Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Do Firms Comply with International Sustainability Standards? Processes and Consequences of Adopting the Global Reporting Initiative

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses the issue of the influence of global governance institutions, particularly international sustainability standards, on a firm’s intra-organizational practices. More precisely, we provide an exploratory empirical view of the impact of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) on a multinational corporation’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) management practices. We investigate standard compliance by comparing the stated intention of the use of the GRI with its actual use and the consequent effects within the firm. Based on an in-depth case study, our findings illustrate the processes and consequences of the translation of the GRI within the organization. We show that substantive standard adoption can lead to unintended consequences on CSR management practices; specifically it can influence the management structure and CSR committee function; the choice of CSR activities, the relationships between subsidiaries, the temporal dimension of CSR management and the interpretation of CSR performance. We also highlight the need to look at the relationship dynamics (or lack of) between standards. Finally, we illustrate and discuss the role of reporting and its influence on management in order to better understand the internal issues arising from compliance with standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. North Co. is a pseudonym.

  2. This is the case in the GRI G3.1 guidelines, followed at the time of the research. The new G4 guidelines, launched in 2013 and not yet implemented in firms, have dropped the application level information.

References

  • Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forum, 32(4), 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aravind, D., & Christmann, P. (2011). Decoupling of standard implementation from certification: Does quality of ISO 14001 implementation affect facilities’ environmental performance? Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 73–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arevalo, J. A., Aravind, D., Ayuso, S., & Roca, M. (2013). The Global Compact: An analysis of the motivations of adoption in the Spanish context. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvidsson, S. (2010). Communication of corporate social responsibility: A study of the views of management teams in large companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, B. S. (2010). Governing the global corporation: A critical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartley, T. (2007). Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: The rise of transnational private regulation of labor and environmental conditions. American Journal of Sociology, 113(2), 297–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnam, M., & MacLean, T. L. (2011). Where is the accountability in international accountability standards?: A decoupling perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2007). Corporate greening through ISO 14001: A rational myth? Organization Science, 18(1), 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2012). ISO certificates as organizational degrees? Beyond the rational myths of the certification process. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 633–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondy, K., Moon, J., & Matten, D. (2012). An institution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multi-national corporations (MNCs): Form and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxenbaum, E. (2006a). Corporate social responsibility as institutional hybrids. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxenbaum, E. (2006b). Lost in translation. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 939–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxenbaum, E., & Strandgaard Pedersen, J. (2009). Scandinavian institutionalism: A case of institutional work. In T. B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organization (pp. 178–204). Cambridge, MA: University of Cambridge Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (2011). The essence of responsive regulation. UBC Law Review, 44(3), 475–520.

  • Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Lessidrenska, T. (2009a). The rise of Global Reporting Initiative as a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, 18(2), 182–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009b). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N., Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2012). The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 613–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2006). Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: Determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 863–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, J. (2005). Global environmental governance for corporate responsibility and accountability. Global Environmental Politics, 5(3), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coupland, C. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as argument on the web. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 13–48). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2011). An institutional perspective of the diffusion of international management system standards: The case of the environmental management standard 14001. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 103–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M.-L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2006). Introduction: A world of governance: The rise of transnational regulation. In M.-L. Djelic & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation (pp. 1–28). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., & Hwang, H. (2006). Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. B. (1990). Legal environments and organizational governance: The expansion of due process in the American workplace. American Journal of Sociology, 95(6), 1401–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. B., & Talesh, S. A. (2011). To comply or not to comply—That isn’t the question: How organizations construct the meaning of compliance. In C. Parker & V. L. Nielsen (Eds.), Explaining compliance: Business responses to regulation (pp. 103–122). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21(5), 1092–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting. Management International Review, 51(5), 665–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel, M. (2005). The politics of translation: How state-level political relations affect the cross-national travel of management ideas. Organization, 12(2), 275–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., & Herrbach, O. (2006). Social reporting as an organisational learning tool? A theoretical framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(4), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2011a). About GRI. https://www.globalreporting.org/information/about-gri/Pages/default.aspx.

  • GRI. (2011b). Application level information. https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/reporting-framework-overview/application-level-information/Pages/default.aspx.

  • GRI. (2011c). Sustainability reporting guidelines G3.1. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf.

  • GRI. (2013). Sustainability reporting guidelines—G4. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf.

  • Haack, P., Schoeneborn, D., & Wickert, C. (2012). Talking the talk, moral entrapment, creeping commitment? Exploring narrative dynamics in corporate responsibility standardization. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 815–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, C.-J., & von Malmborg, F. (2003). The Global Reporting Initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Boiral, O. (2013). ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a research agenda on management system standards*. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. (2007). Social reporting and new governance regulation: The prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(3), 453–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. (2008). An analysis of corporate social responsibility at credit line: A narrative approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson, B., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2006). Dynamics of soft regulations. In M.-L. Djelic & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation (pp. 247–265). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. J. (2008). Globalization, transnational corporations and the future of global governance. In A. G. Scherer & G. Palazzo (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship (pp. 249–272). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals’ reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2011). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. http://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/CSR%20Survey%202011.pdf.

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. In D. D. Bergh & D. J. Ketchen (Eds.), Building methodological bridges. Research methodology in strategy and management (pp. 201–235). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D., & Jordana, J. (2005). Regulatory capitalism: Policy irritant and convergent divergence. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 191–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L., Brown, H. S., & de Jong, M. (2010). The contested politics of corporate governance. Business and Society, 49(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L., & Kaplan, R. (2007). CSR and theories of global governance: Strategic contestation in global issue arenas. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of CSR (pp. 432–451). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, R., & Rebernak, K. (2007). Closing the credibility gap: The challenges of corporate responsibility reporting. Environmental Quality Management, 16(4), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D. & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

  • McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30(2), 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2011). Corporations and citizenship in new institutions of global governance. In C. Crouch & C. Maclean (Eds.), The responsible corporation in a global economy (pp. 203–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaeva, R., & Bicho, M. (2011). The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 136–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C., & Nielsen, V. L. (2011). Explaining compliance: Business responses to regulation. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Batres, L., Doh, J., Miller, V., & Pisani, M. (2012). Stakeholder pressures as determinants of CSR strategic choice: Why do firms choose symbolic versus substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct? Journal of Business Ethics, 110(2), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A. (2009). Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards: The case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(4), 192–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinecke, J., Manning, S., & von Hagen, O. (2012). The emergence of a standards market: Multiplicity of sustainability standards in the global coffee industry. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 791–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. (2005). Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 218–224). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 505–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2002). Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D., Power, D., & Klassen, R. (2012). When one size does not fit all: A problem of fit rather than failure for voluntary management standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1), 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slager, R., Gond, J.-P., & Moon, J. (2012). Standardization as institutional work: The regulatory power of a responsible investment standard. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 763–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotorrío, L. L., & Sánchez, J. L. F. (2010). Corporate social reporting for different audiences: The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(5), 272–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toppinen, A., & Korhonen-Kurki, K. (2013). Global Reporting Initiative and social impact in managing corporate responsibility: A case study of three multinationals in the forest industry. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(2), 202–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oosterhout, J. (2010). The role of corporations in shaping the global rules of the game. In search of new foundations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2010). The private regulation of global corporate conduct: Achievements and limitations. Business and Society, 49(1), 68–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2007). On CERES, the GRI and Corporation 20/20. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 26, 38–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, A. (2003). The role of the Global Reporting Initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zambon, S., & Del Bello, A. (2005). Towards a stakeholder responsible approach: The constructive role of reporting. Corporate Governance, 5(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilber, T. B. (2006). The work of the symbolic in institutional processes: Translations of rational myths in Israeli high tech. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 281–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Laurence Vigneau

  2. University of Durham, Durham, UK

    Michael Humphreys

  3. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jeremy Moon

Authors
  1. Laurence Vigneau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Humphreys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurence Vigneau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vigneau, L., Humphreys, M. & Moon, J. How Do Firms Comply with International Sustainability Standards? Processes and Consequences of Adopting the Global Reporting Initiative. J Bus Ethics 131, 469–486 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2278-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2278-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation