Sustainability reporting and greenwashing: a bibliometrics assessment in G7 and non-G7 nations

Figures & data

Figure 1. Dataset search and analysis criteria.

Source: Own elaboration.

Table 1. Main information summary relating to the research on GiSR in G7 and non-G7 countries between 2003 and 2022.

Description	G7	Non-G7
Timespan	2003:2022	2005:2022
Documents	25	22
Article	24	18
Article; early access	1	4
Annual Growth Rate %	4.14	10.41
Average citations per doc	52.76	15.73
Keywords Plus (ID)	107	105
Author’s Keywords (DE)	76	97
Authors	64	47
Authors of single-authored docs	3	5
Co-Authors per Doc	2.56	2.5
International co-authorships %	8	31.82

Source: Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Figure 2. Overview of the number of articles included in the Web of Science database relating to the research of greenwashing in sustainability reporting.

Source: Web of Science on 2023.03.30.

Table 2. The ranking of the most cited documents and researchers in the Web of Science database relating to greenwashing in sustainability reporting.

Research	Source Title	IF - 2021	Publisher	Total Citations	Average per Year
G7
Mahoney et al., 2013	Critical Perspectives on Accounting	3.176	Elsevier	238	23.80
Hahn & Lülfs, 2014	Journal of Business Ethics	6.331	Springer Nature B.V.	201	22.33
Font et al., 2012	Tourism Management	12.879	Elsevier	182	16.55
Kim & Lyon, 2015	Organization Science	5.152	Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences	164	12.05
Siano et al., 2017	Journal of Business Research	10.969	Elsevier	148	24.67
Wang et al., 2018	Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management	8.464	John Wiley and Sons Ltd	108	21.60
Non-G7
Du, 2015	Journal of Business Ethics	6.331	Springer Nature B.V.	101	12.63
Huang & Chen, 2015	Journal of Business Ethics	6.331	Springer Nature B.V.	65	8.13
Du et al., 2016	Asia Pacific Journal of Management	5.616	SAGE Publications (New Delhi)	45	6.43
Sial et al., 2018	Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration	2.25	Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.	31	6.20
Khalil & O’Sullivan, 2017	Meditari Accountancy Research	3.52	Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.	25	4.17

Source: Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Table 3. The ranking of the most prominent sources in the Web of Science database relating to GiSR for G7 and non-G7 countries between 2003 and 2022.

G7
Year	Total Publication	ABDC Ranking	SJR	Publisher
Business and Society Review	10	C	Q2	Wiley
Journal of Business and Technical Communication	10	C	Q1	Sage
Critical Perspectives on Accounting	9	A	Q1	Elsevier
Journal of Business Ethics	8	A	Q1	Springer
Organization Science	7	A*	Q1	INFORMS
Journal of Global Responsibility	6	C	Q2	Emerald
Journal of Business Research	5	A	Q1	Elsevier
Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting	4	NA	Q3	Emerald
Non-G7
Year	Total Publication	ABDC Ranking	SJR	Publisher
Journal of Business Ethics	21	A	Q1	Springer
Asia Pacific Journal of Management	7	A	Q1	Springer
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration	5	C	Q2	Emerald
Business Strategy and The Environment	5	A	Q1	Wiley
Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics	4	A	Q2	Elsevier
Corporate Governance -the International Journal of Business in Society	3	C	Q3	Emerald

Source: Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Table 4. Top affiliations in the Web of Science database relating to GiSR for G7 and non-G7 countries between 2003 and 2022.

G7		Non-G7
Affiliation	# of Articles		# of Articles
Georgia State University	20	Nanjing Audit University	16
Leeds Metropolitan University (now known as Leeds Beckett University)	20	Xiamen University	46
Eastern Michigan University	18	Shanghai University	14
University of Kassel (Universität Kassel)	16	Notre Dame University	12
George Washington University	14	RMIT University	10
Stonehill College	14	Xiamen National Accounting University	10
Youngstown State University	12
University of Salerno	15

Source: Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Table 5. Citation trends by country relating to articles on GiSR for G7 and non-G7 countries between 2003 and 2022.

Country	Total Citations	Average Article Citations
G7
USA	667	47.6
Germany	202	101
United Kingdom	180	180
Italy	156	78
France	8	8
Non-G7
China	232	25.78
Australia	37	9.25
Lebanon	24	24.00
Netherlands	19	19.00

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Figure 3. (a) Country collaboration – G7. (b) Country collaboration – Non-G7.

Table 6a. Country collaboration – Non-G7 nations.

From	To	Frequency
Australia	Indonesia	2
Australia	Vietnam	1
China	Australia	2
China	Canada	2
China	Uk	2
China	USA	3
China	Vietnam	1

Table 6b. Country collaboration – G7 nation.

From	To	Frequency
Canada	France	3
USA	Canada	3

Figure 4. (a) Author-Keyword Network (G7). Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30. (b) Author-Keyword Network (non-G7). Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Table 7. Author Keywords relating to GiSR for G7 and non-G7 countries between 2003 and 2022.

Author-keywords
G7	Non-G7
Disclosure Corporate social responsibility Environmental disclosure Greenwashing Environmental Global gas emission Social Sustainability Global reporting initiatives Impressive management Sustainability reporting	Financial constraints Corporate social responsibility Environmental performance Greenwashing China Media coverage Corporate environmental performance
Common keywords
Corporate social responsibility Environmental performance/ disclosure Greenwashing

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Figure 5. (a) Bibliographic coupling network (G7). Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30. (b) Bibliographic coupling network (Non-G7). Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Table 8. Key eccentricities relating to GiSR for G7 countries between 2003 and 2022.

Cluster 1: Greenwashing (exaggeration of green efforts)
Authors	Country	Findings
Mason & Mason, 2012	USA	Companies use ideological persuasion in their environmental reports to publicize as socially responsible. They communicate a green corporate culture, leaving audience members to make a distinction between greenwashing strategies and genuine environmental interests.
Siano et al., 2017	Germany	The study established a new form of greenwashing classification, i.e. a new type of irresponsible conduct, that is ‘deceptive manipulation;. This form of sustainability communication acts as a platform for constitutional force.
Kassinis & Panayiotou, 2018	UK	The study established the occurrence of companies using images to establish realism, with the intention of diverting from environmentally risky practices. These visuals, images, and deepened greenwashing practices act as a platform to rebuild when decoupling is exposed.
Kim & Lyon, 2015	USA	Firms employ both Greenwashing and Brownwashing practices to misrepresent their environmental performance. The extent of it depends on corporate growth, deregulation, and low profits.
Lee et al., 2018	USA and Canada	Various levels of greenwashing have diverse impacts on stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate environmental responsibility and responses to environmental scandals. Regulating greenwash may not spontaneously enhance environmental externalities.
Cluster 2: ESG disclosures and performance gap
Authors	Country	Findings
Weber, 2018	USA	Companies that are high in the performance-disclosure gap but not obtaining external assurance tend to have higher costs of equity as they are questioned on possibilities of greenwashing.
Font et al., 2012	Europe	The study confirms the importance of corporate disclosure systems as they may not reflect actual operations. Largely, established hotel groups tend to have more inclusive guidelines but larger gaps in execution, while the smaller hotel groups have smaller gaps and deliver as reported.
Mahoney et al., 2013	USA	Firms use voluntary sustainability reports to showcase greater social and environmental involvement to stakeholders.
Wang et al., 2018	USA	Firms that execute genuine sustainability initiatives produce legible reports, which may indicate a minimal reporting-performance gap. Additionally, the legibility of reports is stronger with social performance as compared to environmental performance. This study also highlighted the importance of regulating the narrations disclosed.
Lee, Maxfield, 2015	USA	Sustainability reports based on the GRI framework have more valuable impact on corporate social performance and corporate financial performance, compared to general reporting. This justifies the importance for firms to align their reporting with the GRI framework.
Cooper & Weber, 2021	USA	Most investors prefer to invest in Benefit Corporations (BC) compared to traditional corporations – indicating a preference for social good. Investors tend to believe the information included in BC disclosures is dependable and valuable for investment decision-making. Thus, the study stresses the need for proper sustainability information as it is being perceived as an important element by investors and stakeholders.
Cluster 3: Communicative legitimation strategies and reporting of negative aspects
Authors	Country	Findings
Cooper et al., 2018	USA	Findings indicate an absence of the ‘halo effect’, i.e. a firm’s repute for social responsibility will not shield them from any unfavorable consequences of GHG emissions. The adverse impact due to GHG emission is greater if the CSR score is high.
Lashitew, 2021	Europe	Intensifying institutional shift towards frameworks, such as GRI and SASB standards and regulatory surveillance to observe disclosure (e.g. the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive) should enhance transparency and dependability in sustainability reporting.
Hahn & Lülfs, 2014	USA	The study revealed that firms use ‘symbolic legitimation strategies’ to alter stakeholders’ perception of sustainability reports. It does not meet the sovereignty standards set by GRI guidelines. The study further recommended the need to develop a GRI-compliant scheme for reporting negative aspects.

Table 9. Key eccentricities relating to GiSR for non-G7 countries between 2003 and 2022.

Cluster 1: Greenwashing (exaggeration of green efforts)
Authors	Country	Findings
Sial et al., 2018	China	Corporate sustainability positively impacts firm performance, but earnings management decreases the impact. This study highlighted 2 types: substantive and symbolic (genuine sustainability vs greenwashing). High earnings management increases ‘symbolic’ corporate sustainability, which adversely affects firm performance.
Du et al., 2016	China	Chinese firms in environmentally unfriendly industries tend to be involved in greenwashing through the corporate philanthropy platform to mitigate corporate environmental reporting weaknesses.
Du et al., 2018	China	Corporate environmental performance is an important corporate sustainability dimension and contributes favorably to auditors’ reports and audit fees. It also reduces earnings management by firms. Nevertheless, the presence of greenwashing reduces the positive influences of the above.
Cluster 2: ESG disclosures and performance gap
Authors	Country	Findings
Khalil and O’Sullivan, (2017)	Lebanon	The high percentage of symbolic disclosures (51.63%) concludes that Lebanese banks are largely participating in greenwashing in the ISER reporting, though the qualitative interviews denied such practices. This indicates a disclosure gap between ESG disclosure and performance gap.
de Jong et al., 2020	Netherlands	Results suggest that only true green behavior contributes positively to reputation; lies and half lies contribute to the performance gap and do not have any positive impact on a firm reputation.
Du, 2015	China	Many firms in China propagate environmentally friendly practices, to cover up their true activities, i.e. greenwashing. This has created public doubt on the authenticity of green behaviour, thus, impacting negatively on firm performance.
Huang et al., 2015	China	Inadequate reports on emission reduction, i.e. discerning disclosure or ‘‘greenwashing’’ had only a minor influence on waste discharge reduction.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Web of Science and Biblioshiny on 2023.03.30.

Table 10. Potential research on Greenwashing (exaggeration of green efforts).

Effectiveness of Regulatory Measures: Multiple studies have shown the flaws of regulatory attempts, but more research is needed to evaluate how well present frameworks prevent greenwashing and promote sustainable reporting. Future research should examine how enterprises’ compliance with sustainability reporting criteria affects their greenwashing tendency, focusing on regulatory institutions’ effectiveness in eliminating false sustainability methods. Research could also evaluate sustainability reporting regulations in different jurisdictions, including the benefits and drawbacks of all approaches for combatting greenwashing and promoting legitimate sustainability reporting.

Comparative Analysis across Industries and Regions: Future research could conduct an extensive comparative analysis to understand variations in greenwashing strategies across industries and regions. It could explore if the impact of greenwashing differs across geographic areas, industry sectors, or cultural settings and identify the contributing factors. This research would shed light on sector-specific challenges and regional influences on greenwashing prevalence.

Integration of Technology and Reporting: With the rise of technology and big data analytics, research could explore how technological advancements can be leveraged to enhance the accuracy, transparency, and credibility of sustainability reporting and minimize opportunities for greenwashing. Also, future research could examine how artificial intelligence can support audit approaches that can effectively verify the accuracy and truthfulness of sustainability disclosures, reducing the likelihood of greenwashing.

Firm-level characteristics and Greenwashing Mitigation: Research on firm-level variations in behavior, leadership, and strategy can provide valuable insights into effectively implementing sustainable practices and reducing the potential for greenwashing. Identifying the drivers of sustainable behavior within firms, as well as the leadership styles, governance and internal control systems, and organizational culture that promote sustainability, can encourage firms to adopt sustainable practices and mitigate the risk of greenwashing.

Table 11. Potential research on ESG disclosures and performance gap.

Effectiveness of Sustainability Reporting in Non-G7 Countries: Non-G7 countries face issues such as symbolic disclosures and faked data, affecting financial reporting dependability. Future research should compare G7 and non-G7 nations to better understand their sustainability reporting challenges. Determine the reasons for symbolic disclosures and disinformation and identify holistic strategies encompassing all stakeholders that could enhance sustainability report reliability in these nations.

Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Approaches: The regulatory frameworks pertaining to sustainability reporting exhibit considerable variation across different nations. Future research has the potential to undertake a comparative analysis of sustainability reporting regulations across various jurisdictions, to evaluate their respective merits and drawbacks in effectively addressing the disclosure-performance gap. Furthermore, it is imperative to identify and delineate the most optimal strategies and principles that can be universally disseminated to enhance the overall efficacy of regulatory processes.

Assessing the Role of Voluntary Reporting in Reducing the Disclosure-Performance Gap: Disclosure-performance gaps tend to be narrowed in voluntary sustainability reports issued by corporations. Future research could investigate the factors that motivate companies to voluntarily disclose sustainability information, as well as the potential benefits that such disclosures may yield. This investigation will enhance our understanding of what motivates corporate sustainability reporting and the tangible benefits it can bring, further highlighting the significance of such disclosures in the business world.

Transparency and Standardization in ESG Reporting: ESG reporting should be standardized and made public on a global scale. Future research could examine how initiatives like GRI and SASB have affected sustainable reporting standards and transparency. Investigate the obstacles that prevent the widespread use of standardized reporting guidelines. Also, an analysis of the extent to which these efforts strengthen the credibility of ESG reporting and lessen the prevalence of greenwashing is warranted.

Table 12. Potential future research on Communicative legitimation strategies and reporting of negative effects.

Development of Robust Measurement Frameworks: While it has been asserted that a strong measuring framework can increase openness and decrease the need for impression oversight, details on how this might be accomplished are sparse. A greater focus should be paid to assessing existing and developing new standardized, all-encompassing assessment frameworks for sustainability reporting. Future research could explore how these models could track and display sustainability data transparently and efficiently, reducing the likelihood of greenwashing.

Corporate Disclosure in Non-G7 Countries: Research on symbolic legitimation and sustainability reporting is limited in non-G7 nations, which may be due to a lack of emphasis on the topic or different dynamics. The aspects of culture, cognition, organization, and institution that affect the acceptance and efficacy of symbolic legitimation tactics in sustainability reporting in non-G7 nations could be investigated in future studies. The impact of these elements on corporate disclosure practices and the effectiveness of countermeasures against greenwashing could also be investigated.

Ethical Greenwashing Boundaries: It is unclear when or should greenwashing be officially identified as fraud. Future research could undertake an interdisciplinary study to examine and propose potential legal, regulatory, and ethical greenwashing boundaries. It could also provide detailed criteria to distinguish legitimate sustainability reporting from greenwashing and how defining greenwashing boundaries could affect corporate responsibility, stakeholder trust, and sustainability reporting. The declaration may prompt governmental proposals to improve corporate responsibility and stakeholder confidence in sustainability reporting.

Table 13. Summary of Web of Science articles published in 2021 and 2022.

Ruiz-Blanco et al., 2022	The study investigates the determinants of greenwashing in the S&P top 100 companies and found that firms from environmentally sensitive sectors and GRI advocates greenwash less, while companies with proximity and greater exposure greenwash more. The study suggests a new greenwashing metric, emphasizing the importance of sector and reporting mechanisms when adopting guidelines to enhance sustainability reporting credibility.
Armando et al., 2022	This study used the grounded theory to examine the Italian poultry ESG reporting on how to avoid greenwashing and promote sustainability. A more formalized ESG reporting system and incentivization metrics could assist firms implement environmental sustainability as a strategic approach and close the gap between perceived and real sustainability.
Hamza & Jarboui, 2022	This study explored the extent to which corporate social responsibility (CSR) is utilized as an approach for greenwashing in French publicly traded companies. CSR and disclosure tone management are significantly related, with companies less affected with tone management becoming much more socially responsible.
Coen et al., 2022	This study employed machine-aided text analysis of 725 corporate sustainability reporting to examine whether firms’ climate promises (talk) match their true greenhouse gas emission reductions (walk). Some promises are real, but most are just symbolic.
Sturrock et al., 2022	This study examined sustainability reporting from a linguistic perspective and concluded that it lacks objectivity and reflects marketing. It employs too many positive languages without identifying obstacles or consequences, forcing to suggest that it is considered business marketing, and not disclosure.
Reig-Mullor et al., 2022	The study proposed using AHP and TOPSIS in a neutrosophic setting to evaluate companies ESG performance. The purpose of the study is to increase the reliability of ESG data in corporate sustainability reports.
Velte, 2022	This study examined 85 peer-reviewed articles on the business case for integrated reporting (IR), including non-financial capital. Improved financial results increases IR adoption and value, whereas composition of the board and stakeholder pressure improved IR quality. IR adoption and quality boost valuation and performance.
Barbu et al., 2022	Financial and non-financial rules influenced environmental disclosure of Euronext 100 firms from 2002 to 2017. The findings showed how mandatory requirements enhanced disclosure, however the degree of disclosure still seemed to be inadequate. Europe’s environmental regulations should be tailored to each country’s culture and beliefs.
Zharfpeykan, 2021	The research examined organizations’ sustainability reports to see if they display a rational perspective of both positive and adverse details or if negative content is minimized. In both the financial services and mining industries, the finding indicates a trend toward ‘greenwashing’ instead of fair reporting.
Lashitew, 2021	The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are used by corporations as sustainability benchmarks, however, voluntary reporting increases the possibility of greenwashing. Changes to institutions and legislation are required to promote openness and precision. This paper investigates these developments and innovations in corporate governance to enhance the integration of sustainability into businesses and financial markets.
Wedari et al., 2021	This study investigated Australian companies’ carbon emissions and climate-related disclosures. Low disclosure and poor environmental performance suggest greenwashing. Greenwashing is absent from emission-reducing companies. These findings suggest that weak performers greenwash to enhance stakeholder perceptions.
Karaman et al., 2021	The study supports the signaling theory and finds that higher corporate sustainability performers issue reports, adopt GRI guidelines, and obtain external assurance. The relationships are stronger for firms in middle-income countries compared to high-income countries.
Koseoglu et al., 2021	The study examined the association between corporate sustainability performance, reporting, and independent assurance in the hospitality and tourism industry. Higher-performing sustainability organizations produce reports, adopt the GRI framework, and obtain external assurance, thus refuting greenwashing, however non- sustainability reports and non-GRI adopters require action.
Wilson, 2021	As a means of measuring and reporting sustainability, the Social and Human Capital Protocol has been developed. This information’s credibility can be problematic due to the fact that firms utilize various methodologies and may not completely reveal their findings, hence potentially undermining their reports. The report will review the protocol’s capacity to generate accurate and precise measurements.
Matakanye et al., 2021	The industry’s impact on ESG sustainability was studied. ESG ratings were not affected by industry type in 75 companies from 6 sectors. Community Development and Philanthropy, Human Rights and Supply Chain, and Compensation and Benefits have substantial variances among the twelve ESG ratings.
Popescu et al., 2021	Investors require non-financial portfolio performance measurement, necessitating trustworthy sustainability assessment tools. Carbon footprints and ESG ratings fail to measure real-world impact. Science-based, open-source, sustainability-driven solutions that create positive impact and consider life cycle impacts should be prioritized.

Mahoney, L. S., Thorne, L., Cecil, L., & LaGore, W. (2013). A research note on standalone corporate social responsibility reports: Signaling or greenwashing? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(4-5), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2012.09.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Font, X., Walmsley, A., Cogotti, S., McCombes, L., & Häusler, N. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: The disclosure-performance gap. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1544–1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, E. H., & Lyon, T. P. (2015). Greenwash vs. Brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science, 26(3), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0949

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Siano, A., Vollero, A., Conte, F., & Amabile, S. (2017). More than words: Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volkswagen scandal. Journal of Business Research, 71, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, Z., Hsieh, T. S., & Sarkis, J. (2018). CSR performance and the readability of CSR reports: Too good to be true? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1440

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Du, X. (2015). How the market values greenwashing? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 547–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2122-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang, R., & Chen, D. (2015). Does environmental information disclosure benefit waste discharge reduction? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2173-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Du, X., Chang, Y., Zeng, Q., Du, Y., & Pei, H. (2016). Corporate environmental responsibility (CER) weakness, media coverage, and corporate philanthropy: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(2), 551–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9449-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sial, M. S., Chunmei, Z., Khan, T., & Nguyen, V. K. (2018). Corporate social responsibility, firm performance and the moderating effect of earnings management in Chinese firms. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 10(2/3), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-03-2018-0051/FULL/PDF

 Google Scholar

Khalil, S., & O’Sullivan, P. (2017). Corporate social responsibility: Internet social and environmental reporting by banks. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(3), 414–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-10-2016-0082/FULL/PDF

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mason, M., & Mason, R. D. (2012). Communicating a green corporate perspective: Ideological persuasion in the corporate environmental report. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912448872

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kassinis, G., & Panayiotou, A. (2018). Visuality as greenwashing: The case of BP and Deepwater Horizon. Organization & Environment, 31(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026616687014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, H. C. B., Cruz, J. M., & Shankar, R. (2018). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues in supply chain competition: should greenwashing be regulated? Decision Sciences, 49(6), 1088–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12307

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weber, J. L. (2018). Corporate social responsibility disclosure level, external assurance and cost of equity capital. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 16(4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-12-2017-0112

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, J., & Maxfield, S. (2015). Doing well by reporting good: Reporting corporate responsibility and corporate performance. Business and Society Review, 120(4), 577–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12075

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cooper, L. A., & Weber, J. (2021). Does benefit corporation status matter to investors? An exploratory study of investor perceptions and decisions. Business & Society, 60(4), 979–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650319898462

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cooper, S. A., Raman, K. K., & Yin, J. (2018). Halo effect or fallen angel effect? Firm value consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and reputation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 37(3), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.04.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lashitew, A. A. (2021). Corporate uptake of the Sustainable Development Goals: Mere greenwashing or an advent of institutional change? Journal of International Business Policy, 4(1), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-020-00092-4

 Google Scholar

Du, X., Jian, W., Zeng, Q., & Chang, Y. (2018). Do auditors applaud corporate environmental performance? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 1049–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3223-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Jong, M. D., Huluba, G., & Beldad, A. D. (2020). Different shades of greenwashing: Consumers’ reactions to environmental lies, half-lies, and organizations taking credit for following legal obligations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(1), 38–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651919874105

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruiz-Blanco, S., Romero, S., & Fernandez-Feijoo, B. (2022). Green, blue or black, but washing–What company characteristics determine greenwashing? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 4024–4045. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10668-021-01602-X/TABLES/8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hamza, S., & Jarboui, A. (2022). CSR or social impression management? Tone management in CSR reports. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 20(3/4), 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-04-2020-0115

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Coen, D., Herman, K., & Pegram, T. (2022). Are corporate climate efforts genuine? An empirical analysis of the climate ‘talk–walk’ hypothesis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(7), 3040–3059. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3063

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sturrock, A., Chilton, H., Foy, K., Freed, J., & Adams, C. (2022). In their own words: The impact of subtle language and communication difficulties as described by autistic girls and boys without intellectual disability. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 26(2), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211002047

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reig-Mullor, J., Garcia-Bernabeu, A., Pla-Santamaria, D., & Vercher-Ferrandiz, M. (2022). M. Evaluating ESG corporate performance using a new neutrosophic AHP-TOPSIS based approach. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 28(5), 1242–1266. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2022.17004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Velte, P. (2022). Archival research on integrated reporting: A systematic review of main drivers and the impact of integrated reporting on firm value. Journal of Management and Governance, 26(3), 997–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09582-w

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Balogh, I., Srivastava, M., & Tyll, L. (2022). Towards comprehensive corporate sustainability reporting: An empirical study of factors influencing ESG disclosures of large Czech companies. Society and Business Review, 17(4), 541–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBR-07-2021-0114

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zharfpeykan, R. (2021). Representative account or greenwashing? Voluntary sustainability reports in Australia’s mining/metals and financial services industries. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2209–2223. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2744

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wedari, L. K., Jubb, C., & Moradi‐Motlagh, A. (2021). Corporate climate‐related voluntary disclosures: Does potential greenwash exist among Australian high emitters reports? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3721–3739. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2836

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karaman, A. S., Orazalin, N., Uyar, A., & Shahbaz, M. (2021). CSR achievement, reporting, and assurance in the energy sector: Does economic development matter? Energy Policy, 149, 112007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koseoglu, M. A., Uyar, A., Kilic, M., Kuzey, C., & Karaman, A. S. (2021). Exploring the connections among CSR performance, reporting, and external assurance: Evidence from the hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102819

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Matakanye, R. M., van der Poll, H. M., & Muchara, B. (2021). Do companies in different industries respond differently to stakeholders’ pressures when prioritising environmental, social and governance sustainability performance? Sustainability, 13(21), 12022. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112022

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Popescu, I. S., Hitaj, C., & Benetto, E. (2021). Measuring the sustainability of investment funds: A critical review of methods and frameworks in sustainable finance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, 128016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data is available on request from the authors.