Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:05:19.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Role of Disability and Accessibility in Corporate Sustainability Reporting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2020

Christian Vogelauer
Affiliation:
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Transport and Logistics Management, Austria
David M. Herold*
Affiliation:
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Transport and Logistics Management, Austria Griffith University, Business Strategy and Innovation, Australia
Elmar Fuerst
Affiliation:
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Transport and Logistics Management, Austria
*
Address for correspondence: David M. Herold, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Transport and Logistics Management, Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Although companies increasingly focus on the social dimension in corporate sustainability, there seems to be a lack of understanding how and to what extent disability and accessibility frameworks and activities are integrated in corporate sustainability reports. In this article, we aim to close this gap by (a) analysing the disability and accessibility (D&A) activities from the largest 50 companies in Europe based on their corporate sustainability reports, and (b) advancing a simplified conceptual framework for D&A that can be used in corporate reporting. In particular, we provide an overview about corporate D&A reporting and associated activities according to three identified areas: (a) workforce, (b) workplace, and (c) products and services. Our findings are twofold: First, the majority of the companies address D&A in their corporate sustainability reports mainly under the diversity umbrella, but lack a detailed debate about the three identified areas. Second, we found that existing frameworks for D&A are hardly used because either they are not focused on corporate reporting or seem too difficult or complicated to complete. Thus, our framework not only represents a first opportunity to foster the implementation of a D&A framework within the social dimension of corporate sustainability reports, but also presents a holistic yet flexible management tool that takes into account the most critical elements while shaping implementation, directing evaluation and encouraging future planning of D&A initiatives. As such, this study contributes to and extends the limited amount of research of D&A activities in the social dimension in corporate sustainability reporting.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allianz. (2018). Allianz Group sustainability report. Retrieved from https://www.allianz.com/en/sustainability/strategy-governance/sustainability-report.html Google Scholar
Amla, I. (2008). Managing and sustaining a world of workplace diversity: The Accenture experience. Strategic HR Review, 7(5), 1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auchan. (2017). CSR section of the 2017 management report. Retrieved from: https://www.auchan-holding.com/uploads/files/modules/articles/1504191195_59a822db64cce.pdf Google Scholar
Babiak, K., & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1), 1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, R.J. (2014). Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 258271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, L.A. (1991). Content analysis. In Montgomery, B.M. & Duck, S. (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interactions (pp. 254293). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
BNP Paribas. (2017). Report on activity and corporate responsibility. Retrieved from: http://report-activity-corporate-responsibility-2017.bnpparibas/ Google Scholar
Breitbarth, T., & Herold, D.M. (2018). Closing the academia-practice gap in corporate sustainability management research: Challenges and bridges. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 6(1), 4.Google Scholar
Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Vol. 383). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cordero, J., de Zúñiga, T.O., & Rueda, M. (2014). Disability and corporate social responsibility reporting: An analysis comparing reporting practices of 40 selected multinational enterprises. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organisation.Google Scholar
Cormier, D., & Gordon, I.M. (2001). An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(5), 587617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthill, M. (2010). Strengthening the ‘social’in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustainable Development, 18(6), 362373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsche Telekom. (2017). Corporate Responsibility Report. Retrieved from: https://www.cr-report.telekom.com/site18/sites/default/files/pdf/cr_en_2017_dt_final.pdf Google Scholar
World, Disabled. (2019). Defining disabled and disability. Retrieved from: https://www.disabled-world.com/disability/accessibility/ Google Scholar
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2010). GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public and third sector organizations: A critical review. Public Management Review, 12(4), 531548. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-77954697512&partnerID=40&md5=929f0d5e352ff53a9dd1959abe747359. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2010.496266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eizenberg, E., & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability, 9(1), 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoxx, Euro. (2019). Euro Stoxx 50. Retrieved from https://www.stoxx.com/index-details?symbol=SX5E Google Scholar
Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griessler, E., & Littig, B. (2005). Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal for Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 6579.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), 401420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, K., & Miles, S. (2004). Assessing quality assessment of corporate social reporting: UK perspectives. Accounting Forum, 28(1), 6179. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-23744509378&partnerID=40&md5=bdea4511f280503f9d01441f6832231a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herold, D.M., Farr-Wharton, B., Lee, K.H., & Groschopf, W. (2018). The interaction between institutional and stakeholder pressures: Advancing a framework for categorising carbon disclosure strategies. Business Strategy & Development, 2(2), 7790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herold, D.M., & Lee, K.-H. (2019). The influence of internal and external pressures on carbon management practices and disclosure strategies. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 26(1), 6381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herremans, I.M., Nazari, J.A., & Mahmoudian, F. (2016). Stakeholder relationships, engagement, and sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 417435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, J.S. (2006). The global reporting initiative in Denmark: Emperor’s new clothes or useful reporting tool? In Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 129–139): Springer.Google Scholar
Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 279291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KPMG. (2017). The road ahead — The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting. Retrieved from: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf Google Scholar
Kunz, J. (2006). Social sustainability and community involvement in urban planning. University of Tampere, Finland.Google Scholar
Laine, M. (2005). Meanings of the term ‘sustainable development’in Finnish corporate disclosures. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 395413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K.-H., Herold, D.M., & Yu, A.-L. (2016). Small and medium enterprises and corporate social responsibility practice: A Swedish perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(2), 8899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., & Crutzen, N. (2016). Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 237248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: Towards some definitions. Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 27. University of South Australia: Adelaide.Google Scholar
Milne, M.J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 1329. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84888133084&partnerID=40&md5=9371db57f1656058c132f27d5a661801. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1543–1548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2003). The triple bottom line: Benchmarking New Zealand’s early reporters. University of Auckland Business Review, 5(2), 3650.Google Scholar
Missimer, M. (2013). The social dimension of strategic sustainable development [Doctoral dissertation], Licentiate dissertation series, No 2013:03, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.Google Scholar
Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.-H., & Broman, G. (2017). A strategic approach to social sustainability — Part 1: Exploring the social system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 3241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telefonica. (2018). Consolidated Management Report 2018. Retrieved from https://www.telefonica.com/web/responsible-business/report-2018 Google Scholar
United Nations. (2015a). The Millenium Development Goals Report. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdfGoogle Scholar
United Nations. (2015b). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf Google Scholar
United Nations (2016). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf Google Scholar
Vallance, S., Perkins, H.C., & Dixon, J.E. (2011). What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42(3), 342348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2-3), 95105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf Google Scholar
Wolbring, G., Mackay, R., Rybchinski, T., & Noga, J. (2013). Disabled people and the post-2015 development goal agenda through a disability studies lens. Sustainability, 5(10), 41524182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolbring, G., & Rybchinski, T. (2013). Social sustainability and its indicators through a disability studies and an ability studies lens. Sustainability, 5(11), 48894907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar