How cultural factors influence sustainable development reporting in Poland

• Authors: Czerny Małgorzata , Kowalczyk Magdalena

Title variants

PL

Wpływ czynników kulturowych na raportowanie zrównoważonego rozwoju w Polsce

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the connection between cultural factors and sustainable development reporting in Poland. Methodology/approach: We use a case study to explore in depth the object of our study – the reporting of non-financial information. The analysis was conducted from multiple perspectives based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Findings: The research suggests that the attitudes of stakeholders and companies towards the development of SDG reporting and the use of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) are neutral. Poland’s performance on Hofstede’s dimensions is consistent with the frequency and type of GRI indicators companies use in their reports. Research limitations: A limitation of our research is that we only examine one area of non-financial reporting, and we only refer to companies in the WIG20. Additionally, we only study one year. Practical implications: This paper will be useful to academics and practitioners to enable an understanding of cultural dimensions in the context of sustainable development reporting. Originality/value: Our research explains the reluctance to report social areas. Our research analyzes the sustainable development reports of companies from the Warsaw Stock Exchange WIG Index. We determine which social indicators are reported by companies and which are not, and using Hofstede’s theory, we explain the reasons for the lack of disclosures.

PL

Cel: Celem artykułu jest wykazanie wpływu czynników kulturowych na raportowanie zrównoważonego rozwoju w Polsce. Metodyka/podejście badawcze: Wykorzystano studium przypadku, aby dogłębnie zbadać przedmiot badania – raportowanie informacji niefinansowych. Analiza została przeprowadzona z wielu perspektyw – z uwzględnieniem różnych wymiarów kultury sformułowanych przez Hofstedego. Wyniki: Z badania wynika, że nastawienie interesariuszy i firm do rozwoju raportowania SDG i wykorzystania GRI jest raczej neutralne. Wyniki Polski w wymiarach Hofstedego są zgodne z częstotliwością i rodzajem wskaźników GRI wykorzystywanych przez firmy w swoich raportach. Ograniczenia badawcze: Ograniczeniem jest to, że badano tylko jeden obszar raportowania niefinansowego, jak również fakt, że tylko z jednego roku. W badaniu odwołano się wyłącznie do spółek z indeksu WIG20. Praktyczne implikacje: Artykuł będzie przydatny dla naukowców i praktyków, umożliwiając zrozumienie problemu związanego z wymiarami kulturowymi w kontekście raportowania zrównoważonego rozwoju. Oryginalność/wartość: Badanie wyjaśnia niechęć do prezentowania w sprawozdaniach obszarów społecznych. Przeanalizowano raporty zrównoważonego rozwoju spółek z Warszawskiego Indeksu Giełdowego (WIG). Ustalono, które ze wskaźników społecznych są raportowane przez firmy, a które nie. Przyczyny braku ujawnień wyjaśniono posługując się teorią Hofstedego.

Keywords

EN

sustainable development goals (SDGs); non-financial information; Hofstede model; Corporate Social Responsibility

PL

cele zrównoważonego rozwoju (SDG); informacje niefinansowe; model Hofstedego; społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce (SKwP), Zarząd Główny, Rada Naukowa
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2023
• Issue: 47(3)
• Pages: 203-220

Contributors

author

Czerny Małgorzata

• Poznan University of Economics and Business, Institute of Accounting and Finance Management, Department of Management Accounting

author

Kowalczyk Magdalena

• Poznan University of Economics and Business, Institute of Accounting and Finance Management, Department of Management Accounting

References

• Aust V., Morais A.I., Pinto I. (2020), How does foreign direct investment contribute to Sustainable Development Goals? Evidence from African countries, „Journal of Cleaner Production”, 245, pp. 1–10.
• Beugelsdijk S., Welzel C. (2018), Dimensions and dynamics of national culture synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart, „Journal of Cross – Cultural Psychology”, 49 (10), pp. 1469–1505.
• Donaldson T., Preston L.E. (1995), The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications, „The Academy of Management Review”, 20 (1), pp. 65–91.
• Elalfy A., Weber O., Geobey S. (2021), The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a rising tide lifts all boats? Global reporting implications in a post SDGs world, „Journal of Applied Accounting Research”, 22 (3), pp. 557–575, https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2020-0116.
• Fernandez-Feijoo B., Romero S., Ruiz S. (2014), Effect of Stakeholders’ Pressure on Transparency of Sustainability Reports within the GRI Framework, „Journal of Business Ethics”, 122 (1), pp. 53–63, https://doi.org. 10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5.
• Foley K. (2005), Meta management: A stakeholder/quality management approach to wholeof-enterprise management, SAI Global, Sydney.
• Freeman R.E. (1984), Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Pitman Publishing, Boston, MA.
• Gallego-Álvarez I., Ortas E. (2017), Corporate Environmental Sustainability Reporting in the Context of National Cultures: A Quantile Regression Approach, „International Business Review”, 26, pp. 337–353, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.003.
• Gamerschlag R., Möller K., Verbeeten F. (2011), Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany, „Review of Managerial Science”, 5 (2/3), pp. 233–262, https://doi.org./10.1007/s11846-010-0052-3.
• García-Sánchez I.M., Aibar-Guzmán B., Aibar-Guzmán C., Somohano-Rodríguez F.M. (2021), The drivers of the integration of the sustainable development goals into the nonfinancial information system: Individual and joint analysis of their influence, „Sustainable Development”, 30 (4), pp. 513–524.
• García- Sánchez I.M., Martínez-Ferrero J. (2017), Independent directors and CSR disclosures: The moderating effects of proprietary costs, „Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, 24 (1), pp. 28–43; https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1389.
• García-Sánchez I.M., Noguera-Gámez L. (2017), Integrated information and the cost of capital, „International Business Review”, 26 (5), pp. 959–975, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.03.004.
• Garvare R., Johansson P. (2010), Management for sustainability – a stakeholder theory, „Total Quality Management”, 21 (7), pp. 737–744, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2010.483095.
• Haffar M., Searcy C. (2018), Target-setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?, „Business Strategy and the Environment”, 27, pp. 1079–1092, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2053.
• Haski-Leventhal D. (2013), Employee Engagement in CSR: The Case of Payroll Giving in Australia, „Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, 20 (2), pp. 113–128, https//doi.org/10.1002/csr.1287.
• Hofstede G. (1983), National Cultures in Four Dimensions: A Research-Based Theory of Cultural Differences among Nations, „International Studies of Management & Organization”, 13 (1/2), pp. 46–74.
• Hofstede G. (2011), Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context, „Online Readings in Psychology and Culture”, 2 (1), pp. 1–26, https://doi.org/10.9707/2307- 0919.1014.
• Jackson T. (2020), The legacy of Geert Hofstede, „Cross Cultural Management”, 20 (1), pp. 3–6.
• Khlif H., Hussainey K., Achek I. (2015), The effect of national culture on the association between profitability and corporate social and environmental disclosure: A meta-analysis, „Meditari Accountancy Research”, 23 (3), pp. 296–321.
• Kim Y., Kim S.Y. (2010), The influence of cultural values on perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Application of Hofstede’s dimensions to Korean public relations practitioners, „Journal of Business Ethics”, 91 (4), pp. 485–500.
• Kobiela-Pionnier K. (2020), Obszary zmian Założeń koncepcyjnych sprawozdawczości zintegrowanej w kontekście zasadniczych zmian w podejściu inwestorów do kwestii zrównoważonego rozwoju, „Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 108 (164), pp. 89–113, https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.3597
• Kolk A., Pinkse J. (2005), Stakeholder mismanagement and Corporate Social Responsibility crises, „European Management Journal”, 24 (1), pp. 59–72.
• Krasodomska J., Zarzycka E., Dobija D. (2022), Czynniki determinujące raportowanie przez przedsiębiorstwa informacji o działaniach na rzecz realizacji Celów Zrównoważonego Rozwoju, „Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 46 (3), pp. 99–118, https://doi.org/10.56-04/01.3001.0015.9599.
• Lu J., Wang J. (2021), Corporate governance, law, culture, environmental performance and CSR disclosure: A global perspective, „Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money”, 70, pp. 101–264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2020.101264.
• Malmqvist J., Hellberg K., Mőllás G., Rose R., Shelvin M. (2019), Conducting the pilot study: a neglected part of the research process? Methodological findings supporting the importance of piloting in qualitative research studies, „International Journal of Qualitative Methods”, 18, pp. 1–11, http://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919878341.
• Mooij M., Hofstede G. (2010), The Hofstede model, „International Journal of Advertising”, 29 (1), pp. 85–110, https//doi.org/10.2501/S026504870920104X.
• Mio C., Panfilo S., Blundo B. (2020), Sustainable development goals and the strategic role of business: A systematic literature review, „Business Strategy and the Environment”, 29 (8), pp. 3220–3245, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2568.
• Mishra S., Suar D. (2010), Do stakeholder management strategy and salience influence corporate social responsibility in Indian companies? „Social Responsibility Journal”, 6 (2), pp. 306–327, https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111011051784.
• O’Dwyer B., Unerman J. (2020), Shifting the focus of sustainability accounting from impacts to risks and dependencies: Researching the transformative potential of TCFD reporting, „Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal”, 33 (5), pp. 1113–1141, https://doi.org-/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2020-4445.
• Orij R. (2010), Corporate Social Disclosures in the Context of National Cultures and Stakeholder Theory, „Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 23 (7), pp. 868–889.
• Pizzi S., Del Baldo M., Caputo F., Venturelli A. (2021a), Voluntary disclosure of Sustainable Development Goals in mandatory non-financial reports: The moderating role of cultural dimension, „Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting”, 33 (1), pp. 83–106, https://doi.org/10.1111/jifm.12139.
• Pizzi S., Rosati F., Venturelli A. (2021b), The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score, „Business Strategy and the Environment”, 30 (1), pp. 404–421, ttps://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628.
• Ramasastry A. (2015), Corporate Social Responsibility versus business and human rights: bridging the gap between responsibility and accountability, „Journal of Human Rights”, 14 (2), pp. 237–259, https//doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2015.1037953.
• Richter U.H., Dow K.E. (2017), Stakeholder theory: A deliberative perspective, „Business Ethics”, 26 (4), pp. 428–442.
• Rinaldi L., Unerman J., Tilt C.A. (2014), The role of stakeholder engagement and dialogue in the sustainability accounting and reporting process, [in:] Bebbington J., Unerman J., O’Dwyer B. (eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, Routledge, New York, pp. 86–107.
• Rosati F., Faria L.G. (2019a), Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors, „Journal of Cleaner Production”, 215, pp. 1312–1326, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.107.
• Rosati F., Faria L.G.D. (2019b), Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting, „Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, 26 (3), pp. 588–597, https://doi.org/10.10-02/csr.1705.
• Sannino G., Lucchese M., Zampone G., Lombardi R. (2020), Cultural dimensions, Global Reporting Initiatives commitment, and corporate social responsibility issues: New evidence from Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development banks, „Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, 27 (4), pp. 1653–1663, https://doi.org/-10.1002/csr.1914.
• Spence L.J. (2016), Small business social responsibility: expanding core CSR theory, „Business & Society”, 55 (1), pp. 23–55, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650314523256.
• Stocker F., de Arruda M.P., de Mascena K.M.C., Boaventura J.M.G. (2020), Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: A classification model, „Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, 27 (5), pp. 2071–2080.
• Sullivan K., Thomas S., Rosano M. (2018), Using industrial ecology and strategic management concepts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals, „Journal of Cleaner Production”, 174, pp. 237–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.201.
• Velte P. (2016), Women on management board and ESG performance, „Journal of Global Responsibility”, 7 (1), pp. 98–109, https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-01-2016-000.
• Vitolla F., Raimo N., Rubino M., Garzoni A. (2019), The impact of national culture on integrated reporting quality. A stakeholder theory approach, „Business Strategy and the Environment”, 28 (8), pp. 1558–1571.
• Wettstein F. (2012), CSR and the debate and Business and Human Rights: bridging the great divide, „Business Ethics Quartely”, 22 (4), pp. 739–770, https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20122-2446.
• Wicki S., Hansen E. (2019), Green technology innovation: Anatomy of exploration processes from a learning perspective, „Business Strategy and the Environment”, 28, pp. 970–988, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2295.
• Zarzycka E., Krasodomska J. (2022), Non-financial key performance indicators: what determines the differences in the quality and quantity of the disclosures? „Journal of Applied Accounting Research”, 23 (1), pp. 139–162, http://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-02-2021-0036.
• G4 – wytyczne dotyczące raportowania. Podręcznik stosowania wytycznych (2016), GRI Empowering Sustainable Decisions, Amsterdam, http://pihrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/-06/Polish-G4-Part-Two-Final.pdf (access 12.12.2022).
• https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country/poland/ (access 12.12.2022).
• Eurostat (2020), Sustainable Development Goals – Overview, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/-web/sdi/overview (access 20.03.2022).
• Linking the SDGs and the GRI Standards (2020), Sustainable Development Goals, GRI supports the Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 1–64, https://www.globalreporting.org/search/? uery=Linking+the+SDGs+and+the+GRI+Standards (access 15.03.2023).
• Silska-Gembka S. (2013), Kulturowe uwarunkowania kwantyfikacji w rachunkowości, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310844114 (access 7.04.2017).
• Standard Informacji Niefinansowej (2017), Fundacja Standardów Raportowania, Warszawa, pp. 1–35, https://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SIN.pdf (access 15.03. 2023).
• UN (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, https://www.un.org/en/-development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES-_70_1_E.pdf (access 15.03.2022).
• UN (2020), UN report finds COVID-19 is reversing decades of progress on poverty, healthcare and education, https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/sustainable/sustainabledevelopment-goals-report-2020.html (access 10.02.2022).