preparers shows that quantity was not perceived as the most significant element in determining quality. Besides quantity, the respondents also perceived information types, measures used, themes disclosed, adopting reporting guidelines, inclusion of assurance statement and the use of visual tools as significant dimensions/features of reporting quality. Research limitations/implications: The online questionnaire has some limitations, especially in terms of researcher being absent to clarify meanings and, hence, possibilities that respondents may misinterpret the questionnaire elements. Practical implications: Considering that robust, reliable measurement of reporting quality is difficult, preparers, standard setters and policy makers need multidimensional quality models that incorporate both users’ perceptions of quality and preparers’ pragmatic understanding of the quality delivery process. These will make the preparers informed of whether their disclosure may be falling short of users’ expectations. Originality/value: Amid, increasing complexity of CER, the research contributes to the growing body of literature on assessing the quality of CER by developing a less subjective, multidimensional, preparer–user-based quality model. This innovative quality model goes beyond the traditional quality models, subjective author-based quality measures. Focussing on the three dimensions of reporting quality – content, credibility and communication – it also offers a high-level resolution of meaning of CER quality.