Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Normativity in Environmental Reporting: A Comparison of Three Regimes

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

Abstract

Normativity is assessed as we evaluate and compare the environmental reporting practices of a sample of French and Canadian companies through the lens of institutional legitimacy. More specifically, we examine how French and Canadian firms changed their reporting practices in reaction to the promulgation of laws and regulations in their respective countries, i.e., the NER and Grenelle II Acts in France, and National Instrument 51-102 and CSA Staff Notice NR 51-333, issued by the Canadian Securities Administrators. The firms’ voluntary disclosures according to GRI guidelines are also investigated. Substantive legitimacy theory is used to explore the level of substantive disclosures provided by Canadian and French firms. The findings reveal that the French parliamentary regime is more successful than the Canadian stock exchange regulation in triggering environmental reporting, and that the GRI combined with local regimes prompts environmental disclosures. Notwithstanding the improvements in environmental reporting under all three regimes, a very low level of substantive disclosure is noted in both countries.

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. We used the number of words in the full sustainability report since some categories such as strategy and analysis, and keys impacts, risks and opportunities, might be dealt with in various sections of the report rather than in a dedicated section on environmental issues.

  2. Although we obtained several years of data for the firms in each country, only the descriptive data for 2013 is presented for expediency (see Appendix 2).

  3. For expediency, the results of all the tests that analysed scores according to various characteristics are not tabulated.

  4. No French firms used the GRI guidelines in 2001.

References

  • Abdelzaher, D. M., & Abdelzaher, A. (2015). Beyond environmental regulations: Exploring the potential of “Eco-Islam” in boosting environmental ethics within SMEs in Arab Markets. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2833-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, W., & Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, W., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2006). Intra-industry imitation in corporate environmental reporting: An international perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 299–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albertini, E. (2014). A descriptive analysis of environmental disclosure: A longitudinal study of French companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 233–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alciatore, M. L., & Dee, C. C. (2006). Environmental disclosures in the oil and gas industry. Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 3, 49–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, B. E., & Gibbs, D. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA). (2013). Paragraph 47: International perspectives one year on. London: The Association of Chartered Accountants.

  • Baum, J., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Kirk, E. A., & Larrinaga, C. (2012). The production of normativity: A comparison of reporting regimes in Spain and the UK. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(2), 78–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., & Thy, C. (1999). Compulsory environmental reporting in Denmark: An evaluation. Social and Environmental Accounting, 19(2), 2–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, C., Dumay, J., & Frost, G. (2015). In pursuit of a “single source of truth”: From threatened legitimacy to integrated reporting. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2423-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., & Gelabert, L. (2015). Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C., Eugénio, T., & Ribeiro, J. (2008). Environmental disclosure in response to public perception of environmental threats: The case of co-incineration in Portugal. Journal of Communication Management, 12(2), 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—A dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, N. (1998). Environmental performance, legislation and annual report disclosure: The case of acid rain and Falconbridge. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(2), 163–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahan, S. F., & van Staden, C. J. (2009). Black economic empowerment, legitimacy and the value-added statement: Evidence from post-apartheid South Africa. Accounting and Finance, 49(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., Craven, B., & Shrives, P. (2003). Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: A comment on perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 558–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). (2004). National Instrument 51-102, Continuous Disclosure Obligations. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category5/rule_20040402_51-102-cont-disc-ob.pdf.

  • Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). (2009). About CSA. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from https://www.securities-administrators.ca/aboutcsa.aspx?id=77.

  • Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). (2010). CSA Staff notice 51-333—Environmental reporting guidance. Retrieved August 1, 2014, from https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category5/csa_20101027_51-333_environmental-reporting.pdf.

  • CGA Canada. (2005). Measuring up: A study of corporate sustainability reporting in Canada. Toronto: Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplier, J. (2014). EU to force large companies to report on environmental and social impacts. Guardian Sustainable Business. Retrieved November 26, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/eu-reform-listed-companies-report-environmental-social-impact.

  • Chauvey, J.-N., Giordano-Spring, S., Cho, C., & Patten, D. M. (2015). The normativity and legitimacy of CSR disclosure: Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 789–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chelli, M., Durocher, S., & Richard, J. (2014). France’s new economic regulations: Insights from institutional legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(2), 283–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. C., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization-society relationship: A theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 651–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H. (2009). Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: A French case study of Total S.A’.s Erika and AZF incidents. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 33–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Freedman, M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: A test of alternative theories. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(3), 486–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(4), 431–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4/5), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2001). A sustainable Europe for a better world. A European Union strategy for sustainable development. COM (2001), 264 final. Bruxelles: European Commission.

  • Criado-Jiménez, I., Fernández-Chulián, M., Husillos-Carqués, F. J., & Larrinaga-González, C. (2008). Compliance with mandatory environmental reporting in financial statements: The case of Spain (2001–2003). Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 245–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, C., & van Staden, C. J. (2006). Can less environmental disclosure have a legitimising effect? Evidence from Africa. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(8), 763–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2013). Back to basics: What do we mean by environmental (and social) accounting and what is it for? A reaction to Thornton. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(6), 448–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2014). An overview of legitimacy theory as applied within the social and environmental accounting literature. In J. Bebbington, J. Unerman, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability (pp. 248–272). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 26(3), 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1996). Do Australian companies objectively report environmental news? An analysis of environmental discloses by firms successfully prosecuted by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(2), 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Rankin, M. (1997). The materiality of environmental information to users of annual reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(4), 562–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Shelly, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities: Alternative perspectives about the need to legislate. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4), 499–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbard, O. (2008). CSR legislation in France and the European regulatory paradox: An analysis of EU CSR policy and sustainability reporting practice. Corporate Governance, 8(4), 397–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desjardins, J., & Willis, A. (2011). Environmental and social issues briefing. Toronto: The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44–56.

    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(April), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organisational legitimacy: Social values and organisational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 10(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, C. (2006). The not so clear-cut nature of organizational legitimating mechanisms in the Canadian forest sector. Business and Society, 4(3), 322–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, X., Jian, W., Zeng, Q., & Du, Y. (2014). Corporate environmental responsibility in polluting industries: Does religion matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 485–507.

    Article  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 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (1997). Sustainability reporting guidelines, version 1. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Sustainability reporting guidelines, version 3.1. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2014). Steps towards standardization. GRI Newsletter, June 4.

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2016a). About GRI. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from https://www.globalreporting.org/Information/about-gri/Pages/default.aspx.

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2016b). Sustainability disclosure database. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from http://database.globalreporting.org/.

  • Gray, R. (2013). Back to basics: What do we mean by environmental (and social) accounting and what is it for? A reaction to Thornton. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(6), 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability. Changes and challenges in corporate social reporting and environmental reporting. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haji, A. A., & Mohd Ghazali, N. A. (2012). The influence of the financial crisis on corporate voluntary disclosure: Some Malaysian evidence. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 9(2), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrasky, S. (2012). Carbon footprints and legitimation strategies: Symbolism or action? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 174–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics. (2002). IIIEE report (2002)—Corporate environmental reporting—Review of policy action in Europe. Retrieved July 28, 2014, from http://www.enviroreporting.com/others/cer_europe.pdf.

  • Islam, M. A., & Deegan, C. (2010). Media pressures and corporate disclosure of social responsibility performance information: A study of two global clothing and sports retail companies. Accounting and Business Research, 40(2), 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jindrichovska, I., & Purcarea, I. (2011). CSR and environmental reporting in the Czech Republic and Romania: Country comparison of rules and practices. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 10(2), 202–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Bach, S., & Clelland, I. (2007). Symbolic or behavioural management? Corporate reputation in high-emission industries. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga, C., Carrasco, F., Correa, C., Llena, F., & Moneva, J. (2002). Accountability and accounting regulation: The case of the Spanish environmental disclosure standard. European Accounting Review, 11(4), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., He, H., Liu, H., & Su, C. (2015). Consumer responses to corporate environmental actions in China: An environmental legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2807-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & McConomy, B. (1999). An empirical examination of factors affecting the timing of environmental accounting standard adoption and the impact on corporate valuation. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 14(3), 279–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. K. (1994, April). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York.

  • Llena, F., Moneva, J. M., & Hernandez, B. (2007). Environmental disclosures and compulsory accounting standards: The case of Spanish annual reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(1), 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., & Lindgreen, A. (2015). Reclaiming the child left behind: The case of corporate cultural responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4), 755–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 43(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G. (2011). Sustainability disclosure and reputation: A comparative study. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(2), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., & Patten, D. (2002). Securing environmental legitimacy: An experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 372–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mobus, J. (2005). Mandatory environmental disclosures in a legitimacy theory context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(4), 492–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moerman, L., & Van der Laan, S. (2005). Social reporting in the tobacco industry: All smoke and mirrors? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(3), 374–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organisations and Society, 23(3), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 344–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2003). The ponderous evolution of corporate environmental reporting in Ireland. Recent evidence from publicly listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(2), 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). (2009). OSC corporate sustainability reporting initiative. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category5/rule_20091218_51-717_mof-rpt.pdf.

  • Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). (2014). Comment letters for 51-102—Continuous disclosure obligation. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/24177.htm.

  • ORÉE. (2013). Reporting extra-financier—Première année d’application de l’article 225 de la loi Grenelle 2—Bilan et perspectives. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from http://cdurable.info/1ere-annee-d-application-de-l-Article-225-de-la-loi-Grenelle-2.html.

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2000). OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Othman, R., & Ameer, R. (2009). Corporate social and environmental accounting: Where are we heading? A survey of the literature. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 6(4), 298–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D., Gray, R., & Bebbington, J. (1997). Green accounting: Cosmetic irrelevance of radical agenda for change. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting, 4(2), 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting Organisations and Society, 17(5), 471–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8), 763–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, D. A. (2006). Raising the bar for CSR: Using regulatory tools for reporting to enhance corporate social responsibility activities. Doctoral dissertation, Royal Roads University, Canada.

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancick, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1157–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Cho, C. (2013). Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 877–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoker, A. D., & Sethi, S. P. (1974). An approach to incorporating social preferences in developing corporate action strategies. In S. P. Sethi (Ed.), The unstable ground: Corporate social policy in a dynamic society (pp. 67–80). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilling, M. W., & Tilt, C. A. (2010). The edge of legitimacy: Voluntary social and environmental reporting in Rothmans’ 1956–1999 annual reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(1), 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues—Reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., & Chapman, C. (2014). Academic contributions to enhancing accounting for sustainable development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 385–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Staden, C. J., & Hooks, J. (2007). A comprehensive comparison of corporate environmental reporting and responsiveness. British Accounting Review, 39(3), 197–210.

    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 

  • Williamson, D., & Lynch-Wood, G. (2008). Social and environmental reporting in UK company law and the issue of legitimacy. Corporate Governance, 8(2), 128–140.

    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 

  • Wolniak, R. (2013). The role of Grenelle II in corporate social responsibility integrated reporting. Manager, 18, 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Telfer School of Management Research Fund of the University of Ottawa, the Corporate Reporting Chair of the Université du Québec à Montréal, and the Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Toulouse Business School, Université de Toulouse, 20, Bd Lascrosses, BP 7010, 31068, Toulouse Cedex 7, France

    Mohamed Chelli

  2. Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier East, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Sylvain Durocher

  3. Department of Accounting, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada

    Anne Fortin

Authors
  1. Mohamed Chelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sylvain Durocher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Fortin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Fortin.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 8.

Table 8 Scoring grid
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 9.

Table 9 Firm characteristics for 2013
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chelli, M., Durocher, S. & Fortin, A. Normativity in Environmental Reporting: A Comparison of Three Regimes. J Bus Ethics 149, 285–311 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3128-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3128-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation