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.

This paper considers the anti-corruption disclosure reporting of the large UK-quoted extractive companies from 2003 to 2019. This period includes the introduction of the 2010 UK Bribery Act, which might be expected to influence corporate disclosure. It takes content analysis metrics from the environmental reporting literature, which is a more developed area of research, and considers an area with a higher volume of corporate disclosures. It applies these metrics to investigate the trends in corruption reporting over time and the impact of the introduction of the Act on reporting breadth and depth. We find that some of the metrics would appear to add more insight than others in this new context. We conclude that the volume of reporting has grown over time, but this would seem to be in breadth, more questions addressed rather than more depth to the answers given. There has been a step-change in reporting since the introduction of the Act, though concluding whether this has increased quality may depend on your perspective and interest as a user of the information.