TBU Publications
Repository of TBU Publications

Impact of GRI-G4 compliance on firm performance: an empirical study on sustainability reporting in German and French firms

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record


dc.title Impact of GRI-G4 compliance on firm performance: an empirical study on sustainability reporting in German and French firms en
dc.contributor.author Nguyen, Thi Thuc Doan
dc.relation.ispartof Finance and the Performance of Firms in Science, Education and Practice 2017
dc.identifier.isbn 978-80-7454-653-2
dc.date.issued 2017
dc.citation.spage 802
dc.citation.epage 813
dc.event.title 6th International Scientific Conference on Finance and the Performance of Firms in Science, Education, and Practice
dc.event.location Zlín
utb.event.state-en Czech Republic
utb.event.state-cs Česká republika
dc.event.sdate 2017-04-26
dc.event.edate 2017-04-27
dc.type conferenceObject
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve Zlíně (UTB) cs
dc.publisher Tomas Bata University in Zlín en
dc.relation.uri http://www.ufu.utb.cz/konference/
dc.relation.uri http://www.ufu.utb.cz/konference/sbornik2017.pdf
dc.subject GRI G4 en
dc.subject ROE en
dc.subject ROA en
dc.subject Compliance en
dc.description.abstract GRI-G4 guidelines have been issued since 2013 and have attracted more and more companies to apply in preparing sustainable reports. Due to significant increases in G4 compliances, the paper focuses on examining whether there are relations between GRI-G4 compliance and firm performance. The impact of GRI-G4 compliances on firm performance will be tested according to companies’ conformity. Compliance of GRI-G4 guidelines are divided into compliance and non-compliance status. Companies that apply core and comprehensive guidance are considered as compliant companies, otherwise are seen as non-compliance. Adherent status is collected from GRI database and data of 141 German and French companies are gathered from firms’ annual reports. Regression is applied to test the connection between compliance status and firm performance. Firm performance is treated as dependent variables and is indicated by ROE and ROA. Independent variable is GRI compliance which has two values, 1 for compliance, and 0 for non-application. Control variables such as firm size, firm age, sales growth and leverage are also included in the formula for the examination. The research finds significant results on negative relationship between G4 compliance and firm performance in German firms. However, there was no connection in these two variables in French firms and in all observations in the sample. en
utb.faculty Faculty of Management and Economics
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10563/1008277
utb.identifier.rivid RIV/70883521:28120/17:63517681!RIV18-MSM-28120___
utb.identifier.obdid 43877592
utb.identifier.wok 000471174000063
utb.source d-orig
dc.date.accessioned 2018-11-19T13:51:02Z
dc.date.available 2018-11-19T13:51:02Z
utb.contributor.internalauthor Nguyen, Thi Thuc Doan
utb.fulltext.affiliation Nguyen Thi Thuc Doan Contact information Nguyen Thi Thuc Doan Tomas Bata University, Faculty of Management and Economics Address: Nasislisti I 151 252 43, Pruhonice, Prague Phone number: 770698910 Email: doanntt@buh.edu.vn
utb.fulltext.dates -
utb.fulltext.references 1. Agarwal, R., & Gort, M., (2002). Firm production life cycles and firm survival. American Economic Review, 92, 184-190. 2. Al-Najjar, B. (2014). Corporate governance, tourism growth and firm performance: Evidence from publicly listed tourism firms in five Middle Eastern countries. Tourism Management, 42, 342-351. 3. Baker, G.P., & Kennedy, R.E., (2002). Survivorship and the economic grim reaper. Journal of law, Economics and Organization, 18, 324-341. 4. Ballou, B., Heitger, D.L., & Landes, C.E. (2016). The Future of Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Accountancy, 202 (6), 65-78. 5. Berry, M. & Rondinelli, D. (1998). Proactive corporate management: environmental new industrial revolution. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 38-50. 6. Bird, R., Hall, A.D., Momente, F., & Reggiani, F. (2007). What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the market? Journal of Business Ethics, 76 (2), 189–206. 7. Chandler, G., & Jensen, E. (1992). The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 223–236. 8. Chen, M. H. (2007). Hotel stock performance and monetary conditions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(3), 588-602. 9. Clarkson, P.M., Lic,Y., Richardson, G.D., & Vasvari,F.P. (2011). Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30(2), 122-144. 10. Coad, A., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2013). Like milk or wine: Does firm performance improve with age? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 24, 173-189. 11. DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 1750-1762. 12. Dowell, G., Hart, S.L., & Yeung, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science, 46 (8), 1059–1074. 13. Ericson, R., & Pakes, A., (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. Review of Economic Studies, 62, 53-82. 14. Frederick,W. C., (2006). Corporation be good! The story of corporate social responsibility. Indianapolis, IN: Dogear Publishing. 15. Freedman, M. & Jaggi, B. (1988). An Analysis of the Association between Pollution Disclosure and Economic Performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1, 43-58. 16. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 17. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Retrieved from http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/dl/free/0073524697/910345/Appendices.pdf 18. Gray, R. H., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and longitudinal Study of UK disclosure. Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8, 47-77. 19. Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O.D. (1986). The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 691-719. 20. Hoy, F., McDougall, P.P., & D'Souza, D.E. (1992). Strategies and environments of high-growth firms. Boston: PWS-Kent: 341-357. 21. Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Capital Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360. 22. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268—305. 23. Markman, G. D., & Gartner, W.B. (2002). Is Extraordinary Growth Profitable? A Study of Inc. 500 High-Growth Companies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 65-75. 24. Michaelas, N., Chittenden, F., & Poutziouris, P. (1999). Financial Policy and Capital Structure Choice in U.K. SMEs: Empirical Evidence From Company Panel Data. Small Business Economics, 12 (2), 113-130. 25. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1963). Corporate Income Taxes and the Cost of Capital: A Correction. The American Economic Review, 53, 433-443. 26. Nicolau, J.L., (2008). Corporate social responsibility: worth-creating activities. Annals of Tourism Research 35 (4), 990–1006. 27. Porter, M.E. & Linde, C. V. D. (1995). Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 28(6), 128-129. 28. Qiu, Y., Shaukat, A. & Tharyan, R. (2014). Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. The British Accounting Review, 1-15. 29. Rajan, G.R., & Zingales. L., (1995). What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. The Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1421-1460. 30. Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. D. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23-37. 31. Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Institutional Environments and Organisations: Structural Complexity and Individualism. Newbury Park: Sage. 32. Serrasqueiro, M. N., (2008). Performance and Size: Empirical Evidence from Portuguese SMEs. Small Business Economics, 31(2), 195-217. 33. Singh, A., & Geoffrey, W., (1975). The Size and Growth of Firm. Review of Economic Studies, 42 (129), 15 34. Wu, J., Liu, L., & Sulkowski, A. (2010). Environmental disclosure, firm performance, and firm characteristics: An analysis of S&P 100 firms. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 10(4), 73-83. 35. Yang, C., & Chen, K.,(2009). Are small firm less effective? Small Business Economics, 32(4), 375-395.
utb.fulltext.sponsorship I would like to thank the Internal Grant Agency of FaME for providing financial support to carry out this research. Funding was extended through: TBU No. IGA/FaME/2017/004 – The Relationship between Concentration Ownership and Financial Reporting Quality.
utb.wos.affiliation [Nguyen Thi Thuc Doan] Tomas Bata Univ, Fac Management & Econ, Nasislisti I 151, Prague 25243, Czech Republic
utb.fulltext.projects IGA/FaME/2017/004
Find Full text

Files in this item

Show simple item record