<p>Hållbarhetsredovisning bland företag har ökat markant de senaste åren. Organisationen GlobalReporting Initiative påbörjade 1997 arbetet med att ta fram riktlinjer för företags hållbarhetsredovisning.Nu, drygt ett decennium senare, har dessa riktlinjer fått stor acceptans bland företag och dess intressenter. Företag har fått ett betydelsefullt verktyg att använda i sin rapportering av det hållbarhetsarbete som utförs. Tidigare forskning inom närliggande ämnen, till exempel Corporate Social Responsibility och frivilliga upplysningar, har visat variationer i företags redovisning av icke-finansiell information. Med GRI-riktlinjernas ökning i popularitet ville vi undersöka vad som påverkar innehåll i rapporter framtagna enbart enligt detta regelverk. Sex olika faktorer härledda från teorier och tidigare forskning testades genom hypotesprövning. Tre av dessa – storlek, bransch och lönsamhet – förekommer frekvent i tidigare forskning. Vi valde dessutom att titta på faktorer som förekommer i mer begränsad omfattning. Dessa faktorer är ägaridentitet, externgranskning och tid. Hållbarhetsredovisningar för 2008 från 80 svenska företag analyserades. Av dessa företag var 38 statligt ägda och 42 var privatägda. Med hjälp av en bedömningsmall baserad på tidigare studier, analyserades innehållet i hållbarhetsredovisningarna i tre dimensioner, generell dimension, social dimension och miljödimension. En fjärde dimension användes även, den totala dimensionen, som är en summering av de tre. För varje dimension bedömdes och poängsattes ett visst antal mätfaktorer. För den sociala dimensionen och miljödimensionen gjordes dessutom en bedömning av omfattningen enligt bestämda kriterier. Med hjälp av statistisk bearbetning gjordes en multipel regressionsanalys där de sex förklarande variablerna testades mot varje dimension av innehållet i hållbarhetsredovisningen. Resultatet av analysen visade att variablerna storlek, bransch och tid påverkar innehållet mest, i tre eller fler av dimensionerna. Lönsamhet och externgranskning visade en signifikant påverkan på innehåll avseende den generella dimensionen. Ägaridentitet visade inget signifikant samband med innehåll, dock kunde en tendens ses att statliga bolag redovisar mindre än privata.</p> / <p>Sustainability reporting has become increasingly popular among companies in recent years. The Global Reporting Initiative started to develop guidelines to support companies in their sustainability reporting practice in 1997. Now, a decade later, these guidelines have begun to reach great acceptance among companies and their stakeholders. Companies have been given a useful tool in their reporting of sustainability issues. Previous research in nearby subjects, such as Corporate Social Responsibility and voluntary disclosures, has shown variation between companies’ reports of non-financial disclosures. With the increase in popularity of the GRI-guidelines we wanted to examine what explains content in reports based only on this framework. Six independent variables, derived from theories and previous research, were tried in hypothesis testing. Three of these variables –size, industry and profitability – have commonly been used in previous research. We also chose to look at factors that have had somewhat more limited use in studies. These variables are owner identity, external audit and time. The 2008 sustainability reports from 80 Swedish companies were analyzed whereof 38 were state owned and 42 privately owned. By using a modified assessment chart, based on earlier studies, content of the reports were analyzed into three different dimensions of sustainability, the general dimension, the social dimension and the environmental dimension. A fourth dimension was also used, the total dimension, that summarizes the results from the other three. Each dimension contained a number of measure values that were individually scored. The social and environmental dimensions were also assessed, using specific criteria, according to the extent of information that was reported. With the help of statistical testing, multiple regression analysis was performed where the six independent variables were tested towards each dimension of sustainability reporting. The results showed that size, industry and time had the strongest explanatory effect in three or more of the dimensions. Profitability and external audit showed a significant positive relationship for the content in sustainability reports of the general dimension. There was no significant relationship between owner identity and content, although a tendency could be seen that state owned companies report less than privately owned companies.</p>

Hållbarhetsredovisning bland företag har ökat markant de senaste åren. Organisationen GlobalReporting Initiative påbörjade 1997 arbetet med att ta fram riktlinjer för företags hållbarhetsredovisning.Nu, drygt ett decennium senare, har dessa riktlinjer fått stor acceptans bland företag och dess intressenter. Företag har fått ett betydelsefullt verktyg att använda i sin rapportering av det hållbarhetsarbete som utförs. Tidigare forskning inom närliggande ämnen, till exempel Corporate Social Responsibility och frivilliga upplysningar, har visat variationer i företags redovisning av icke-finansiell information. Med GRI-riktlinjernas ökning i popularitet ville vi undersöka vad som påverkar innehåll i rapporter framtagna enbart enligt detta regelverk. Sex olika faktorer härledda från teorier och tidigare forskning testades genom hypotesprövning. Tre av dessa – storlek, bransch och lönsamhet – förekommer frekvent i tidigare forskning. Vi valde dessutom att titta på faktorer som förekommer i mer begränsad omfattning. Dessa faktorer är ägaridentitet, externgranskning och tid. Hållbarhetsredovisningar för 2008 från 80 svenska företag analyserades. Av dessa företag var 38 statligt ägda och 42 var privatägda. Med hjälp av en bedömningsmall baserad på tidigare studier, analyserades innehållet i hållbarhetsredovisningarna i tre dimensioner, generell dimension, social dimension och miljödimension. En fjärde dimension användes även, den totala dimensionen, som är en summering av de tre. För varje dimension bedömdes och poängsattes ett visst antal mätfaktorer. För den sociala dimensionen och miljödimensionen gjordes dessutom en bedömning av omfattningen enligt bestämda kriterier. Med hjälp av statistisk bearbetning gjordes en multipel regressionsanalys där de sex förklarande variablerna testades mot varje dimension av innehållet i hållbarhetsredovisningen. Resultatet av analysen visade att variablerna storlek, bransch och tid påverkar innehållet mest, i tre eller fler av dimensionerna. Lönsamhet och externgranskning visade en signifikant påverkan på innehåll avseende den generella dimensionen. Ägaridentitet visade inget signifikant samband med innehåll, dock kunde en tendens ses att statliga bolag redovisar mindre än privata. / Sustainability reporting has become increasingly popular among companies in recent years. The Global Reporting Initiative started to develop guidelines to support companies in their sustainability reporting practice in 1997. Now, a decade later, these guidelines have begun to reach great acceptance among companies and their stakeholders. Companies have been given a useful tool in their reporting of sustainability issues. Previous research in nearby subjects, such as Corporate Social Responsibility and voluntary disclosures, has shown variation between companies’ reports of non-financial disclosures. With the increase in popularity of the GRI-guidelines we wanted to examine what explains content in reports based only on this framework. Six independent variables, derived from theories and previous research, were tried in hypothesis testing. Three of these variables –size, industry and profitability – have commonly been used in previous research. We also chose to look at factors that have had somewhat more limited use in studies. These variables are owner identity, external audit and time. The 2008 sustainability reports from 80 Swedish companies were analyzed whereof 38 were state owned and 42 privately owned. By using a modified assessment chart, based on earlier studies, content of the reports were analyzed into three different dimensions of sustainability, the general dimension, the social dimension and the environmental dimension. A fourth dimension was also used, the total dimension, that summarizes the results from the other three. Each dimension contained a number of measure values that were individually scored. The social and environmental dimensions were also assessed, using specific criteria, according to the extent of information that was reported. With the help of statistical testing, multiple regression analysis was performed where the six independent variables were tested towards each dimension of sustainability reporting. The results showed that size, industry and time had the strongest explanatory effect in three or more of the dimensions. Profitability and external audit showed a significant positive relationship for the content in sustainability reports of the general dimension. There was no significant relationship between owner identity and content, although a tendency could be seen that state owned companies report less than privately owned companies.

#MeToo-rörelsen tog fart på allvar hösten 2017 då flera anklagelser om sexuella trakasserier från filmproducenten Harvey Weinstein uppdagades. #MeToo-rörelsen är ett uppror från kvinnor, icke-binära och transpersoner som tillsammans delat med sig av sina erfarenheter om sexuellt våld och trakasserier på arbetsplatser och i övriga samhället. Denna rörelse låg till grund för valet av uppsatsens ämne. Ett intresse väcktes för att se om denna rörelse har haft en påverkan hos företags hållbarhetsrapportering. Sedan räkenskapsåret 2017 har det införts obligatorisk hållbarhetsrapportering för en del företag. Det har dock funnits riktlinjer som Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) har arbetat med sedan 1997 för att förbättra hållbarhetsrapportering inom de tre områdena; miljömässig-, ekonomisk- och social påverkan. Tidigare forskning visar på att desto större företagen är desto mer omfattande rapportering kan hittas. Musikbranschen är en snabbt växande industri som influerar personer från all världens hörn genom sina produkter och evenemang. Av den anledning ansågs just denna bransch intressant att forska om. En annan aspekt var även att det sedan tidigare fanns väldigt lite forskning om hållbarhetsrapporter som inriktat sig på musikbranschen, vilket denna uppsats gör. För att undersöka vilka områden i hållbarhetsrapporteringen som företagen lägger vikt vid har vi skapat ett tabellsystem utefter GRI:s riktlinjer. Detta för att på ett djupare plan kunna analysera och se hur duktiga företagen är på att rapportera om de olika områdena. Resultatet av denna forskning visade att det var svårt att finna någon koppling mellan #MeToo-rörelsen och hållbarhetsredovisningen då rörelsen aldrig nämndes vid namn i de hållbarhetsrapporter vi studerade. Däremot såg vi förbättringar av punkter i det sociala perspektivet, vilket indirekt skulle kunna vara ett resultat från #MeToo-rörelsens påverkan. Universal gjorde en tydlig förbättring med 16 %-enheter i det sociala perspektivet medan Sonys ökning var mindre, med 3 %-enheter. Vi kunde också utefter detta tabellsystem jämföra företagens rapportering mellan varandra. Ramen för vårt tabellsystem är även något som företag eller forskare kan använda sig av för att följa upp vad andra branscher eller företag rapporterar inom de olika aspekterna, samtidigt som de kan undersöka ifall de behöver ändra sin rapportering inom något område. / The #MeToo movement took off seriously in the fall of 2017 when several accusations of sexual harassment by film producer Harvey Weinstein were discovered. The #MeToo movement is an uprising from women, non-binary and transgender people who have shared their experiences of sexual violence and harassment in workplaces and in other communities. This movement was the basis for the choice of topic on the essay. An interest was aroused to see if this movement had an impact on corporate sustainability reporting. Since the 2017 fiscal year, mandatory sustainability reporting has been introduced for some companies. However, there have been guidelines that the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has been working with since 1997 to improve sustainability reporting in the three areas; environmental-, economic- and social impact. Previous research shows that the larger the companies, the more comprehensive reporting can be found. The music industry is a fast-growing industry that influences people from all over the world with their products and events. For this reason, this particular industry was considered interesting to research. Another aspect is that not much has been investigated regarding sustainability reports with focus on the music industry, which this paper does. In order to investigate which areas of sustainability reporting the companies attach importance to, we have created a chart system along the GRI guidelines. With the chart system we could analyze the sustainability report on a deeper level and also see how good the companies were at reporting in different areas. The results of this research showed that it was difficult to find any link between the #MeToo movement and the sustainability report as the movement was never mentioned by name in the sustainability reports we studied. However, we saw improvements in the social perspective, which could indirectly be a result of the #MeToo movement's impact. Universal made a clear improvement with 16% units in the social perspective, while Sony made a smaller increase of 3%. We were also able to compare the companies' reporting between each other with the chart system. The framework based on our chart system is also something that companies can use to monitor what other industries or companies report in the various aspects, as well as investigate if they need to improve their reporting in any area.

Since the mid 1990s, the momentum behind Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has increased. CSR has become an important issue at political, academic and business level. Already since the beginning of the last decade, commentators have suggested that CSR seems to differ between European countries and that said differences appear to be shaped by the country context. Nevertheless, in general, so far, only few empirical cross-country studies have been conducted. In addition, said studies focused mainly on the comparison between Europe as a region and the US. The latter are biased by the selection of only few specific European countries, which are regarded as a proxy for Europe as a whole. Hence, said studies deliver partially contradictory results, since they do not consider that CRS is supposed to be Non-Pan-European. Moreover, cross-country studies of international character, going beyond that regional comparison, have been rather superficial in view of CSR issues to be investigated. And finally, only recently, cross-country research in CSR has started to establish a systematic link between CSR patterns and the country specific institutional context. Also in view of the latter, the focus has been set on the comparison between countries of Anglo American/Saxon tradition and Europe, considering again some specific European countries as a proxy for the region as a whole. <p>Given that lack in the literature, the following explicit calls for empirical cross-country research of CSR in Europe have been formulated: First, to explore differences in view of CSR; and second, to find out if country specific institutional mechanisms are influential in shaping said differences. <p><p>Hence, the dissertation aims at filling this gap and to answer said calls for research by presenting a cross-country research involving two European countries, Germany and Spain. The research aims at exploring differences in view of a variety of CSR issues and at finding out if the national institutional contexts are influential in shaping said differences. <p><p>The dissertation consists of five main parts. In part one, the introductory part, the following is pointed out: motivation, main theoretical frameworks of CSR and main CSR issues in CSR literature. Moreover, a detailed overview on the research design of the three papers, which form part two, three and four, is provided. <p><p>In part two, which is composed of one paper, differences in view of CSR concepts and CSR drivers (analytical framework) between Germany and Spain are explored. The methodology applied was a questionnaire-based postal survey among the 500 largest companies in both, Germany and Spain. <p>The results of the study suggest important differences between the two countries over the analytical framework. In comparison to Spanish companies, the German ones seem to be more attached to the "sustainability" concept of CSR, whereas the Spanish companies favour to a major extent the CSR concept, formulated by the EC and the "Triple Bottom Line" concept. In view of CSR drivers, the results imply that German corporations are to a major extent than their Spanish counterparts driven by secondary stakeholders, whereas corporations in both countries seem to be equally pressured by primary stakeholders to become engaged in CSR. In addition, the findings suggest that CSR in Spain seems to be more "voluntary", whereas, in Germany, it seems to be more "regulated". The analysis of the results with regard to "expectations on positive internal" and "positive external effects" as drivers to CSR suggests a "more competitive advantage centred" approach to CSR among Spanish companies than among German ones, where the corresponding approach is "less competitive advantage centred". And finally, the findungs further suggest, that the country context seems to be influential in shaping most of said differences. <p><p>Part three, which consists of one paper, deals with CSR reporting, which is assumed to deliver insights into the institutionalization of the leading reporting guidelines in CSR, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines, CSR agendas and the communicated rationale behind CSR. The methodology applied was quantitative contents analysis of CSR reports. As sample served companies of the utility industry, listed in the main stock indexes in Germany and Spain. <p>The findings of the study suggest that the institutionalisation of the GRI indicators is low in the corporations investigated in both countries. But, it is especially low in German firms. With regard to CSR agendas, the focus of corporate activities appears to lie among German corporations on those attached to environmental responsibilities, whereas Spanish corporations appear to have in this regard a mixed approach, related to their economic, environmental and social responsibilities. But, in contrast to their German counterparts the economic responsibilities are more emphasized. With regard to the communicated rationale behind CSR, German corporations seem to be driven by normative reasons, the Spanish to a major extent by instrumental ones. And finally, the findings imply that the country context seems to be influential in shaping most of said differences. <p><p>In part four, which contains one paper, differences in the understanding of CG in view of its links to CSR are explored. Currently, scholars discuss the link between CG and CSR and their relational models in the theoretical literature. Hence, to explore the understanding of CG and its links to CSR ,an analytical framework was elaborated, based upon said current theoretical debate. The methodology applied was qualitative contents analysis, conducted in the framework of a web site research. The sample consisted of corporations listed in the main stock indexes in both countries. <p>The findings suggest differences between the two countries with regard to the understanding of CG and its links to CSR and the corresponding relational models. In Spain the understanding of CG seems to be to a major extent linked to the "narrow view" of CG, implied by a major focus on shareholders only in view of corporate responsibilities. In contrast, among German corporations the view appears to be "broad", including other stakeholders than exclusively shareholders in this regard. In addition, the results suggest, that the relational model favoured by German corporations consists of CSR being considered as a part of CG, whereas the Spanish companies seem to relate CG to CSR or at least consider both, CG and CSR, as complementary constituents. And finally, the findings suggest that most of the exposed differences seem to be shaped by mechanisms of the traditional national CG systems. <p><p>In the final main part, part five, the overall conclusions of the dissertation have been formulated. These can be summarized as follows. From an overall perspective the three essays contribute to fill the lack in the literature as already pointed out. They constitute an original answer to the calls for research expressed in this regard. Moreover, they contribute to increase the knowledge on differences in CSR between European countries. And furthermore, through paying attention to country specific institutional mechanisms, they enhance the understanding of said differences induced by the country context or country specificity of CSR. In addition, the three essays have raised important implications for managerial practice, public policies, international and (supra) national institutions and for further research. In view of the implications for managerial practice, the findings suggest to sensitize practitioners with regard to the country specificity of CSR and to undertake corresponding measures in e.g. corporate communication, product and market strategies, employer marketing and organizational and management development terms. With regard to the implications for public policies, international and (supra) national organizations, those with regulatory power should increasingly bear in mind to handle more carefully the outsourcing of said power to private institutions, including NGOs, which play an important role in the "oluntary" regulation of CSR. In addition, those institutions, without regulatory power, which issue e.g. voluntary guidelines, should consider the country specificity of CSR and the "one size does not fit all" problem. Concerning the implications of the findings for further research these are the following: 1) to expand the CSR issues to be investigated in cross-country studies; 2) to intensify cross-country research in Europe in view of the number of countries involved; 3) to consider longitudinal approaches in cross-country research in Europe; 4) to expand said research (1-3) also to SMEs; 5) to increase the scope of institutional mechanisms to be investigated; and 6) to intensify cross-country linguistics research in view of CG and CSR. And finally, the findings of the three essays have delivered substantial contributions to enliven the debate, at academic and practitioner level, in view of the international management of CSR in terms of complexity vs. simplicity. <p> / Doctorat en Sciences économiques et de gestion / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

While sustainability-dedicated managers and related titles represent a profession that has hardly existed for more than a decade, it is not surprising that the field of research concentrating on these professionals is in itself relatively new. With an increasing demand for corporations to take their social and environmental responsibility, and a corporate sustainability characterized by tension and paradox, we found it of importance to explore the role and entanglements of these professionals. By analysing 17 in-depth interviews with sustainability-dedicated professionals from the private sector in Sweden, our interpretation is that sustainability managers hold the function of selling sustainability, with talk as their main weapon. Expressly, in the intersection between business-case logics and sustainability logics, sustainability managers have to, above all, make a convincing case for sustainability, inwards and outwards. Therefore, they draw dynamically on different narratives which we conceptualise in three roles: the chameleon, the pragmatic, and the nagging manager. Through these roles, we intend to capture the fluidity with which the managers relate and engage with sustainability, and hence we do not mean to ossify a role’s dynamics within a single, static or stereotypical category. We discuss these findings and concepts to the background of previous studies and existing literature.