[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 2, Issue 4 (1-2018) ::
aapc 2018, 2(4): 153-187 Back to browse issues page
Explaining and Ranking of the components and indicators of environmental, social and corporate governance reporting by Analytic Hierarchy Process in the companies listed in Stock Exchange
Hossein Fakhari 1, Esfandiar Malekian 2, Monir Jafaei Rahni 3
1- Assistant professor of accounting, university of Mazandaran,Iran (Corresponding author) , h.fakhari@umz.ac.ir
2- professor of accounting, university of Mazandaran, Iran
3- Ph.D. student of accounting, university of Mazandaran, Iran
Abstract:   (762 Views)
This research tries to explain the model for companies ranking from aspect of the level of environmental and social and corporate governance reporting (ESG) with the Analytical Hierarchy Process method in Iran. To achieve the goal, the questionnaire prepared  on based a conceptual model derived from the frameworks, guidelines, existing ranking systems in the field of social responsibility (CSR), sustainability reporting (SR), environmental and social and governance (ESG) .Then the questionnaire was given to the experts for questioning and its results were extracted with Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. Finally, by checking the frameworks and guidelines and ranking systems, a checklist of criteria was prepared and the research data were collected by content analysis method from financial reports of active companies of various industries during 2011-2015
The results of the research show that the dimensions of social, environmental, and corporate governance disclosure are coefficients in the ESG rating model respectively 0.388, 0.337 and 0.275. In addition, the incompatibility rate of all dimensions and components is less than 0.1 and acceptable. The findings also show that the average rating of the ESG disclosure in Iran is about 29%. The findings also show that the highest rating of ESG disclosure in Iran is in the range of 40 to 50 percent, and the disclosure of corporate governance information in the reports of Iranian companies has risen in recent years. The low level of disclosure of the ESG dimensions in Iranian companies indicates the current status gap from the experts' expectations.
Keywords: Environmental Reporting, Social Reporting, Corporate Governance Reporting, Sustainability Reporting, Environmental and Social and Corporate Governance Reporting (ESG), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Full-Text [PDF 531 kb]   (324 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2017/07/26 | Accepted: 2017/08/25 | Published: 2018/01/5
References
1. Bell, S., and S. Morse. 2008. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?. London: Earthscan
2. Berrone, P., C. Cruz, L. Gomez-Mejia, and M. Larraza-Kintana. 2010. Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: do family-controlled firms pollute less?. Administrative Science Quarterly 55(1): 82–113.
3. Bernardi, C., and A.W. Stark. (2016). Environmental, social and governance disclosure, integrated reporting, and the accuracy of analyst forecasts. The British Accounting Review, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 11 October 2016, (doi:10.1016/j.bar.2016.10.001).
4. Breuer, N. and C. Nau, (2014). ESG performance and corporate financial performance: an empirical study of the US technology sector. Master's Thesis, Lund University, School of Economics and Management, Department of Business Administration.
5. Brown, H. S., M. d.Jong, & D. L. Levy. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: 571–580
6. Camilleri, M.A. (2015).Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6 (2): 224 – 242
7. Chen, S., & J. Fan. (2011). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility Based on a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. I.J.Computer Network and Information Security 5:13-22.
8. Ceurstemont, B.,and T. Bolton, and C. Capps, (2001). Current practice in environmental reporting: the chemicals industry. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
9. Del Bosco, B. , and N. Misani, (2016). The effect of cross-listing on the environmental, social, and governance performance of firms, Journal of World Business 51(6) : 977-990.
10. Derwall, J. (2007). The economic virtues of SRI and CSR. Doctoral Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
11. Eccles, R. G., & S. Viviers. (2011). The origins and meanings of names describing investment practices that integrate a consideration of ESG issues in the academic literature. Journal of business ethics 104(3): 389-402.
12. Eccles, R. G., & G. Serafeim. (2013). The Big Idea: The Performance Frontier: Innovating for a Sustainable Strategy. Harvard Business Review 31: 50-60.
13. Elijido-Ten, E. (2007). Applying stakeholder theory to analyze corporate environmental performance: Evidence from Australian listed companies. Asian Review of Accounting15(2):164–184.
14. Fatemi, A. , and M. Glaum, and S. Kaiser. (2017). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. GLOBAL FINANCE JOURNAL. In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 9 March 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.gfj.2017.03.001
15. Fulton, M., and B.Kahn, and C.Sharples. (2012). Sustainable Investing: Establishing Long-Term Value and Performance. Deutsche Bank, London Accord Reports, Available at SSRN 2222740.
16. Giannarakis, G., and G. Konteos, and N. Sariannidis. (2014). Financial, Governance and Environmental determinants of Corporate Social Responsible Disclosure. Management Decision 52(10) ;120-132.
17. Jitmaneeroj, B. (2016). Reform priorities for corporate sustainability: environmental, social, governance, or economic performance?. Management Decision 54 (6);27-39.
18. Kiron, D., and N. Kruschwitz, and K. Haanaes, and M. Reeves, and E. Goh. (2013). The innovation bottom line. Portions of This Article Previously Appeared in The Benefits of Sustainability-Driven Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 54 (2): 69-73.
19. Kolodinsky, R. W., and T.M. Madden, and D.S. Zisk, and E.T. Henkel. (2010). Attitudes About Corporate Social Responsibility: Business Student Predictors. Journal of Business Ethics32: 167-181.
20. Hahn, R., and M. Kühnen (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.
21. Lapinskienė, G., and M. Tvaronavičienė. (2012). Environmental, social and governance performance of companies: The empirical research on their willingness to disclose information. Paper presented at the 7th International Scientific Conference, Vilnius, Lithuania
22. Lo´pez. M. V. , and A.Garcia and L. Rodriguez. (2007). Sustainable Development and Corporate Performance: A Study Based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business Ethics 75:285–300.
23. Matten, D. and J. Moon. (2008). “£Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management Review 33( 2): 404-424.
24. Maubane, P. , and A. Prinsloo , and N.V. Rooyen. (2014). Sustainability reporting patterns of companies listed on theJohannesburg securities exchange. Public Relations Review 40: 153–160.
25. Rahdari AH, and AAA Rostamy.(2015). Designing a General Set of Sustainability Indicators at the Corporate Level, Journal of Cleaner Production 108: 757-771.
26. Rezaee, z. (2017). Corporate Sustainability: Theoretical and Integrated Strategic Imperative and Pragmatic Approach. Journal of Business Inquiry 16(1):25-38.
27. Roca, L. C., and C. Searcy. (2012). An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production20:103-118.
28. Strezov, V., and A. Evans, and T. Evans. (2013). Defining sustainability indicators of iron and steel production. Journal of Cleaner Production 51: 66-70.
29. Tarmuji, I. , and R. Maelah, and N. H. Tarmuji. (2016). The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance Practices (ESG) on Economic Performance: Evidence from ESG Score. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance7( 3):34-45.
30. Valor, M. (2013). Evaluation of the environmental, social and governance information disclosed by Spanish listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal 9( 2): 220 – 240.
31. Velte ,P. (2016). Women on management board and ESG performance. Journal of Global Responsibility 7(1):12-25.
32. Villard, A., and A. Lelah, and D. Brissaud. (2015). Drawing a chip environmental profile: environmental indicators for the semiconductor industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 86: 98-109.
33. Werbel, J.D. and S.M. Carter.( 2002). The CEO’s influence on corporate foundation giving. Journal of Business Ethics40(1): 47–60.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

Write the security code in the box >


XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

fakhari H, Malekian E, Jafaei Rahni M. Explaining and Ranking of the components and indicators of environmental, social and corporate governance reporting by Analytic Hierarchy Process in the companies listed in Stock Exchange. aapc. 2018; 2 (4) :153-187
URL: http://aapc.khu.ac.ir/article-1-340-en.html


Volume 2, Issue 4 (1-2018) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه دستاوردهای حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری Valued and Behavioral Accountings Achievements
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.15 seconds with 30 queries by YEKTAWEB 3705