Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Organizational and Operational Boundaries of Triple Bottom Line Reporting: A Survey

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article responds to Gray’s (2002) call for normative research on social and environmental accounting (SEA) and Parker’s (2005) call for active engagement in the process of designing SEA systems. More specifically, our investigation focuses on the study of boundary setting for triple bottom line (TBL) reporting, an issue that has been given more attention by practitioners than by researchers. The study reviews the consequences of boundary setting for the discharge of organizational accountability, from which it develops a framework to investigate TBL reporting boundaries and then reports on an empirical survey of best practice. It concludes that organizations are strategically setting and disclosing their boundaries instead of discharging their accountability and argues that such strategies have far-reaching consequences, because reporting boundaries are not only reflective of organizations but also have a constitutive role in their definition. A further consequence is that it calls into question the use of voluntary labeling, such as “in accordance” with Global Reporting Initiative; one implication being that further research into technical developments in TBL reporting could contribute to the discharge of organizational accountability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott WF, Monsen RJ (1979) On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal 22:501–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams CA (2004) The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 17:731–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams CA, Coutts A, Harte G (1995) Corporate equal opportunities (non-) disclosure. The British Accounting Review 27:87–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams CA, Kuasirikun N (2000) A comparative analysis of corporate reporting on ethical issues by UK and German chemical and pharmaceutical companies. European Accounting Review 9:53–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams CA, Larrinaga-González C (2007) Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 20:333–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington J, Larrinaga-Gonzalez C, Moneva JM-Abadía (2008) I Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting and Reputation Risk Management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

  • Criado-Jiménez I, Fernández-Chulián M, Husillos FJ-Carqués Larrinaga-González C (2008) Compliance with Mandatory Environmental Reporting in Financial Statements: The Case of Spain (2001–2003). Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9375-7

  • De Jonge AM (2003) Limited LCAs of pharmaceutical products: Merits and limitations of an environmental management tool. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10:78–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engstrom R, Wadeskog A, Finnveden G (2007) Environmental assessment of Swedish agriculture. Ecological Economics 60:550–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Féderation des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE) (2000) Towards a General Accounting Framework for Environmental Reporting. Féderation des Experts Comptables Européens, Brussels

  • Freedman M, Stagliano AJ (2002) Environmental disclosure by companies involved in initial public offerings. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15:94–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R (1992) Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17:399–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R (2002) The social accounting project and Accounting Organizations and Society Privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations and Society 27:687–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R (2006) Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation?: Whose value? Whose creation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 19:793–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R, Dey C, Owen D, Evans R, Zadek S (1997) Struggling with the praxis of social accounting Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 10:325–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R, Kouhy R Lavers S (1995a) Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8:47–77

  • Gray R, Kouhy R, Lavers S (1995b) Methodological themes: Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8:78–101

  • Gray R, Milne M (2004) Towards Reporting on the Triple Bottom Line: Mirages, Methods and Myths. In Henriques A (Ed) Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up?: Assessing the Sustainability of Business and CSR. Earthscan Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray R, Owen DL, Adams CA (1996) Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. Prentice Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2002) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2005) GRI Boundary Protocol. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam

  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2006) G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam

  • Hernes T (2004) Studying composite boundaries: A framework of analysis. Human Relations 57:9–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbitt C (1999) FEE Discussion Paper: Towards a generally accepted framework for environmental reporting, a commentary. Unpublished paper

  • International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) (2003) Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, London

  • Jones MJ, Shoemaker PA (1994) Accounting narratives: A review of empirical studies of content and readability. Journal of Accounting Literature 13:142–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Junnila SI (2006) Empirical Comparison of Process and Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment in Service Industries

  • Kolk A (2005) Environmental Reporting by Multinationals from the Triad: Convergence or Divergence? Management International Review 45:145–166

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG (2005) KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2005. KPMG, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamberton G (2005) Sustainability accounting - A brief history and conceptual framework. Accounting Forum 29:7–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga-Gonzalez C, Bebbington J (2001) Accounting change or institutional appropriation?–A case study of the implementation of environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12:269–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga-Gonzalez C, Carrasco-Fenech F, Caro FJ-Gonzalez, Correa-Ruiz C, Paez JM-Sandubete (2001) The role of environmental accounting in organizational change: An exploration of Spanish companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14:213–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrinaga-González C, Carrasco-Fenech F, Correa-Ruiz C, Llena-Macarulla F, Moneva-Abadía J (2002) Accountability and accounting regulation: the case of the Spanish environmental disclosure standard. European Accounting Review 11:723–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ljunggren Soderman M (2003) Including indirect environmental impacts in waste management planning. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38:213–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loreti C, Wescott W, Isenberg M (2000) An overview of greenhouse gas emissions inventory Issues. Paper prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Massachusetts. Unpublished paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn S (1994) Managing the boundary: How accounting is implicated in maintaining the organization. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 7:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne MJ, Adler RW (1999) Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 12:237–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moneva JM, Archel P, Correa C (2006) GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum 30:121–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morhardt JE, Baird S, Freeman K (2002) Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social - Responsibility and Environmental Management 9:215–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neu D, Warsame H, Pedwell K (1998) Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting Organizations and Society 23:265–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newson M, Deegan C (2002) Global expectations and their association with corporate social disclosure practices in Australia, Singapore, and South Korea. The International Journal of Accounting 37:183–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer B (2003) Conceptions of corporate social responsibility: The nature of managerial capture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16:523–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer B, Owen DL (2005) Assurance statement practice in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review 37:205–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C (1991) Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review 16:145–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker LD (2005) Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the commentary box. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 18:842–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts CB (1991) Environmental Disclosures: A Note on Reporting Practices in Mainland Europe. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 4:62–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblum J, Horvath A, Hendrickson C (2000) Environmental Implications of Service Industries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:4669–4676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sundin H, Ranganathan J (2002) Managing Business Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol - A Strategic and Operational Tool. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9:137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman J, Bennett M (2004) Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society 29:685–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2004) The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Revised Edition. World Business Council for Sustainable Development

  • Wheeler D, Fabig H, Boele R (2002) Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in the extractive sector: Lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni. Journal of Business Ethics 39:297–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Comments received from participants at the V RICSMA (Barcelona, 2005), the 29th Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association (Dublin, 2006), and two reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. We are also thankful to Antony Price for having edited the English language version of this paper. The Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia) (projects SEC2003-04438 and SEC2006-03959 and FPU programme) provided financial assistance for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Gestión de Empresas, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Campus de Arrosadía s/n, 31006, Pamplona, Spain

    Pablo Archel

  2. Departamento de Economía y Administración de Empresas, Universidad de Burgos, Plaza Infanta Elena s/n, 09001, Burgos, Spain

    Manuel Fernández & Carlos Larrinaga

Authors
  1. Pablo Archel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuel Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos Larrinaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Larrinaga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Archel, P., Fernández, M. & Larrinaga, C. The Organizational and Operational Boundaries of Triple Bottom Line Reporting: A Survey. Environmental Management 41, 106–117 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9029-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9029-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation