Sustainability Reporting and Organisational Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between sustainability reporting and four factors named as industry, size, ownership type and organisation perspective through the lenses of multiple theories (institutional theory, stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and theory of planned behaviour). We surveyed 240 Australian and New Zealand companies and asked them about the status of their sustainability reporting as well as their perceptions regarding the importance of sustainability indicators. We used the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators to develop the survey. From an ownership perspective, the results show that companies belonging to the public sector report more sustainability information compared with the private sector. However, from an industry perspective, there were no statistically significant differences between environmentally sensitive and non-environmentally sensitive industries in terms of the content of their sustainability reporting. The results further show that the size of a company does not influence the content of sustainability reporting, but larger firms tend to provide more details in their reports. The results also show a positive relationship between sustainability reporting and organisation perspective (in terms of the level of importance of the GRI indicators). This study contributes to the sustainability literature and reporting theories. Moreover, the results have several implications for managers and promoters of the GRI for improving the adoption of the GRI guidelines and increasing the level of sustainability reporting to amplify the company’s image. The results also allow for effective government policy development through understanding what motivates companies to disclose environmental and social-related activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".