dc.contributor.author | Mori Junior, Renzo | |
dc.contributor.author | Best, Peter | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-03-20T12:31:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-03-20T12:31:13Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2040-8021 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2015-0115 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10072/371544 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose – Previous studies have argued that the incapacity of the majority of SR stakeholders to identify
the different types of assurance processes contributes to the existence of an expectation–performance gap and
affects the credibility of such reports. To improve this situation, the Content Index Model was updated by the
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in its latest sustainability reporting guideline – “G4”. This paper aims to
assess, using a qualitative exploratory approach, whether this updated Content Index Model changes the
expectation–performance gap of stakeholders on assurance processes for GRI sustainability reports. This
paper also assesses whether this Content Index Model improves the credibility of the assurance processes for
GRI sustainability reports, considering participants’ points of view.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper used a qualitative approach to obtain participants’
perceptions in relation to the objectives of the paper. Two questions were used to assess whether the updated
Content Index Model improves stakeholders’ understanding in regards to the assurance process of GRI
sustainability reports, thus changing the expectation–performance gap and improving the credibility of GRI
sustainability reports. The following questions were asked: Does the Content Index Model help SR
stakeholders to better understand the scope of the assurance processes? and Why? Does the Content Index
Model presented help to improve credibility of assured SR? and Why?
Findings – Results obtained demonstrate that the updated Content Index Model improves SR stakeholders’
understanding regarding the scope of the assurance processes conducted, thus reducing their expectation–
performance gap on assurance processes and improving the credibility of SR. Participants also commented on
the relationship among transparency, understand ability, trust and credibility.
Research limitations/implications – First, participants were responsible for identifying the group
that best represents his/her professional experience. The fact that participants have professional experience in
more than one of the groups identified in this research (assurers, reporters and readers) could have impacted
on their perceptions regarding the assurance process. Second, the interviews do not rely on practical
experience with the updated Content Index Model, rather, they rely on participants’ perceptions regarding the
hypothetical use of this Content Index Model. Third, descriptive statistical analyses in this paper aim to
illustrate participants’ perceptions rather than to develop robust statistically significant conclusions. Fourth,
the main author of this paper developed the Content Index Model, and this may have impacted the responses
of the participants and/or the analysis of data. Also, the specific geographic area where interviews were
conducted, the selection technique used and the non-statistical significance of the analyses presented in this
paper must be carefully interpreted and cannot be generalised to a broader context based on this paper alone Finally, interviews were developed and conducted before May 2013, before the GRI officially launched the
GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
Practical implications – As the GRI is the most commonly used sustainability report framework to date,
this study has the possibility to affect all companies that publish their sustainability reports based on the GRI
framework and all assurance providers currently providing assurance services for such report. Also, findings
would be very useful for sustainability reports’ readers worldwide.
Originality/value – As sustainability reports are the most common instruments used by organisations to
provide accountability about the environmental and social performance, and assurance is the most common
instrument used by organisations to improve credibility of such reports; it is important to assess whether
those instruments are achieving their goals and understand the role played by the GRI G4 Content Index
Model in this context. As the GRI G4 was recently launched, there is no study published yet assessing the
effectiveness of its new content index model. | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Yes | |
dc.language | English | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | Emerald Group Publishing Limited | |
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom | 571 | |
dc.relation.ispartofpageto | 594 | |
dc.relation.ispartofissue | 5 | |
dc.relation.ispartofjournal | Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal | |
dc.relation.ispartofvolume | 8 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Economics | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Other economics not elsewhere classified | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearch | Human society | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 38 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 389999 | |
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode | 44 | |
dc.title | GRI G4 content index: Does it improve credibility and change the expectation-performance gap of GRI-assured sustainability reports? | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
dc.type.description | C1 - Articles | |
dc.type.code | C - Journal Articles | |
gro.hasfulltext | No Full Text | |
gro.griffith.author | Best, Peter J. | |