This article provides a critique of the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) guidelines, sustainability reporting (SR) guidelines and also examines their applicability to public and third sector organizations. The article finds that these guidelines promote a ‘managerialist’ approach to sustainability rather than an ecological and eco-justice informed approach, potentially causing them to fall into an evaluatory trap. This means that they do not contribute to sustainability. Since public and third sector organizations have yet to take up SR with the same fervour as the private sector, the opportunity exists to learn from the critique of the use of the GRI reports in practice. As such this article examines the implications of this finding for public and third sector organizations. A conclusion is that there is an opportunity for the GRI to develop guidelines further in line with existing practice to increase their relevance and utility.

Recent research on social and environmental (SE) reporting has focused on corporations, rather than public sector agencies. Also, there has been little interest in ascertaining the views of preparers of accounts regarding SE reporting. This study analysed why a group of “better practice” organisations reported on SE matters. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with key preparers in the various organisations and found that their reporting was informed by the latest GRI and aimed at mostly internal stakeholders. The annual report was only one of the media used for disclosure and adoption was driven by a key individual in the organisation.10 page(s

The terms “corporate social responsibility” (CSR), “sustainability”, “sustainable development” and “corporate sustainability” (CS) are critical terms for developing, analysing and evaluating public and private policy goals. These terms are used to make decisions about investment, policy development, and strategy creation. The terms emerged in different fields of endeavour at different points in time. Accordingly, they have different meanings; however, over time they have come to be used interchangeably mixing up policy agendas, confusing managers, regulators, activists and the public at large. We demonstrate that CSR is the best term for focusing on individual business organisations, “corporate sustainability” is an organisation level environmental policy, “sustainable development” is a public policy, and “sustainability” is the broadest term encompassing global local and organisational levels.

Purpose: This paper examines the gap between reporting and managers’ behaviour to challenge the current theoretical underpinnings of intellectual capital (IC) disclosure practice and research. The authors explore how the key features from IC and integrated reporting can be combined to develop an extended model for companies to comply with EU Directive 2014/95/EU and increase trust in corporate disclosures and reports. Design/methodology/approach: This essay relies on academic literature and examples from practice to critique the theories that explain corporate disclosure and reporting but do not change management behaviour. Based on this critique, the authors argue for a change in the fundamental theories of stewardship to frame a new concept for corporate disclosure incorporating using a multi-capitals framework. Findings: We argue that, while the inconsistency between organisations’ reporting and behaviour persists, increasing, renewing or extending the information disclosed is not enough to instil trust in corporations. Stewardship over a company’s resources is necessary for increasing trust. The unanticipated consequences of dishonest behaviour by managers and shareholders compels a new application of stewardship theory that works as an overarching guide for managerial behaviour and disclosure. Emanating from this new model is a realisation that managers must abandon agency theory in practice, and specifically the bonus contract. Research limitations/implications: We call for future empirical research to explore the role of stewardship theory within the dynamics of corporate disclosure using the approach. The research implications of those studies should incorporate the potential impacts on management behaviours within a stewardship framework and how those actions, and their outcomes, are disclosed for rebuilding public trust in business. Practical implications: The implications for integrated reporting and reports complying with the new EU Directive are profound. Both instruments rely on agency theory to coax managers into reducing information asymmetry by disclosing more. However, agency theory only re-affirms the power managers have over corporate information. It does not change their behaviour, nor to act in the interest of all stakeholders as the stewards of an organisation’s resources. Social implications: We advocate that, in business education, greater emphasis is needed on how stewardship has a more positive impact on management behaviour than agency, legitimacy and stakeholder theories. Originality/value: We reflect on the current and compelling issues permeating the international landscape of corporate reporting and disclosure and explain why current theories which explain corporate disclosures do not change behaviour or engender trust in business and offer an alternative disclosure model based on stewardship theory.

The article is located in the social and environmental accounting research (SEAR) literature. A considerable body of work in the SEAR literature investigates the accounting and management practices and motives of businesses that report on their social, environmental or sustainability impacts. The potential value that researchers might derive in turning their attention to public services, social, environmental or sustainability practices, however, has been largely overlooked. The main objective of the article is to review relevant literature and ideas concerning accounting and accountability as key processes in advancing sustainability practices. The article also reviews the contributions to this PMR Special Issue and draws several conclusions.