Abstract:
Purpose – Legitimacy theory suggests that differences in stakeholders will lead to trade-offs between different types of social and environmental disclosures (SED). We test this proposition by comparing disclosure in two countries with different social issues, because they are developed and developing. Design/methodology/approach – We compare various qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the social and environmental disclosures of the South African listed mining companies with no cross listings outside of South Africa and compare them with those of a matched sample of Australian mining companies listed only in Australia. We use the disclosure items recommended by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3 and others as a guide to the analysis and record several qualitative aspects as suggested by Hackston and Milne (1996) and others. We expect major differences. Findings – Among the 30 comparisons of disclosure patterns and characteristics, we find practically no significant differences between the two countries. Originality/value – We expected the social differences between Australia and South Africa to cause different SED and we expected the similarities in institutional environments to influence economic reporting practices. However, we conclude that the isomorphic influences of the similar institutional environments extend to SED practice. Our findings imply that SED practices are converging towards certain patterns and characteristics on a worldwide basis. We regard this as a sign that SED is becoming systemised and managed and can therefore no longer be viewed as indicative of managerial intent, but is rather indicative of managerial talent in managing SED and everything else. SED convergence over international boundaries can be regarded as the use of SED templates devoid of local context to (re)gain or maintain local legitimacy. With the systematisation of SED, researchers may have to take the perspective that SED is just another management decision and not unique in any way.
