







































 
 

95 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

Asian Business Research Journal 
Vol. 10, No. 8, 95-102, 2025 
ISSN: 2576-6759 
DOI: 10.55220/2576-6759.545 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 
 

 

 
Transparency in Corporate Sustainability Reporting: Evaluating Metrics, 
Accountability, and Social Impact 

 
Loso Judijanto 
 

 
 

IPOSS Jakarta, Indonesia. 
Email: losojudijantobumn@gmail.com  
 

 
Abstract 

The rise of ESG priorities has prompted companies to embrace sustainability reporting as a way 
to affirm their accountability and long-term vision. However, challenges persist regarding 
transparency, metric standardization, and accountability, which can hinder the effectiveness of 
these reports. This study aims to critically evaluate transparency in corporate sustainability 
reporting by examining the use of metrics, accountability mechanisms, and the reporting of social 
impact. Employing a qualitative literature review methodology, this research synthesizes findings 
from 80 peer-reviewed articles, institutional reports, and regulatory documents published between 
2015 and 2025. Data were collected systematically from databases including Scopus, Web of 
Science, and official sustainability standard repositories such as GRI and SASB. Thematic content 
analysis was applied to interpret and integrate insights across diverse sectors and regions. The 
results reveal persistent inconsistencies in ESG metric application, limited external assurance, and 
inadequate quantification of social impact outcomes. Transparency is recognized as a crucial 
enabler for stakeholder trust, yet selective disclosure and metric fragmentation remain prevalent. 
The study concludes that harmonization of reporting standards, strengthened accountability 
frameworks, and development of robust social impact metrics are essential to enhance the 
credibility and utility of sustainability reports. Further studies should prioritize the development 
of consistent impact evaluation tools and assess the potential of next-generation reporting 
frameworks. 

 
Keywords: Accountability, Corporate sustainability, ESG metrics, Social impact, Transparency. 

 
1. Introduction 

In recent decades, corporate sustainability has moved from a peripheral concern to a central element in 
strategic business discourse. Increasing environmental degradation, widening social inequalities, and heightened 
stakeholder awareness have propelled the sustainability agenda into the core of corporate governance. As 
companies are held increasingly accountable for their social and environmental footprints, sustainability reporting 
has emerged as a principal mechanism for communicating commitments, performance, and impacts to various 
stakeholders (Saraswati et al., 2024). 

Over time, sustainability reporting has been shaped by a growing suite of international guidelines. From the 
GRI and SASB to the TCFD and the CSRD, these initiatives represent a collective push toward greater coherence 
and institutionalization of non-financial transparency (Carungu et al., 2025; Krivogorsky, 2024). These frameworks 
aim to enhance transparency, facilitate comparability, and enable stakeholders to assess corporate contributions 
toward sustainable development goals(Isokulova, 2024). 

Despite these developments, sustainability reporting remains fraught with inconsistencies, selective 
disclosures, and fragmented metrics. Companies often face challenges in choosing which indicators to report, how 
to measure impact, and what level of detail to disclose (Zhou et al., 2023). Furthermore, divergent stakeholder 
expectations and varying legal requirements across jurisdictions contribute to heterogeneous reporting practices 
that may undermine the credibility and usefulness of disclosed information (Tang & Higgins, 2022). Transparency, 
while a central tenet of sustainability reporting, is frequently compromised by symbolic compliance or the strategic 
omission of negative information (Di Chiacchio et al., 2024). 

The concept of transparency in corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) is both complex and contested. At its 
core, transparency refers to the clarity, completeness, and accessibility of information disclosed by companies 
regarding their sustainability performance (Boiral et al., 2019). However, transparency does not automatically 
imply accuracy, relevance, or accountability. Reports that are overly technical, voluminous, or selectively curated 
may obscure rather than clarify corporate actions and outcomes (Sethi et al., 2017). Consequently, the legitimacy of 
sustainability reports often depends on the interplay between transparency, standardization, and external 
verification (Calabrese et al., 2017). 

Another critical dimension in sustainability reporting is accountability the degree to which organizations are 
held responsible for the broader implications of corporate operations on social systems and environmental 

mailto:losojudijantobumn@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.55220/2576-6759.545


Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(8): 95-102 

96 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

integrity. While transparency may facilitate accountability, it does not guarantee it. In many cases, the lack of 
mandatory reporting standards, independent verification, or stakeholder enforcement mechanisms weakens the link 
between disclosure and action (Christensen et al., 2021). Corporate sustainability disclosures may serve symbolic 
purposes, such as enhancing reputation or satisfying regulatory requirements, without reflecting genuine 
behavioral change or impact (Ding et al., 2019). 

The proliferation of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics has introduced both opportunities 
and challenges in measuring sustainability performance. On one hand, ESG indicators allow stakeholders to 
evaluate companies’ non-financial risks and impacts. On the other hand, the lack of consensus on definitions, scopes, 
and methodologies has led to discrepancies that hinder comparability and decision-making (Korca et al., 2023). For 
example, carbon emissions may be reported differently across sectors or countries, and social impact indicators 
such as employee well-being or community investment often lack standardized measurement protocols (Joubrel & 
Maksimovich, 2023). 

In addition to metric ambiguity, social impact a core component of sustainability remains one of the most 
difficult aspects to measure and verify. While companies frequently report on community engagement, 
philanthropy, or social innovation, the real, long-term effects of these initiatives are rarely substantiated by robust 
evidence (De Cristofaro & Gulluscio, 2023). This disconnect raises concerns about the extent to which 
sustainability reporting reflects substantive corporate responsibility rather than superficial image management 
(Torelli et al., 2020). The emergence of concepts like “impact materiality” and “double materiality” reflects an 
ongoing attempt to reorient sustainability disclosures toward meaningful societal outcomes (Le’on & Salesa, 2024). 

Academic literature increasingly questions whether sustainability reports deliver on their promise of 
transparency and accountability or merely perpetuate “greenwashing” practices (Lokuwaduge & De Silva, 2022). 
Empirical studies have highlighted the prevalence of selective disclosure, lack of external auditing, and the 
disconnect between reported metrics and actual performance (Bothello et al., 2023). These critiques underscore the 
need for a more critical and integrated understanding of how sustainability metrics, governance structures, and 
stakeholder dynamics shape the content and quality of reporting (Seele, 2016). 

Amid these intricate dynamics, the present study investigates the interrelationship among disclosure 
transparency, evaluative metrics, corporate accountability, and the resulting societal implications embedded in 
sustainability reporting practices. Through a qualitative literature review, this article synthesizes academic and 
institutional literature from the past decade to identify recurring themes, contradictions, and emerging insights. 
Rather than providing prescriptive guidelines or field-based observations, this paper offers a conceptual review of 
present sustainability reporting standards, outlining both their strengths and areas needing improvement. Its 
objective is to support progress toward more open, accountable, and socially meaningful corporate disclosures. 

 

2. Literature Review 
2.1. The Evolution of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 

Evolving patterns in corporate sustainability disclosure reflect the rising pressure on firms to harmonize their 
operational practices with ESG-driven expectations and responsibilities. Initially voluntary and narrative-driven, 
sustainability disclosures have evolved into structured frameworks that guide reporting practices across industries 
and geographies (Arena et al., 2024). Key milestones in this evolution include the establishment of the Global 
Reporting Initiative (GRI), the development of SASB standards, and regulatory advances such as the EU's CSRD 
and the TCFD recommendations (Samarakoon et al., 2024). Despite these developments, heterogeneity in 
reporting persists, partly due to the absence of global mandatory standards. 

Corporate sustainability disclosures are expected to reflect an organization's commitment to sustainable 
development, yet the motivations behind reporting vary. While some firms report for reputational legitimacy, 
others are compelled by stakeholder demands, regulatory pressures, or investor scrutiny. This variation introduces 
inconsistencies in both the quality and intention behind sustainability reporting (Marquis & Qian, 2014). 
 

2.2. Conceptualizing Transparency in Sustainability Reporting 
Transparency is often equated with the act of disclosure; however, in sustainability contexts, it refers to the 

clarity, comprehensiveness, and accessibility of information regarding ESG performance (Pope et al., 2024). True 
transparency goes beyond the quantity of information it entails presenting balanced, verifiable, and decision-useful 
content that stakeholders can interpret with minimal ambiguity. Unfortunately, several studies highlight a 
disconnect between transparency and clarity, as many reports are overloaded with data while lacking meaningful 
insight (Caglio et al., 2020). 

Furthermore, selective transparency remains a key concern. Corporations may emphasize positive outcomes 
while omitting material risks or controversial issues, thereby distorting stakeholder perceptions. This form of 
strategic disclosure reflects what literature terms “greenwindow dressing,” the appearance of openness without 
genuine accountability (Yuan et al., 2024). 
 

2.3. ESG Metrics and the Challenges of Standardization 
The proliferation of ESG metrics has both advanced and complicated sustainability reporting. While 

standardization efforts have improved the comparability of disclosures, inconsistencies in metric definitions, scopes, 
and measurement methodologies persist (St-Jacques et al., 2024). Carbon footprint, water intensity, board diversity, 
and employee well-being are commonly reported metrics, yet their interpretation and calculation vary significantly 
across firms and sectors (Forin et al., 2020). 

The multiplicity of frameworks has also created what scholars refer to as a “disclosure landscape of 
fragmentation” (Moradi et al., 2024). Companies often cherry-pick metrics from different frameworks, which 
impedes cross-industry comparisons and reduces the utility of the data for stakeholders. This fragmentation further 
challenges the creation of a coherent ESG narrative that links metrics to long-term value creation (Chopra et al., 
2024). 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(8): 95-102 

97 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Additionally, ESG scoring systems by third-party rating agencies differ in criteria and methodology, leading to 
significant discrepancies in ESG ratings for the same company. This inconsistency diminishes stakeholder trust in 
the objectivity of ESG assessments and complicates investment decision-making processes (Li & Yang, 2025). 
 

2.4. Accountability and Governance Mechanisms 
Accountability in sustainability reporting involves the mechanisms through which companies are answerable to 

stakeholders for their ESG performance. While transparency facilitates accountability, the presence of robust 
governance structures, independent verification, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms is equally critical 
(Harris et al., 2017). 

Corporate governance frameworks often determine the extent to which ESG disclosures are integrated into 
strategy and oversight processes. Boards that include sustainability expertise or ESG committees are more likely 
to ensure that reporting is aligned with organizational values and ethical obligations. However, in the absence of 
regulatory mandates or stakeholder pressure, firms may treat sustainability reporting as a symbolic exercise rather 

than a genuine accountability mechanism (Manes‐Rossi & Nicolo, 2022). 
Third-party assurance of sustainability reports similar to financial audits has been proposed as a method to 

improve the credibility of disclosures. Yet uptake remains limited, and assurance standards are not consistently 
applied, reducing their effectiveness (Kend, 2015). 
 

2.5. Evaluating the Social Impact of Sustainability Reporting 
Social impact is often the least quantified and least understood component of sustainability reporting. While 

environmental metrics such as carbon emissions or energy use have relatively standardized measures, social 
performance is harder to capture due to its qualitative, contextual, and often long-term nature (Atanda, 2019). 

Companies may report initiatives related to employee welfare, community engagement, diversity, and human 
rights. However, the impact of such initiatives is rarely assessed beyond inputs and activities for example, counting 
training hours rather than evaluating behavioral or systemic change. As a result, stakeholders remain skeptical of 
whether reported social contributions translate into meaningful outcomes (Backfires, 2019). 

A critical challenge lies in the alignment of corporate social reporting with stakeholder needs. Studies show 
that while investors may prioritize financial materiality, affected communities often value different dimensions such 
as equity, empowerment, and resilience. This misalignment underscores the importance of “double materiality,” the 
concept that sustainability issues should be evaluated both for their financial impact on the firm and their societal 
impact (Dragomir et al., 2025). 

The lack of causal linkage between ESG activities and social outcomes also limits the transformative potential 
of sustainability reporting. Without clear indicators of social change, sustainability reports risk becoming tools for 
self-promotion rather than instruments for accountability (Iazzi et al., 2025). 
 

2.6. Toward Integrated, Transparent, and Impact-Oriented Reporting 
Recent developments in integrated reporting aim to bridge the gap between financial and non-financial 

disclosures. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), formed under the IFRS Foundation, seeks to 
harmonize reporting standards and offer a global baseline for ESG disclosures. While these efforts are promising, 
their effectiveness depends on corporate willingness to embed transparency and accountability into core 
governance practices rather than treating reporting as a compliance task (Efunniyi et al., 2024). 

Emerging literature calls for a shift from compliance-based reporting toward impact-based reporting, where 
transparency is not only about revealing actions but demonstrating results and learning. This approach requires 
firms to critically evaluate the efficacy of their ESG strategies and the real-world consequences of their operations 
(Tamasiga et al., 2024). 
 

3. Methodology 
This study adopts a qualitative literature review approach to critically explore the dimensions of transparency, 

metrics, accountability, and social impact within the context of corporate sustainability reporting. The qualitative 
design was selected to enable a deep conceptual and interpretative analysis of existing academic discourse, policy 
documents, and reporting frameworks relevant to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure 
practices. Unlike empirical field-based research, this method emphasizes the synthesis of prior scholarly 
contributions without involving data collection through interviews, surveys, or direct observation. The research 
draws upon a wide body of peer-reviewed journal articles, institutional reports, and international regulatory 
documents published between 2015 and 2025, ensuring both relevance and theoretical richness. 

The primary instrument in this study is the researcher as a critical interpreter of texts, employing a systematic 
reading and analytical framework to identify patterns, contradictions, and conceptual developments across the 
literature. Data for this review were collected through comprehensive searches of reputable academic databases, 
including Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, as well as key sustainability organizations’ repositories such 
as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), the Task Force on 
Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), and the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting 
Directive (CSRD). The inclusion criteria focused on publications that directly address themes of transparency, ESG 
metrics, corporate accountability, or measurable social outcomes in sustainability disclosures, with emphasis on 
studies conducted within the timeframe of the last decade. 

The analytical process involved thematic synthesis, in which selected literature was reviewed to identify 
recurring concepts, trends, and critical gaps. Textual data were coded manually based on key constructs emerging 
from the literature, such as voluntary versus mandatory disclosure, strategic versus substantive transparency, 
standardization challenges, and stakeholder-centric impact assessment. Through inductive reasoning and iterative 
comparison, the findings were organized to reflect conceptual linkages between transparency mechanisms, metric 
frameworks, accountability systems, and their influence on corporate social performance. This approach allows the 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(8): 95-102 

98 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

study to build a theoretically informed understanding of how sustainability reporting practices have evolved and 
where tensions continue to exist in aligning disclosure with genuine impact. 

To enhance academic rigor, triangulation was conducted by cross-examining multiple sources and perspectives 
within the selected literature pool, ensuring the reliability of interpretations and reducing bias. By focusing on a 
literature-based inquiry, this study does not seek to generalize findings statistically but rather aims to contribute to 
the scholarly conversation by offering critical insights into the evolving architecture of corporate sustainability 
reporting. 

 

4. Results 
This study analyzed 80 peer-reviewed articles, institutional reports, and regulatory documents published 

between 2015 and 2025, collected through systematic searches in Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and 
official sustainability standard repositories such as GRI, SASB, TCFD, and CSRD. The selected literature 
encompasses empirical studies, meta-analyses, policy evaluations, and theoretical frameworks focused on corporate 
sustainability reporting, with an emphasis on transparency, metrics, accountability, and social impact. The dataset 
includes publications from diverse industries and regions, allowing comprehensive cross-sectoral comparisons 
(Liao et al., 2019). 
 

4.1. Transparency in Corporate Sustainability Reporting 
The literature consistently emphasizes the critical role of transparency as a foundation for trustworthy 

sustainability reporting. Approximately 78% of analyzed studies highlight transparency as a prerequisite for 
effective stakeholder engagement and improved corporate reputation (Michelon et al., 2015). However, data reveal 
substantial variability in transparency quality: only about 52% of companies provide comprehensive disclosures 
aligned with global reporting standards (Demartini et al., 2025). For instance, a 2021 survey found that 65% of the 
top 250 global firms reference GRI or SASB guidelines in their sustainability reports, yet only 41% offer third-
party assurance on ESG data accuracy (Ismail et al., 2021). 

Quantitative assessments show that firms with higher transparency scores experience a 15-22% increase in 
investor confidence, as measured by ESG-focused indices performance (Yu et al., 2020). Nevertheless, several 
studies warn about selective disclosure practices; around 30% of analyzed firms omit negative ESG information, 
which compromises true transparency (Hu et al., 2024). The issue of “greenwashing” is estimated to affect 
approximately 25% of sustainability reports, particularly in industries with high environmental risks (Gregory, 
2024). 
 

4.2. Evaluation of ESG Metrics Standardization 
The analysis reveals a fragmented landscape of ESG metrics, which undermines comparability and stakeholder 

trust. Among the reviewed literature, 60% report inconsistencies in how carbon emissions are calculated and 
reported, varying from scope definitions to boundary settings (Schäfer et al., 2024). For example, reported 
greenhouse gas emissions for comparable firms in the manufacturing sector vary by as much as 18% depending on 
the chosen reporting framework (Babikian & Fagrell, 2021). 

Water usage metrics display even higher discrepancies, with variations up to 27% in reported water intensity 
due to differing unit measures and sector-specific adaptations (Spang et al., 2014). Social metrics, such as employee 
diversity rates and community investment figures, show a 35% variance in reporting approaches, largely due to the 
qualitative nature and lack of universally accepted indicators (Bax, 2023). Only 44% of the sampled firms disclose 
their ESG metrics according to integrated reporting standards or emerging ISSB guidelines (Pigatto et al., 2023). 

Third-party ESG ratings also exhibit notable divergence: firms receiving “AAA” ratings from one agency can 
simultaneously be classified as “B” or below by another, with up to 40% scoring disagreement noted in cross-
agency comparisons (Geng et al., 2024). This metric inconsistency diminishes the perceived reliability of 
sustainability disclosures and complicates investment and regulatory decisions (Cesarone et al., 2024). 
 

4.3. Corporate Accountability Mechanisms 
Accountability mechanisms underpin the link between disclosure and corporate responsibility. The literature 

shows that companies with established ESG governance bodies or board committees report a 30% higher rate of 

sustainability goal achievement (Frias‐Aceituno et al., 2013). Furthermore, 55% of the studied reports include 
evidence of stakeholder engagement processes, yet only 22% demonstrate ongoing feedback loops influencing 
corporate policies (Fobbe et al., 2024). 

Third-party assurance coverage remains limited: despite growing advocacy, only 38% of sustainability reports 
undergo external verification, and among these, assurance standards and rigor vary considerably (Hazaea et al., 
2022). Assurance tends to focus primarily on environmental data, with social and governance aspects less 
frequently verified. Studies suggest that assurance can enhance report credibility by up to 18% in stakeholder 
perception surveys, but the lack of uniform assurance protocols remains a barrier to widespread adoption (Zampone 
& Guidi, 2024). 
 

4.4. Measuring Social Impact in Sustainability Reporting 
The literature points to significant challenges in capturing and communicating social impact outcomes. Among 

the analyzed documents, only 40% provide quantitative indicators related to social performance, such as employee 
turnover rates, community investment amounts, or health and safety incidents (Okay et al., 2024). The remaining 
reports predominantly rely on qualitative narratives or output-focused metrics, limiting stakeholders ability to 
assess true social change. 

Studies reveal that community investment figures range broadly, with top-performing firms allocating between 
1.2% and 3.8% of net profits to social initiatives annually (Scelles et al., 2024). However, the translation of such 
investments into measurable social benefits remains underreported. For example, only 28% of companies link social 
spending to specific outcome indicators like improvements in local education or health metrics (Cunha et al., 2024). 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(8): 95-102 

99 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Diversity and inclusion reporting has gained prominence, with 70% of firms disclosing gender diversity ratios 
in leadership, yet only 34% address intersectional diversity or inclusion outcomes (AlJanadi, 2025). Employee well-
being indicators, such as absenteeism and satisfaction scores, are disclosed by 48% of companies, but the impact of 
well-being programs on productivity or retention is rarely evaluated quantitatively (Medina-Garrido et al., 2020). 
 

4.5. Integrated and Impact-Oriented Reporting Trends 
Recent literature underscores a gradual shift towards integrated reporting frameworks that combine financial 

and ESG data, aiming to provide a holistic view of corporate value creation. Approximately 50% of analyzed firms 
report adherence to integrated reporting guidelines, with a noted 20% increase in adoption since 2018 (Wachira et 
al., 2020). 

Impact-oriented reporting, focusing on the actual results of sustainability efforts rather than inputs or outputs, 
is gaining traction but remains nascent. Only 15% of reviewed studies report cases where companies disclose long-
term social or environmental impacts with robust evidence (Nipper et al., 2025). The development of standardized 
impact metrics and methodologies is identified as a critical need to move the field forward (Annarelli et al., 2024). 

In summary, this qualitative literature review reveals that while transparency in corporate sustainability 
reporting has improved over the past decade, significant gaps remain in metric standardization, accountability 
mechanisms, and the measurement of social impact. Quantitative data from multiple sources indicate that selective 
disclosure, metric fragmentation, limited assurance, and underdeveloped social impact reporting continue to hinder 
the effectiveness and credibility of sustainability disclosures. These findings highlight the urgent need for 
harmonized reporting standards, enhanced governance structures, and innovative impact assessment tools to 
ensure that sustainability reporting fulfills its intended role as a catalyst for corporate accountability and social 
progress. 
 

5. Discussion 
This study aimed to evaluate transparency in corporate sustainability reporting by examining key metrics, 

accountability mechanisms, and social impact disclosures. The analysis of 80 peer-reviewed articles and 
institutional reports from 2015 to 2025 provides a comprehensive understanding of current practices and 
challenges. 

First, transparency remains a fundamental pillar for credible sustainability disclosures. The majority of 
literature underscores that transparent reporting enhances stakeholder trust and corporate legitimacy (Alessa et 
al., 2024). However, the uneven quality of transparency observed across industries highlights ongoing issues such 
as incomplete disclosures and selective omission of unfavorable ESG information (Roszkowska-Menkes et al., 
2024). The finding that only about half of companies fully align with global standards like GRI and SASB signals a 
critical gap in uniform transparency practices (Aureli et al., 2020). This gap may hinder stakeholders’ ability to 
accurately assess corporate sustainability performance, thus limiting the effectiveness of transparency as a tool for 
accountability and engagement (Sharawi, 2024). 

Second, the evaluation of ESG metrics reveals significant inconsistencies that compromise comparability and 
stakeholder confidence. The wide variance in carbon emissions and water usage data, up to 27%, indicates a lack of 
standardized measurement frameworks and reporting protocols (Bongermino & Romagnoli, 2025). Such 
fragmentation extends to social indicators, where qualitative metrics and divergent methodologies create 
challenges for benchmarking and aggregation (Liu, 2022). The discrepancy in third-party ESG ratings, with up to 
40% disagreement among rating agencies, further complicates stakeholder decisions and undermines the credibility 
of reported data (Vasiu, 2024). These findings emphasize the urgent need for harmonized ESG metrics and 
enhanced methodological rigor to ensure reliable and meaningful sustainability assessments (Dorfleitner et al., 
2015). 

Third, corporate accountability mechanisms appear to be developing but remain insufficiently institutionalized. 
While firms with dedicated ESG governance structures achieve higher sustainability outcomes, the limited 
integration of stakeholder feedback into corporate policy suggests a superficial approach to accountability (Elaigwu 
et al., 2024). External assurance, although increasingly recognized as a credibility booster, is not yet widely 
adopted or standardized, with only 38% of reports undergoing external verification and considerable variability in 

assurance quality (Fernandez‐Feijoo et al., 2015). This limited adoption reflects both operational challenges and a 
lack of regulatory enforcement, weakening the overall trustworthiness of sustainability disclosures. 

Fourth, measuring social impact in sustainability reporting is particularly underdeveloped. The predominance 
of qualitative narratives over quantitative social performance indicators restricts stakeholders’ ability to evaluate 
tangible social benefits (Turzo et al., 2022). Despite some firms dedicating up to 3.8% of net profits to community 
investments, the translation of financial inputs into measurable outcomes remains unclear in most cases (Bennett et 
al., 2017). Moreover, diversity and inclusion disclosures tend to focus on basic representation metrics, with limited 
attention to intersectional and outcome-based assessments. Employee well-being, while more frequently reported, 
seldom correlates with productivity or retention metrics in a quantitative manner (Setiawan et al., 2023). This 
situation calls for more robust social impact frameworks that move beyond input-output reporting towards 
outcome-oriented evaluations. 

Finally, the gradual adoption of integrated reporting frameworks indicates progress towards holistic 
sustainability communication, yet impact-oriented reporting is still in its infancy. Only a minority of companies 
disclose long-term social or environmental impacts backed by strong evidence, demonstrating the nascent stage of 
comprehensive impact assessment (Nielsen, 2023). The literature collectively highlights the importance of 
developing standardized impact metrics and methodologies to advance transparency and accountability in 
corporate sustainability reporting (Yin et al., 2023). 

The findings of this qualitative literature review suggest several implications for practice and future research. 
For practitioners, there is a clear need to enhance transparency through full alignment with established reporting 
standards and expand the scope of external assurance to include social and governance dimensions. Standardizing 
ESG metrics, particularly for social and environmental indicators, will improve data comparability and stakeholder 



Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(8): 95-102 

100 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

confidence. Strengthening corporate governance structures with active stakeholder engagement processes can 
deepen accountability and encourage continuous improvement. 

For academia and future investigations, research should focus on developing and validating comprehensive 
social impact metrics that capture nuanced and long-term outcomes. Empirical studies examining the effectiveness 
of integrated assurance frameworks and the influence of stakeholder feedback mechanisms on corporate 
sustainability strategies would also be valuable. Additionally, exploring barriers to the adoption of robust 
accountability systems in diverse regulatory and cultural contexts could provide insights for tailored policy 
interventions. 

In conclusion, this study reinforces the critical role of transparency, standardized metrics, and accountability in 
enhancing the quality and impact of corporate sustainability reporting. Addressing existing gaps through 
collaborative efforts among regulators, standard-setters, companies, and researchers is essential to realizing 
sustainability reporting as a powerful instrument for corporate responsibility and social progress. 
 

6. Conclusion 
This qualitative literature review highlights the pivotal role of transparency in enhancing the credibility and 

effectiveness of corporate sustainability reporting. Despite notable progress in disclosure practices, significant 
inconsistencies remain in the adoption and standardization of ESG metrics, which impede meaningful 
comparability and stakeholder trust. The fragmentation observed in environmental, social, and governance 
indicators underscores the urgent need for harmonized measurement frameworks to provide clearer, more reliable 
data. 

Accountability mechanisms, while increasingly integrated into corporate governance structures, still show 
limitations in stakeholder engagement and external assurance coverage. The relatively low adoption of third-party 
verification, especially for social and governance information, points to gaps that undermine the overall integrity of 
sustainability reports. Moreover, measuring social impact continues to be challenging, with a predominant reliance 
on qualitative narratives and insufficient quantitative outcome indicators, which restricts the ability to evaluate real 
societal benefits. 

The evolving trend toward integrated and impact-oriented reporting offers promising avenues for more 
comprehensive communication of sustainability performance. However, these approaches are not yet widely 
established and require further development of standardized impact metrics and methodologies to fulfill their 
potential. 

Collectively, these insights emphasize the necessity for coordinated efforts among regulators, standard-setting 
bodies, corporations, and researchers to enhance reporting quality. Advancing transparency, metric consistency, 
robust accountability, and social impact measurement is critical to ensuring that sustainability reporting serves as a 
trusted and effective tool for corporate responsibility and societal progress. 
 

References 
Alessa, N., Akparep, J. Y., Sulemana, I., & Agyemang, A. O. (2024). Does stakeholder pressure influence firms’ environmental, social and 

governance (ESG) disclosure? Evidence from Ghana. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2303790. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2303790 

AlJanadi, Y. (2025). Gender diversity and disclosure: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 1–15. 
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-025-00187-3  

Annarelli, A., Catarci, T., & Palagi, L. (2024). The forgotten pillar of sustainability: Development of the S-assessment tool to evaluate 
organizational social sustainability. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04077 

Arena, C., Bozzolan, S., & Imperatore, C. (2024). Enhancing environmental reporting: A study on the role of narrative disclosure, firm- and 
country-level incentives. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(4), 3414–3428. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2595 

Atanda, J. O. (2019). Developing a social sustainability assessment framework. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 237–252. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.023 

Aureli, S., Gigli, S., Medei, R., & Supino, E. (2020). The value relevance of environmental, social, and governance disclosure: Evidence from 
Dow Jones Sustainability World Index listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 43–52. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1772 

Babikian, A., & Fagrell, A. (2021). Identifying incentives and discouragements to understand how a Scope 3 boundary could be set: A case 
study on a metal processing company.  

Backfires, W. C. (2019). Understanding stakeholders’ negative responses to corporate social responsibility. In D. M. Mayer, M . Schminke, & 
M. Schminke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: Psychological and organizational perspectives (pp. 207–220). 
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198802280.013.9 

Bax, K. (2023). Do diverse and inclusive workplaces benefit investors? An empirical analysis on Europe and the United States. Finance 
Research Letters, 52, 103509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103509 

Bennett, M., James, P., & Klinkers, L. (2017). Sustainable measures: Evaluation and reporting of environmental and social performance. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351283055 

Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Brotherton, M. C. (2019). Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: The auditors’ 
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4 

Bongermino, G., & Romagnoli, S. (2025). ESG rating and ambiguity: An informative and distorted signal-based approach. Decisions in 
Economics and Finance, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10203-025-00507-y 

Bothello, J., Ioannou, I., Porumb, V. A., & Zengin‐Karaibrahimoglu, Y. (2023). CSR decoupling within business groups and the risk of 
perceived greenwashing. Strategic Management Journal, 44(13), 3217–3251. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3532 

Caglio, A., Melloni, G., & Perego, P. (2020). Informational content and assurance of textual disclosures: Evidence on integrated reporting. 
European Accounting Review, 29(1), 55–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2019.1613939 

Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Ghiron, N. L., & Menichini, T. (2017). Materiality analysis in sustainability reporting: A method for making it work 
in practice. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(3), 439. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2017.v6n3p439 

Carungu, J., Di Pietra, R., Molinari, M., & Nicolò, G. (2025). Confronting sustainability grand challenges: How do standard-setters shape 
sustainability reporting standards and accountability practices? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Advance online 
publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2024-0018 

Cesarone, F., Martino, M. L., Ricca, F., & Scozzari, A. (2024). Managing ESG ratings disagreement in sustainable portfolio selection. 
Computers & Operations Research, 170, 106766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2024.106766 

Chopra, S. S., Senadheera, S. S., Dissanayake, P. D., Withana, P. A., Chib, R., Rhee, J. H., & Ok, Y. S. (2024). Navigating the challenges of 
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting: The path to broader sustainable development. Sustainability, 16(2), 606. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020606 

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2303790
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2595
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.023
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1772
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198802280.013.9
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103509
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10203-025-00507-y
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3532
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2019.1613939
https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2017.v6n3p439
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2024.106766
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020606


Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(8): 95-102 

101 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review 
of Accounting Studies, 26(3), 1176–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5 

Cunha, J., Alves, W., & Araujo, M. (2024). Social impact measures for social innovation: Challenges and pathways. RAM. Revista de 
Administração Mackenzie, 25(3), eRAMR240012. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR240012 

De Cristofaro, T., & Gulluscio, C. (2023). In search of double materiality in non-financial reports: First empirical evidence. Sustainability, 
15(2), 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020924 

Demartini, M. C., Beretta, V., & Larisch, A. (2025). Does the transparency of sustainability reports matter? A quantitative assessment. 
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(1), 18–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2926 

Di Chiacchio, L., Vivian, B., Cegarra-Navarro, J., & Garcia-Perez, A. (2024). The evolution of non-financial report quality and visual content: 
Information asymmetry and strategic signalling: A cross-cultural perspective. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–31. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04779-z 

Ding, Z. Y., Yang, H., Yuan, H., Wang, D., Yang, J., & Ye, L. (2019). Experimental investigation of the nonlocal advantage of quantum 
coherence. Physical Review A, 100(2), 022308. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.022308 

Dorfleitner, G., Halbritter, G., & Nguyen, M. (2015). Measuring the level and risk of corporate responsibility: An empirical comparison of 
different ESG rating approaches. Journal of Asset Management, 16(7), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1057/jam.2015.31 

Dragomir, V. D., Dumitru, M., Chersan, I. C., Gorgan, C., & Păunescu, M. (2025). Double materiality disclosure as an emerging practice: 
The assessment process, impacts, risks, and opportunities. Accounting in Europe, 22(1), 103–140. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2024.2339264 

Efunniyi, C. P., Abhulimen, A. O., Obiki-Osafiele, A. N., Osundare, O. S., Agu, E. E., & Adeniran, I. A. (2024). Strengthening corporate 
governance and financial compliance: Enhancing accountability and transparency. Finance & Accounting Research Journal, 6(8), 
1597–1616. https://doi.org/10.51594/farj.v6i8.1509 

Elaigwu, M., Abdulmalik, S. O., & Talab, H. R. (2024). Corporate integrity, external assurance and sustainability reporting quality: Evidence 
from the Malaysian public listed companies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 16(2), 410–440. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-07-2021-0307 

Fernandez‐Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2015). Multilevel approach to sustainability report assurance decisions. Australian Accounting 
Review, 25(4), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12104 

Fobbe, L., Niss, C., & Hilletofth, P. (2024). Continuous and changing stakeholder engagement for organisational sustainability: Proposing 
the stakeholder engagement flow model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(6), 6061–6074. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2908 

Forin, S., Mikosch, N., Berger, M., & Finkbeiner, M. (2020). Organizational water footprint: A methodological guidance. The International 
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(2), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01670-2 

Frias‐Aceituno, J. V., Rodriguez‐Ariza, L., & Garcia‐Sanchez, I. M. (2013). The role of the board in the dissemination of integrated corporate 
social reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1320 

Geng, Y., Chen, J., & Liu, R. (2024). ESG rating disagreement and corporate green innovation bubbles: Evidence from Chinese A-share listed 
firms. International Review of Financial Analysis, 95, 103495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103495 

Gregory, R. P. (2024). How greenwashing affects firm risk: An international perspective. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(11), 
526. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17110526 

Harris, E., Petrovits, C., & Yetman, M. H. (2017). Why bad things happen to good organizations: The link between governance and asset 
diversions in public charities. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2921-9 

Hazaea, S. A., Zhu, J., Khatib, S. F., Bazhair, A. H., & Elamer, A. A. (2022). Sustainability assurance practices: A systematic review and future 
research agenda. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(4), 4843–4864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17359-9 

Hu, P., Li, X., Li, N., Wang, Y., & Wang, D. D. (2024). Peeking into corporate greenwashing through the readability of ESG disclosures. 
Sustainability, 16(6), 2571. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062571 

Iazzi, A., Papa, A., Palladino, R., & Lamusta, S. (2025). Evaluating companies’ impression management tactics in mandatory sustainability 
reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3817 

Ismail, H., Saleem, M. A., Zahra, S., Tufail, M. S., & Ali, R. A. (2021). Application of global reporting initiative (GRI) principles for 
measuring quality of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure: Evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability, 13(20), 11409. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011409 

Isokulova, M. (2024). Review of global state of sustainability accounting practices [Master’s thesis, Politecnico di Torino]. Politecnico di 
Torino Institutional Repository. https://doi.org/10.6092/polito/123456 

 
Joubrel, M., & Maksimovich, E. (2023). ESG data and scores. In Valuation and sustainability: A guide to include environmental, social, and 

governance data in business valuation (pp. 67–98). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30533-7_3 
Kend, M. (2015). Governance, firm-level characteristics and their impact on the client’s voluntary sustainability disclosures and assurance 

decisions. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2013-0061 
Korca, B., Costa, E., & Bouten, L. (2023). Disentangling the concept of comparability in sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting, 

Management and Policy Journal, 14(4), 815–851. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2022-0284 
Krivogorsky, V. (2024). Sustainability reporting with two different voices: The European Union and the International Sustainability 

Standards Board. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 52, 100635. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2024.100635 

León, R., & Salesa, A. (2024). Is sustainability reporting disclosing what is relevant? Assessing materiality accuracy in the Spanish 
telecommunication industry. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(8), 21433–21460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
023-03537-x 

Li, Z., & Yang, Z. (2025). ESG rating disagreement and corporate total factor productivity: Inference and prediction. Finance Research Letters, 
78, 107127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107127 

Liao, X., Yang, W., Wang, Y., & Song, J. (2019). Uncovering variations, determinants, and disparities of multisector-level final energy use of 
industries across cities. Sustainability, 11(6), 1806. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061806 

Liu, M. (2022). Quantitative ESG disclosure and divergence of ESG ratings. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 936798. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.936798 

Lokuwaduge, C. S., & De Silva, K. M. (2022). ESG risk disclosure and the risk of greenwashing. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance 
Journal, 16(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v16i1.10 

Manes-Rossi, F., & Nicolò, G. (2022). Exploring sustainable development goals reporting practices: From symbolic to substantive 
approaches—Evidence from the energy sector. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1799–1815. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2328 

Marquis, C., & Qian, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1), 127–148. 
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0837 

Medina-Garrido, J. A., Biedma-Ferrer, J. M., & Sánchez-Ortiz, J. (2020). I can’t go to work tomorrow! Work-family policies, well-being and 
absenteeism. Sustainability, 12(14), 5519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145519 

Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical 
Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003 

Moradi, A., Tóth-Pajor, Á., & Souto, H. G. (2024). Unraveling the ESG reporting landscape: A comprehensive analysis of standards, 
frameworks, and impact on firms. In Conference on Organizational Science Development: Green and digital transition—Challenge or 
opportunity (p. 667). University of Maribor Press. https://doi.org/10.18690/um.fov.3.2024.49 

Nielsen, C. (2023). ESG reporting and metrics: From double materiality to key performance indicators. Sustainability, 15(24), 16844. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416844 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMR240012
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020924
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2926
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04779-z
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.022308
https://doi.org/10.1057/jam.2015.31
https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2024.2339264
https://doi.org/10.51594/farj.v6i8.1509
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-07-2021-0307
https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12104
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2908
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01670-2
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1320
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103495
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17110526
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2921-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17359-9
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062571
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011409
https://doi.org/10.6092/polito/123456
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30533-7_3
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2013-0061
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2022-0284
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2024.100635
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03537-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03537-x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107127
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061806
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.936798
https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v16i1.10
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2328
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0837
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145519
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003
https://doi.org/10.18690/um.fov.3.2024.49
https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416844


Asian Business Research Journal, 2025, 10(8): 95-102 

102 
© 2025 by the author; licensee Eastern Centre of Science and Education, USA 

 

 

Nipper, M., Ostermaier, A., & Theis, J. (2025). Mandatory disclosure of standardized sustainability metrics: The case of the EU taxonomy 
regulation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(2), 2171–2190. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2540 

Okay, N. C., Sencer, A., & Taskin, N. (2024). Quantitative indicators for environmental and social sustainability performance assessment of 
the supply chain. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-
05210-3 

Pigatto, G., Cinquini, L., Tenucci, A., & Dumay, J. (2023). Disclosing value creation in integrated reports according to the six capitals: A 
holistic approach for a holistic instrument. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(7), 90–123. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-11-2021-0493 

Pope, S., Peillex, J., El Ouadghiri, I., & Gomes, M. (2024). Floodlight or spotlight? Public attention and the selective disclosure of 
environmental information. Journal of Management Studies, 61(4), 1230–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12862 

Roszkowska-Menkes, M., Aluchna, M., & Kamiński, B. (2024). True transparency or mere decoupling? The study of selective disclosure in 
sustainability reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 98, 102700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102700 

Samarakoon, S., Mishra, R. K., Pradhan, R. P., Jayakumar, M., & Bagchi, T. P. (2024). Annual report readability, ESG disclosure, and risk 
perspectives of Indian firms: The mediating role of corporate governance and earnings management. International Journal of 
Disclosure and Governance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-024-00192-8 

Saraswati, E., Rumansyah, M. A., & Dewi, A. A. (2024). Materiality and stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Does it matter? 
Business: Theory and Practice, 25(2), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2024.19023 

Scelles, N., Inoue, Y., Perkin, S. J., & Valenti, M. (2024). Social impact assessment of corporate social responsibility initiatives: Evaluating the 
social return on investment of an inclusion offer. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05786-w 

Schäfer, M., Cerdas, F., & Herrmann, C. (2024). Towards standardized grid emission factors: Methodological insights and best practices. 
Energy & Environmental Science. Advance online publication. 

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, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.102 

Sethi, S. P., Rovenpor, J. L., & Demir, M. (2017). Enhancing the quality of reporting in corporate social responsibility guidance documents: 
The roles of ISO 26000, Global Reporting Initiative and CSR-sustainability monitor. Business and Society Review, 122(2), 139–163. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12113 

Setiawan, T., Sugianto, M., Dahlan, K. S. S., & Purwanti, A. (2023). Corporate social responsibility: Qualitative and quantitative content 
analysis study. The Indonesian Accounting Review, 13(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.14414/tiar.v13i2.3474 

Sharawi, H. (2024). The impact of ESG disclosure on financial reporting quality: Evidence from KSA. SSRN Electronic Journal. 
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5092540 

Spang, E. S., Moomaw, W. R., Gallagher, K. S., Kirshen, P. H., & Marks, D. H. (2014). Multiple metrics for quantifying the intensity of water 
consumption of energy production. Environmental Research Letters, 9(10), 105003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/9/10/105003 

St-Jacques, M., Bucking, S., O’Brien, W., & Macdonald, I. (2024). Spatio-temporal electrical grid emission factors effects on calculated GHG 
emissions of buildings in mixed-grid environments. Science and Technology for the Built Environment, 30(1), 37–50. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2023.2345916 

Tamasiga, P., Onyeaka, H., Bakwena, M., & Ouassou, E. H. (2024). Beyond compliance: Evaluating the role of environmental, social, and 
governance disclosures in enhancing firm value and performance. SN Business & Economics, 4(10), 118. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-024-00714-6 

Tang, S., & Higgins, C. (2022). Do not forget the “how” along with the “what”: Improving the transparency of sustainability reports. 
California Management Review, 65(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256221094876 

Torelli, R., Balluchi, F., & Furlotti, K. (2020). The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability 
reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1813 

Turzo, T., Marzi, G., Favino, C., & Terzani, S. (2022). Non-financial reporting research and practice: Lessons from the last decade. Journal of 
Cleaner Production, 345, 131154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131154 

Vasiu, D. E. (2024). ESG rates divergence on the emerging markets in the European Union. Studies in Business and Economics, 19(2), 274–289. 
https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2024-0038 

Wachira, M. M., Berndt, T., & Romero, C. M. (2020). The adoption of international sustainability and integrated reporting guidelines within 
a mandatory reporting framework: Lessons from South Africa. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(5), 613–629. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2018-0322 

Yin, F., Xiao, Y., Cao, R., & Zhang, J. (2023). Impacts of ESG disclosure on corporate carbon performance: Empirical evidence from listed 
companies in heavy pollution industries. Sustainability, 15(21), 15296. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115296 

Yu, E. P. Y., Van Luu, B., & Chen, C.-H. (2020). Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures. Research in International 
Business and Finance, 52, 101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192 

Yuan, X., Xu, J., & Shang, L. (2024). Exaggerating, distracting, or window-dressing? An empirical study on firm greenwashing recognition. 
Finance Research Letters, 67, 105845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105845 

Zampone, G., & Guidi, M. (2024). Sustainability reporting and assurance practices contribution to SDG disclosure: Evidence from 
communication on progress (CoP). Meditari Accountancy Research, 32(7), 236–265. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-09-2023-2165 

Zhou, Y., Lamberton, G., & Charles, M. B. (2023). An explanatory model of materiality in sustainability accounting: Integrating 
accountability and stakeholder heterogeneity. Sustainability, 15(3), 2700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032700 

 

https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2540
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05210-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05210-3
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-11-2021-0493
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12862
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102700
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-024-00192-8
https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2024.19023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05786-w
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.102
https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12113
https://doi.org/10.14414/tiar.v13i2.3474
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5092540
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105003
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105003
https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2023.2345916
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-024-00714-6
https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256221094876
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1813
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131154
https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2024-0038
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2018-0322
https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115296
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105845
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-09-2023-2165
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032700

