Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Uncommitted Deliberation? Discussing Regulatory Gaps by Comparing GRI 3.1 to GRI 4.0 in a Political CSR Perspective

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

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the two Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting standards, G3.1, and the most current version G4.0. We do this through the lens of political corporate social responsibility (CSR) theory, which describes the broadened understanding of corporate responsibility in a globalized world building on Habermas’ notion of deliberative democracy and ethical discourse. As the regulatory power of nation states is fading, regulatory gaps occur as side effects of transnational business. As a result, corporations are also understood to play a “political role” to fill regulatory gaps and contribute to a global governance system by voluntarily engaging in self-regulation. Such corporate political action, however, is not always legitimate as it suffers from a democratic deficit (corporations/managers are not democratically elected or controlled). Consistent with scholars in the field of political CSR, this paper argues that only by means of communication and discourse can this drawback be avoided. That is why CSR reporting and guidelines for standardizing the disclosed CSR information is key for political CSR. By comparing the GRI standards from a political CSR perspective, one can see whether these often-used reporting guidelines fulfill the communicative requirements and whether they are adequate tools to face the challenges of the twenty-first century. We present results from a theory-derived and criteria-driven comparison of the two guidelines. Indication of the effectiveness of voluntary self-regulation is, for example, important considering the 2014 directive of the European Union to make CSR reporting mandatory. We offer a guideline-based view on current CSR theory as well as CSR reporting practice. We discuss implications for CSR theory, particularly the appropriateness of (idealized) deliberation in the Habermasian sense, which is the basis of political CSR theory. We do so by introducing the notion of “uncommitted deliberation” with regard to the refined concept of materiality in GRI 4.0, which induces subjectivity and reduces data-driven comparability. Finally, we address the limitations of this research as well as research questions for future studies.

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

References

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2014). A critical perspective on corporate social responsibility: Towards a global governance framework. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 10(1/2), 84–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann-Pauly, D., & Scherer, A. G. (2013). The organizational implementation of corporate citizenship: An assessment tool and its application at UN Global Compact participants. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L. G., & Scherer, A. G. (2013). Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 693–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A. K., Brown, J. A., & Shabana, K. M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. Mc Williams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 327–345). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Bouvain, P. (2009). Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cominetti, M., & Seele, P. (2016). Hard soft law or soft hard law? A content analysis of CSR guidelines typologized along legal status. uwf. UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 24(2), 127–140. doi:10.1007/s00550-016-0425-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., Palazzo, G., & Spence, L. (2014). Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance: Minding the credibility gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F., Rehbein, K., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Kooijmans-van Lankveld, H. (2014). Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 793–810.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingwerth, K., & Eichinger, M. (2010). Tamed transparency: How information disclosure under the Global Reporting Initiative fails to empower. Global Environmental Politics, 10(3), 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrnström-Fuentes, M. (2015). Delinking legitimacies: A pluriversal perspective on political CSR. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/joms.12173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elving, W., & Steenhuis, V. (2014). I have deliberately misled? About logos on food products and the impact on skepticism and purchase intent. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, 42(2), 100–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. (2014). Non-financial reporting. http://ec.europa.eu/finance/accounting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm (22.03.15).

  • Fifka, M. S. (2013). Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective—A review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, A. (2010). Barriers to strengthening the Global Reporting Initiative framework: Exploring the perceptions of consultants, practitioners, and researchers. In Trabajo presentado en Accountability Through Measurement: 2nd National Canadian Sustainability Indicators Network Conference. Toronto. http://www.csin-rcid.ca/downloads/csin_conf_alberto_fonseca.pdf.

  • Fung, A. (2003). Deliberative democracy and international labor standards. Governance, 16(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (n.d.-a). Information. Current priorities. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/information/current-priorities/Pages/default.aspx.

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (n.d.-b). Stakeholder inclusiveness. Retrieved from https://g4.globalreporting.org/how-you-should-report/reporting-principles/principles-for-defining-report-content/stakeholder-inclusiveness/Pages/default.aspx.

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (n.d.-c). Reporting. Reporting support. XBRL. Retrieved from https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/reporting-support/xbrl/Pages/default.aspx.

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (n.d.-d). Materiality. Retrieved from https://g4.globalreporting.org/how-you-should-report/reporting-principles/principles-for-defining-report-content/materiality/Pages/default.aspx.

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

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2013a). Annual activity review 2012/13. From information to transformation: The next step in sustainability reporting. Amsterdam.

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2013b). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Reporting principles and standard disclosures. Amsterdam.

  • Guler, I., Guillén, M. F., & Macpherson, J. M. (2002). Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1993). Remarks on discourse ethics. Justification and applications (pp. 19–111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2001). The postnational constellation. Political essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Weidtmann, C. (2016). Transnational governance, deliberative democracy, and the legitimacy of ISO 26000: Analyzing the case of a global multistakeholder process. Business and Society, 55(1), 90–129.

    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 

  • Hess, D. (2008). The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: Disclosure, dialogue, and development. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 447–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, K., Subramaniam, N., & Stewart, J. (2009). Assurance of sustainability reports: Impact on report users’ confidence and perceptions of information credibility. Australian Accounting Review, 19(3), 178–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IIRC - International Integrated Reporting Council. (2013). The international <IR> framework. Retrieved from http://www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf.

  • Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2015). Managing materiality: A preliminary examination of the adoption of the new GRI G4 guidelines on materiality within the business community. Journal of Public Affairs. doi:10.1002/pa.1586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junior, R. M., Best, P. J., & Cotter, J. (2014). Sustainability reporting and assurance: A historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knebel, S., & Seele, P. (2015). Quo vadis GRI? A (critical) assessment of GRI 3.1 A+ nonfinancial reports and implications for credibility and standardization. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(2), 196–212. doi:10.1108/CCIJ-11-2013-0101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2004). A decade of sustainability reporting: Developments and significance. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 51–64.

    Article  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 

  • Kolk, A. (2010). Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG International. (2013a). GRI’s G4 guidelines: The impact on reporting. Retrieved from https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/g4-the-impact-on-reporting-v2.pdf.

  • KPMG International. (2013b). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2013. Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Documents/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2013.pdf.

  • Lautermann, C., & Pfriem, R. (2011). Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung. In R. Pfriem (Ed.), Eine neue Theorie der Unternehmung für eine neue Gesellschaft (pp. 207–232). Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leins, S., Seele, P., & Vogel, F. (2016). Greenwashing in Islamic finance? An analysis of Islamic private banks’ non-financial reports and a proposal for an “Islamic Reporting Initiative” standard. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, 3, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L., & Kaplan, R. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and theories of global governance. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 432–451). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D. L., Szejnwald Brown, H., & de Jong, M. (2009). The contested politics of corporate governance: The case of the Global Reporting Initiative. Business and Society, 49(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2005). Global business citizenship and voluntary codes of ethical conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1/2), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkinen, J., & Kasanen, E. (2015). In defense of a regulated market economy. Journal of Global Ethics, 11, 1. doi:10.1080/17449626.2015.1004464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkinen, J., & Kourula, A. (2012). Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 649–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marimon, F., del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M., del Pilar Rodríguez, M., & Cortez Alejandro, K. A. (2012). The worldwide diffusion of the global reporting initiative: What is the point? Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 132–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1), 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, M. W., Jorna, R. J., & Engelen, J. V. (2008). Sustainability quotients and the social footprint. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15, 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(3), 527–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueckenberg, U., & Jastram, S. (2010). Transnational norm-building networks and the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaeva, R., & Bicho, M. (2010). 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 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2008). The future of global corporate citizenship: Toward a new theory of the firm as a political actor. In A. G. Scherer & G. Palazzo (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship (pp. 577–590). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006). Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 3(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Baumann-Pauly, D., & Schneider, A. (2012). Democratizing corporate governance: Compensating for the democratic deficit of corporate political activity and corporate citizenship. Business and Society, 52(3), 473–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Globalization and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 413–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    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 

  • Schultz, F., Morsing, M., & Castello, I. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 681–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organization (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seele, P. (2016). Digitally unified reporting: How XBRL-based real-time transparency helps in combining integrated sustainability reporting and performance control. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 66–77. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seele, P., & Gatti, L. (2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation-based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 239–252. doi:10.1002/bse.1912.

  • Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2015). Deliberative and/or instrumental? A Typology of CSR communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 401–414. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2282-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R. (2011). Will integrated reporting deliver value or values? Retrieved from http://www.ethix.se/content/article-will-integrated-reporting-deliver-value-or-values.

  • ToO. (2015). Oman’s market-regulator unveils new draft code of corporate governance. Times of Oman: http://timesofoman.com/article/50279/Business/Oman’s-market-regulator-unveils-new-draft-code-of-corporate-governance (20160726).

  • Van Oosterhout, J. 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 

  • Vigneau, L., Humphreys, M., & Moon, J. (2014). How do firms comply with international sustainability standards? Processes and consequences of adopting the Global Reporting Initiative. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2278-5.

  • Wettstein, F. (2010). Corporate responsibility beyond “do no harm”. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D., & Elkington, J. (2001). The end of the corporate environmental report? Or the advent of cybernetic sustainability reporting and communication. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, G. (2012). The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: A critical research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, 709–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2008). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. In A. G. Scherer & G. Palazzo (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship (pp. 137–165). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Communication Sciences, USI Lugano, Via Buffi 13, 6904, Lugano, Switzerland

    Rea Wagner & Peter Seele

Authors
  1. Rea Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Seele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rea Wagner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wagner, R., Seele, P. Uncommitted Deliberation? Discussing Regulatory Gaps by Comparing GRI 3.1 to GRI 4.0 in a Political CSR Perspective. J Bus Ethics 146, 333–351 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3654-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3654-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation