4.0 Article

Evaluation of sustainability reporting practices in Poland

期刊

QUALITY & QUANTITY
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 1739-1752

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-013-9871-z

关键词

Corporate social responsibility; Non-financial disclosure; Reporting standards; Stakeholders; Sustainability report

资金

  1. National Science Centre Poland [DEC-2011/03/B/HS4/01790]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines voluntary sustainability reporting practices in Poland. The number of these types of reports published by companies from year to year increases however the form, content and quality of these reports varies. Disclosure of economic, social and environmental performance demonstrates social responsibility of a company and therefore, the author first has analysed in this paper the level of implementation of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) concept in Polish companies. Then the attention was focused on sustainability reports published in 2011. The questionnaire to evaluate the quality and type of the disclosed information in sustainability reports consisted of twenty three criteria grouped in five categories. The author discusses the overall results as well as results obtained in the particular categories. The analyses indicate that sustainability reporting is not widespread among companies in Poland. On the other hand, increasing demands/expectations from stakeholders in this direction are not observed. In 2011, 32 reports were published, 6 of them have been audited by independent organizations and 19 have been developed in accordance with the GRI guidelines (Global reporting initiative sustainability reporting guidelines). Corporate social responsibility in Poland is a relatively new concept and although all events suggestive of the development of this concept, it is still little known and rarely implemented among entrepreneurs. The results of the study indicate that sustainability reporting practices in Poland, despite a few good examples and valuable disclosures, are at its early stage of development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据