The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]

State of
The state of business business
sustainability reporting in sustainability
reporting
sub-Saharan Africa: an agenda
for policy and practice
Carol A. Tilt, Wei Qian, Sanjaya Kuruppu and Dinithi Dissanayake Received 28 June 2019
Revised 31 January 2020
UniSA Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia 12 May 2020
29 June 2020
11 August 2020
Accepted 11 August 2020
Abstract
Purpose – Developing countries experience their own social, political and environmental issues, but
surprisingly limited papers have examined sustainability reporting in these regions, notably in sub-Saharan
Africa. To fill this gap and understand the state of sustainability reporting in sub-Saharan Africa, this paper
aims to investigate the current state of reporting, identifies the major motivations and barriers for reporting
and suggests an agenda of future issues that need to be considered by firms, policymakers and academics.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper includes analysis of reporting practices in 48 sub-
Saharan African countries using the lens of New Institutional Economics. It comprises three phases of data
collection and analysis: presentation of overall reporting data collected and provided by Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI). analysis of stand-alone sustainability reports using qualitative data analysis and interviews
with key report producers.
Findings – The analysis identifies key issues that companies in selected sub-Saharan African countries are
grappling within their contexts. There are significant barriers to reporting but institutional mechanisms, such
as voluntary reporting frameworks, provide an important bridge between embedding informal norms and
changes to regulatory requirements. These are important for the development of better governance and
accountability mechanisms.
Research limitations/implications – Findings have important implications for policymakers and
institutions such as GRI in terms of regulation, outreach and localised training. More broadly, global bodies
such as GRI and IIRC in a developing country context may require more local knowledge and support.
Limitations include limited data availability, particularly for interviews, which means that these results are
preliminary and provide a basis for further work.
Practical implications – The findings of this paper contribute to the knowledge of sustainability
reporting in this region, and provide some policy implications for firms, governments and regulators.
Originality/value – This paper is one of only a handful looking at the emerging phenomenon of
sustainability reporting in sub-Saharan African countries.
Keywords Sustainability reporting, Sub-Saharan Africa, Motivations, Barriers, GRI
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The sustainability of our planet is of increasing concern for academics, scientists,
policymakers and citizens alike, and the major areas that are in dire need to be addressed are
clearly spelled out by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) developed by the

Sustainability Accounting,
This project was conducted in collaboration with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The authors Management and Policy Journal
gratefully acknowledge the support provided, both in-kind through the provision of data, and © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8021
through funding from their DFID programme. DOI 10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2019-0248
SAMPJ United Nations (UN). The goals include, inter alia, poverty, hunger, education, equality,
climate, water and energy (UNDP, 2015), issues of particular significance for the 80% of the
world’s population that live in developing countries. Achieving these goals requires
commitment from business and an essential part of their role is to “communicate
transparently about the results” (Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General, emphasis added).
Reporting by businesses on their social and environmental impacts, referred to as
sustainability reporting in this paper, has been studied extensively in developed countries
(Gurvitsh and Sidorova, 2012). There is still limited, albeit growing, research undertaken in
developing countries (Abeydeera et al., 2016). The importance of considering the specific
context of these countries has also been identified (Tilt, 2016, 2018), as contributing to
solving social and environmental problems at the local level has as much merit as seeking
generalisable solutions. However, the role of regulatory frameworks, as well as local and
global institutions, is also important to consider as this has policy implications that may be
relevant beyond the local context.
The limited research that does exist tends to focus on countries in the sub-continent, such as
Bangladesh (Momin and Parker, 2013) and Sri Lanka (Dissanayake et al., 2016). Sustainability
reporting practices in Africa, particularly in Sub-Saharan African countries, where social and
environmental problems are unique and significant, are extremely limited. Notwithstanding
this, 483 organisations in Africa lodged reports in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
database during the period 2014–2016, with 168 being from sub-Saharan African countries.
This provides prima facie evidence that they may perceive a demand for such reporting.
The African continent is vulnerable to the consequences of global environmental
problems such as climate change (Adelle, 2016). It is the most populous continent after Asia,
faces concerns around access to clean water, deforestation, pollution and poverty, and has to
date had mostly ineffective national policies to deal with these issues. Filling the gaps in our
knowledge of sustainability reporting practices in the sub-Saharan African context, to
inform better policy, is extremely challenging because of the difficulty in obtaining data and
access to the companies in this region. As Kühn et al. (2015) indicate, the poor socio-
economic and political conditions in the region only make research on sustainability and
corporate social responsibility much more difficult. Collaborating with GRI, the authors in
this study were able to access sustainability reporting information and practices in some
sub-Saharan African companies. Using this information, this paper investigates the state of
sustainability reporting in a selection of countries with the overall aim of understanding the
institutional environment and its impact on sustainability reporting. To achieve this aim,
the paper poses three research questions: What is the extent of reporting in the region, and
the characteristics of reporters?; What are the emerging motivations for, and barriers to,
sustainability reporting?; and What practical and policy recommendations can be suggested
from the answers to RQs 1 and 2?
These questions are investigated using a New Institutional Economics (NIE) framework.
Findings indicate that reporting is underdeveloped with little reporting on macro-level goals
such as SDGs. Institutional mechanisms are key to bringing about changes to reporting
practice, with voluntary reporting frameworks providing a bridge between embedding
informal institutions (social norms) and the emergence of regulatory requirements; these in
turn contribute to the development of governance and accountability mechanisms within
firms.

1.1 Context
The Sub-Saharan African region refers to the area of the African continent that is to the
south of the Sahara Desert. The region comprises 49 countries (including South Africa) with
inhabitants of almost one billion (Ismail et al., 2017). These countries are relatively new as State of
almost all gained independence after the late 1950s (Yoon, 2017). The population is business
predominantly rural, with 37% living in urban areas. Sub-Saharan Africa’s prolonged poor
sustainability
economic performance and estimated 25.5 million people with HIV/AIDS (UN, 2017) are two
of the many problems prevalent in the region (Ackah-Baidoo, 2012). Other problems include reporting
civil unrest, governance failures, issues with policy credibility, corruption and misguided
international aid. There is strong consensus that the region is experiencing serious social
and environmental impacts from corporate actions and there is a growing desire to address
these by governments, citizens and businesses alike. However, in spite of similarities in
social and environmental concerns, the region is not homogeneous, comprising quite
different cultures, ethnicities and languages and ethnic beliefs about work often derive from
this (Ugwuegbu, 2001).
In terms of the institutional environment, Agenda 2063 (Africa’s Development Agenda)
and the SDGs provide frameworks by which the impacts and outcomes of organisational
activities can be mapped against wider societal and environmental goals (UN, 2016).
However, the extent to which these frameworks, together with sustainability reporting
frameworks such as GRI and International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), have helped
the less developed regions in Africa to address their particular social and environmental
issues is unknown. The regulatory environment for sustainability reporting is also limited
in the region (Bartels et al., 2016). The Sustainable Stock Exchange (SSE) Initiative [1] has 13
signatories from sub-Saharan Africa, but only 4 of these, including South Africa (plus
Namibia, Nigeria and Zimbabwe), have mandatory reporting as a listing requirement, and 7
of these exchange list less than 50 companies (SSE, 2017).
The influence of colonialism has “resulted in cultural dexterity that involves internalized
alternations between collectivistic and individualistic orientations” (Zoogah et al., 2015,
p. 12). Tribal rule is important, and an interesting sociocultural institution in Southern
Africa is “ubuntu”, meaning “I am who I am through others” so essentially a strong form of
collectivism (Mbigi and Maree, 1995) [2]. In addition, firms in Africa often have to deal with
difficult legislative regimes (Mbaku, 2004) and thus corruption and bribery are common
(Transparency International [3]).
Finally, there is a dearth of information on what motivates companies in sub-Saharan
Africa to report and, if they do wish to report, what barriers exist that prevent them from
engaging with the practice. Most current research looking at these issues only focuses on
South Africa (Marx and van Dyk, 2011; Atkins and Maroun, 2014; Steyn, 2014) and not on
other countries in the region.
The next section provides an overview of the concept of sustainability reporting and a
review of the relevant literature on reporting in developing countries generally, and Africa
specifically. Section 3 outlines the theoretical framework, and Section 4 the methods used.
Sections 5–7 present the results. Finally, Section 8 provides conclusions and
recommendations.

2. Sustainability reporting
Reporting on social and environmental issues by companies has been extensively
researched, at least in terms of volume, globally (Gurvitsh and Sidorova, 2012). The term
“sustainability reporting” is used in this paper, which many scholars suggest is a more in-
depth concept than just reporting on social and environmental impacts (Milne et al., 2009).
More recently, the concept of integrated reporting (IR) has begun to emerge. It is related
to sustainability reporting in that it claims to provide:
SAMPJ [. . .]concise communication about how an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and
prospects, in the context of its external environment, lead to the creation of value in the short,
medium and long term” [4].
Thus, IR includes the triple bottom line concept, but is focussed more on value creation than
societal impact and has been criticised for being contrary to true sustainability reporting
(Flower, 2015). The move towards IR, therefore, has implications for sustainability reporting
in terms of whether it replaces the sustainability report, enhances reporting overall or
detracts from the reporting on social and environmental impacts.
The quality of sustainability reporting varies significantly, and the general consensus is
that quality is low for most companies globally, but specifically for companies in developing
countries. In general, large companies report more (Winkler, 2017), as do firms in more
sensitive industries (Dissanayake et al., 2016; Hahn and Kühnen, 2013), and MNCs, which
have more sophisticated processes for reporting, generally produce a separate sustainability
report and have a sustainability section on their website.
In terms of reporting on sustainability targets, an important framework that includes a
set of social, environmental and economic standards for reporting is provided by GRI (GRI
Website, n.d.). The GRI framework provides a set of indicators that can be used to assess
organisations’ level of reporting on sustainability issues. A recent World Bank report noted
that the take-up of GRI reporting has continued to increase, with approximately 48,000
sustainability reports, and 30,000 GRI reports, in their repository [5] (Winkler, 2017). GRI
also works with the IIRC to align their frameworks, standards and requirements for
improved efficiency and effectiveness in reporting (GRI, 2016). Hence, an examination of
sustainability reporting, especially in areas where it is only just emerging, requires
consideration of IR to be included.

2.1 Sustainability reporting in developing countries

Sustainability reporting in developing and particularly in least developed countries (LDCs)
is on the rise, especially since the 2000s. A series of KPMG (2008–2017) surveys of corporate
responsibility disclosure highlight the significant momentum gained over the past decade,
particularly in the Asia Pacific and Latin American regions. This is perhaps largely
attributed to the increase in government reporting regulations and rules adopted by
financial market regulators and stock exchanges, such as the SSE (Bartels et al., 2016).
Increasing regulations may be driven by an effort to reduce information and transaction
costs in developing economies whose markets may be less transparent (Toye, 1995, p. 58).
This may explain why regulatory growth seems to be a strong driver for sustainability
reporting in many developing countries (KPMG, 2015; KPMG, GRI, UNEP and Centre for
Corporate Governance in Africa, 2016). Many regulations impose a “comply or explain”
approach, and this is also used in a number of African countries such as South Africa and
Kenya (KPMG, GRI, UNEP and Centre for Corporate Governance in Africa, 2016). However,
except for a handful leaders in sustainability reporting, the majority of developing countries
still lag behind (KPMG, 2017).
The limited evidence on developing countries appears to echo the KPMG survey results,
showing that the increase in reporting volume is related to factors such as size, industry,
financial performance, regulatory pressures, public trust and international market demand
(da Rosa et al., 2015). However, the consensus is that sustainability reporting in these
countries requires improvement, albeit a significant increase in the number of reporting
companies (Arthur et al., 2017).
Also, the extant research is dominated by content analysis of reports and empirical
examinations of determinants developed from theories or rationales mostly used in studies
of developed countries (Tilt, 2016, 2018). Research into the real contexts of developing State of
countries and the barriers/impediments resulting in low-quality reports is limited. As business
highlighted by Tilt (2016, 2018), sustainability reporting research needs to explore specific
socio-political and economic contexts in which sustainability reporting takes place.
sustainability
Developing countries are significantly different from the developed world in terms of their reporting
regulatory systems, social and cultural development and economic ambitions. These socio-
economic contexts vary substantially among countries, but four common issues have been
identified:
(1) troubled political contexts;
(2) external interference;
(3) the emergence of civil society; and
(4) problems of research supply [6] (Young, 2005).

These factors make the study of sustainability reporting, and the motivations and
challenges specifically faced by developing nations, important.

2.2 Sustainability reporting in sub-Saharan Africa

Sustainability reporting in sub-Saharan Africa has predominantly been studied in South
Africa, one of the largest developing nations in the region. This is perhaps because the
Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) requires all listed companies to apply the King III
principles and produce integrated reports (Setia et al., 2015; Haji and Anifowose, 2016).
However, there is far less research on other sub-Saharan African countries and no evidence
about whether the take-up of IR in South Africa has influenced other countries in the region.
The empirical evidence that does exist has centred on a few countries such as Nigeria,
Kenya, Botswana, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia (Nyuur et al., 2014; Kühn et al.,
2015). However, the link to reporting is under-researched.
The existing evidence suggests that corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the region is
mainly community focussed, and used, for example, to show how CSR can assist in poverty
alleviation and how community development projects are essential for building amiable
relationships between multinational companies and communities (Aminu et al., 2016).
Johnson-Rokosu and Olanrewaju (2016) found that listed companies in Nigeria are more
likely to disclose information about social and governance issues rather than environmental
issues and similar findings are seen for Tanzania (Emel et al., 2012; Lauwo et al., 2016).
Similarly, a Nigerian case study found the majority of CSR expenditure was used for
community-based projects but only 0.08% of the company’s turnover was spent on CSR
(Adewuyi and Olowookere, 2010).
In terms of the institutional environment, Nyuur et al. (2014) identified mainly internal
drivers of CSR initiatives, such as the executive management commitment, monitoring and
evaluation, project management skills and efficiencies, CSR policy alignment and staff
commitment; but also the availability of funding and stakeholder/partnership involvement.
Other motivations appear to be business related, such as competitive advantage, public
relations and business success; but also external influence of community expectations and
pressure from multinational companies, particularly in Nigeria (Achua, 2008). In Kenya,
Muthuri and Gilbert (2011) revealed that only 61% of domestic companies made explicit
reference to CSR and these companies were motivated to do so to maintain legitimacy with
stakeholders and enhance financial performance. It appears that CSR is predominantly
understood as philanthropy in Ghana and most foreign business entities undertake CSR
activities because of legal obligations and anticipation of economic gains
SAMPJ (Kuada and Hinson, 2012; Abugre and Nyuur, 2015). Ofori et al. (2014) support this, noting
that Ghanaian banks view CSR as a strategic tool.
Barriers are less frequently studied, but where known, they are institutional, stemming
from a lack of proper regulation, corruption and existing macro-economic conditions
(Achua, 2008). Studies conducted in South Sudan (Ives and Buchner, 2011), Zimbabwe
(Nyahunzvi, 2013), Uganda (Katamba et al., 2012), Botswana (Lindgreen et al., 2009) and
Malawi (Mzembe and Meaton, 2014) showed similar findings.
Thus, the majority of studies indicate that social issues dominate CSR initiatives and
disclosures in the region; business-case drivers provide the greatest motivation, but
institutional arrangements represent the greatest barriers; it is therefore important to
understand this further to inform appropriate policy development at both government and
industry levels. Interestingly, there is little evidence that MNCs in sub-Saharan Africa are
significantly different to non-MNCs, at least for those signed up to the GRI guidelines
(Winkler, 2017). Thus, analysis of both local and multinational companies is needed to
determine what local drivers may exist beyond the pressures identified in prior literature.

3. Framework for the study

Most prior research on sustainability reporting has used a firm-level theoretical analysis and
found support for legitimising motives for reporting or stakeholder pressure (Elijido-Ten,
2009). A few studies have considered broader institutional-level influences on the decision to
report on sustainability, generally using a new institutional sociology framework (Aerts
et al., 2006) from which many concepts used in legitimacy theory are drawn. As noted by
Mejia (2009, p. 104) the “main thesis of institutional theory is that organizations enhance or
protect their legitimacy[. . .] by conforming to the expectations of institutions and
stakeholders”.
Theories that assume firms react to strong public and stakeholder pressure, however, are
not necessarily appropriate in developing country contexts (Tilt, 2016, 2018). In exploring
reporting in these countries, an understanding of institutional pressures is an important first
step. Therefore, we argue NIE provides a broad framework for classifying the different
institutional pressures on sustainability reporting in the sub-Saharan African context. NIE
has been used extensively to examine this region and has had significant influence on
development policy (Schneider and Nega, 2016). NIE values the role that institutions play in
the way that economic activity is conducted and questions the pre-eminence of “markets” as
the most efficient social device in allocating resources (Toye, 1995). Institutions are part of a
“complex interrelated structure” (Coase, 1995, p. 245) and play an important role in reducing
uncertainty as they establish order and rules within which economic activity takes place.
Broadly, institutions are defined as being:
[. . .] composed of rules, norms of behaviour, and the way they are enforced, provide the
opportunity set in an economy which determines the kind of purposive activity embodied in
organisations (firms, trade unions, political bodies, and so forth) that will come into existence
(North, 1993, p. 242).
Institutions are especially important in a developing country context with existing research
showing that “weak, missing or perverse institutions are the roots of underdevelopment”
(Shirley, 2005, p. 611). Therefore, institutions are moderating structures for organisations
and organisational activities when facing social dilemmas (Gray and Laughlin, 2012). A
social dilemma exists when self-interest-driven individualism leads to outcomes that are
incommensurate with public benefit or social welfare (Toye, 1995, p. 29). Institutions
“provide the mechanisms whereby rational individuals can transcend social dilemmas”
(Bates, 1995, p. 29). This idea of the “individual” is interpreted in this paper as the leaders of State of
a company attempting to negotiate a complex landscape of needs and prescient social and business
environmental concerns in developing countries. Non-market institutions, such as voluntary
sustainability
reporting regimes, enable company leaders to reconcile profit-motives with wider
engagement in social and environmental issues. In this way, voluntary reporting regimes reporting
may create norms of acceptable behaviour within a given context. Adhering to these norms
can entail rewards to companies for compliance, or punishment for non-compliance, as they
affect choice behaviour by others (see, for example, David-Barrett and Okamura, 2016).
Moll et al. (2006, p. 186) argue that NIE attempts to illuminate practices within
organisations by understanding their institutional environment (e.g. regulations) and
institutional arrangements (e.g. governance structures). This enables the importance of
context to be given stronger focus in the analysis of individual organisations. Williamson
(2000) outlines several levels of analysis that are possible using an NIE lens including: Level
1) embeddedness of “informal institutions” (customs, norms, etc.); Level 2) formal
institutions (judiciary, political and bureaucratic processes); Level 3) governance
mechanisms (contracts and accountability); and Level 4) resource allocation and
employment.
Level 1 analysis considers informal institutions within the macro-environment, such as
overarching social norms and customs within a context. We argue that social norms of a
particular country can be revealed by the uptake of sustainability and IR in the sub-Saharan
region, driven by voluntary reporting regimes such as the GRI and IIRC. This paper
focusses on Levels 2 and 3 analysis to explore how sustainability reporting practices are
developing in emerging economies.
The “sub-Saharan African context” of the paper was introduced in the preceding
section to outline the analysis at Level 2, concerning the institutional environment,
including regulations (or lack thereof) at the country level, codified rules enshrined in
stock exchange listing requirements and norms and standards which shape
sustainability reporting. Sub-Saharan African countries are not subject to regulatory
directives to report on social and environmental performance which may present a
barrier that could result in lower take-up internally, as simplicity and ease of
implementation have been found to influence the diffusion of knowledge about
sustainability within firms (Smerecnik and Andersen, 2011).
Voluntary reporting frameworks codify a package of norms (Level 1) that
provide a bridge to formal institutional regulations (Level 2). The actual use of these
reporting frameworks to produce accounts reflects the specific accountability
demands that companies are seeking to satisfy through external disclosure (Level
3). Level 3 analysis is presented in Section 8.1, covering three phases of data
analysis. Overarching trends in sustainability reporting in sub-Saharan Africa, and
the nature and scope of specific disclosures by companies operating in the region,
are discussed.
Finally, insights are gained from key management interviews on their perceptions about
the increasing trends seen in voluntary disclosure by African companies (Amponsah-
Tawiah and Dartey-Baah, 2016; Hinson et al., 2010). Drivers and barriers for sustainability
reporting are also provided; these hint at issues concerning resource allocation and human
resources, which reflect Level 4 of NIE analysis at the company level, which are suggested
as future avenues for research in Section 8.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the links between the research questions, theory and
methods used.
SAMPJ Instuonal Environment
(NIE Level) Method Research Quesons

1. Informal (norms
and customs) Review of the Context and
literature
RQ 2 Movaons
2. Formal (polical and Barriers RQ1 State of
and regulatory) Sustainability
Phase I and II Reporng in
Reporng trends and Sub Saharan
3. Governance and RQ 3 Policy
report analysis Africa
Accountability Implicaons

Phase III
Figure 1. 4. Resources Interviews Future Research
Framework for study

4. Method
As can be seen in Figure 1, the research undertaken is complex, including analysis of overall
reporting data, analysis of stand-alone sustainability reports and interviews with managers
involved in reporting to provide a picture of reporting in the region. The study deliberately
takes the approach of using breadth of data sources over three research phases because
reporting in the region is limited, and access to sufficient data is difficult.
Phase I of the analysis is quantitative and comprises descriptive and inferential
statistical techniques to present the reporting levels, media and trends. Phase II uses a
qualitative data analysis (QDA) approach to analyse stand-alone sustainability reports
identified in Phase I (Baptiste, 2001; Miles et al., 2014). Baptiste (2001) describes the stages of
QDA – defining the analysis, classifying data and making connections. The institutions and
processes using NIE discussed earlier, define the analysis through reviewing and analysing
prior literature on sustainability reporting, particularly in developing countries. The GRI
sustainability reporting framework is then used as a basis for classifying and determining
the level of reporting in sustainability reports within the three areas of economic,
environmental and social disclosure. Finally, connections are made through consideration of
accountability (reporting) (NIE Level 3). Phase III of the study comprises thematic analysis
of interview transcripts, the results of which are used to support the findings of Phase II and
suggest policy outcomes that might inform the NIE Level 4 analysis.

4.1 Sample
GRI maintain a database of firms that report on sustainability via websites, annual reports
and stand-alone reports. For Phase I of this study, GRI provided the researchers with data
on sub-Saharan African firms for the years 2014–2016 [7]. A total of 1,641 companies [8]
were included, covering 22 countries, where companies undertook some form of reporting,
either on a website, in their annual report, as part of an integrated report or as a stand-alone
sustainability report. Just over half of the 22 countries in the sample (55%) are classified as
LDC or low income, and the other half are lower middle income (31%) or upper middle
income (14%) countries (UN, 2018). This allows a comparison of low- and middle-income
countries to be undertaken. South Africa was excluded from the analysis for a number of
reasons: a number of studies have already been conducted on sustainability reporting by State of
South African companies; South Africa is different to other African countries as it is more business
multi-cultural and it is more developed economically; and people in sub-Saharan African
countries view South Africa differently [9] (Smith, n.d.).
sustainability
From the 1,641 companies identified in Phase I, 109 produced stand-alone sustainability reporting
reports. In Phase II, these 109 sustainability reports were read, and after some sorting of the
data to remove duplicate reports and correct some minor misclassifications, and excluding
any non-English reports [10], a final sample of 78 stand-alone sustainability reports covering
18 countries was available for the analysis (24 from 2014; 25 from 2015 and 29 from 2016). Of
18 countries analysed in Phase II, 59% are classified as LDC or low-income (UN, 2018)
countries, 23% are lower middle and 18% upper middle (Table 1). However, the majority of
reports are from Nigeria (almost one-third of the sample) and Kenya (13% of the sample),
and approximately 10% are global MNCs operating in Africa.
The final phase (III) comprises analysis of transcripts of interviews with seven senior
sustainability managers from selected companies in three countries – Botswana, Nigeria
and Kenya – all of which are in the top five reporters for the region. Interviews were
conducted by a third-party consultant, appointed by GRI, at the premises of the organisation
and transcripts provided to the researchers for analysis. Participants were assured of
anonymity of themselves and their organisation, so these are indicative of the countries
involved but are not directly relatable to the report analysis in Phase II. Table 2 provides an
overview of the sample of interviews showing they are all from the finance industry.

Country* World Bank classification** Part of Phase II(a) sub-sample of SRs

Angola LDC/lower middle Y

Botswana Upper middle Y
Burkina Faso LDC/low income Y
Cameroon Lower middle (but heavily indebted)
Cape Verde Lower middle
Cote d’Ivoire Lower middle Y
DRC LDC/low income Y
Ghana Lower middle (but heavily indebted) Y
Guinea Low income
Kenya Lower middle Y
Liberia LDC/low income
Madagascar LDC/low income Y
Malawi LDC/low income Y
Mauritius Upper middle Y
Mozambique LDC/low income Y
Namibia Upper middle Y
Nigeria Lower middle Y
Rwanda LDC/low income Y
Sierra Leone* LDC/low income Y
South Sudan LDC/lower middle Y
Swaziland Lower middle
Tanzania LDC/low income Y
Zimbabwe Low income Y

Notes: *One sustainability report (SR) report for each year was provided from a company with its major
operations in Sierra Leone, which was not included in Phase I data Table 1.
**Source: UN (2018) WESP Reporting countries
SAMPJ No. of No. of Position of interviewee
Country companies Industry and ownership interviewees (interviewee code)

Botswana 2 Financials 2 Company 1: Head of strategy and

corporate affairs (B1)
1. State owned Company 2: Head of corporate
affairs and strategy (B2)
2. Listed, part of South
African group of
companies
Nigeria 1 Financials 2 Company 1: Sustainability
manager
Listed, Nigerian owned Head of corporate planning (N1)
and investor relations (N2)
Kenya 2 Financials 4 Company 1: Group head of
corporate and regulatory affairs
(K1); Head of procurement
manager (K2); Head of investor
relations manager (K3)
1. Listed, part of South Company 2: Head of enterprise
Table 2. African group of and supply chain (K4)
Summary of companies
interviews 2. Listed, Kenyan owned

4.2 Analysis
Analysis of the Phase I data is mainly descriptive to show the levels of, and trends in,
reporting. Some inferential statistics are used to determine whether there are significant
differences between countries, reporting media and type of company in Phase I.
In Phase II, the sustainability reports were initially read, and this revealed that the reports of
companies in sub-Saharan countries contain large amounts of non-textual information. Using
word or sentence counts to determine the level of reporting, as used in some previous literature,
is therefore likely to distort the measurement of reporting quality because text information is
limited compared with information portrayed through photos and images. Therefore, the
number of pages was used to measure volume, to take into consideration the nature of the
reports. In addition, a comparison was made of “text” (written/narrative information) versus
“non-text” (pictures, charts and tables) information as a percentage of the total report. So as to
use a measure that incorporates the non-text information (Unerman, 2000), the numbers of
quarter-pages were measured, summed and rounded to the nearest one page.
Further, whether the companies used GRI guidelines was identified. Firms were
classified as “GRI reporting” or “non-GRI reporting” firms. Further, the extent to which they
used GRI was classified as low (mention of GRI only), moderate (explains their application of
GRI but do not reach the standard of comprehensive use of GRI) or comprehensive (where a
list of indicators is found in the sustainability report). Finally, whether the report was
externally assured (and whether it was by a Big 4 firm or other), and whether they disclosed
information related to the SDGs was recorded.
For Phase III, the researchers worked with GRI to design the interview guide as follows.
First questions on their perceptions of sustainability reporting generally and how they see it
developing in their country were asked. Next, questions were posed about how and why
they report, what specific motivations they saw and what benefits did it bring; and, finally,
information was elicited about any barriers they faced which impeded their reporting or the
decision to undertake reporting. Each interview was tailored to suit the particular State of
organisation and interviewee, with the interviewer often referring to specific information in business
their sustainability reports or websites to draw our answers. Interview transcripts were
analysed for general themes about motivations for, and barriers to, undertaking
sustainability
sustainability reporting. This was undertaken by reading each transcript section and coding reporting
the text into similar themes under each broad heading (Miles et al., 2014). These were then
reviewed and collapsed as appropriate, and selected example quotes highlighted.

5. Results of Phase I: current state of reporting

After considering the general reporting trends (Section 5.1), data are examined for evidence
of formal institutional influence (NIE Level 2) to answer RQ1. Thus, the types of reporting,
differences between countries and industry sectors, type of company and use of the GRI
framework are considered. Of the 1,641 companies analysed, 612 (37%) were publicly listed.
Only 269 (17%) produced some form of sustainability reporting in at least one of the three
years, either as part of their annual report, or in a separate sustainability or integrated report
and these covered 22 countries. Almost half of these (131 companies, 48%) reported in all
three years, although this represents only 8% of the total sample.

5.1 Reporting trends

Nearly 34% (N = 552) of the sample companies have a special section on CSR/sustainability on
their website. However, on average, only around 8% of the companies had a dedicated CSR/
sustainability section in their annual reports during 2014 and 2016. Over the three-year time period,
only 4% (N = 211) of the companies issued sustainability or integrated reports that are separate
from their annual reports. These small numbers clearly show a significant gap between the sub-
Saharan African countries, especially the least developed or low-income countries (UN, 2018), and
those leading players such as G250 – the world’s 250 largest companies mostly in wealthy
countries, where the reporting rate has been as high as 95% in recent years (KPMG, 2017).
The review of reporting by years in Figure 2 indicates low levels, but overall favourable
trend, in sustainability reporting. Notably, the strongest increase in numbers is in the
production of integrated reports. While only 20 integrated reports were produced in 2014,
that number increased by 50% in 2015 and more than doubled in 2016. Previous research

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2014 2015 2016
Sustainability informaon
125 140 146
in Annual Reports
Sustainability Reports 36 37 36
Integrated Reports 20 30 42
Figure 2.
Reporting trends
Source: Provided by GRI
SAMPJ has shown that companies in general favour IR (Jensen and Berg, 2012), which is somewhat
supported in this study (Figure 4) as the middle-income countries have a higher proportion
of IRs.

5.2 Institutional influences

NIE Level 2 refers to formal political or regulatory institutions. In this region, these are
limited, but the results show clear emergence of their growing importance.
5.2.1 GRI guidelines. Whether the use of GRI guidelines has improved the quality of
sustainability reporting has been debated and shown to be inconclusive in academic
research (Michelon et al., 2015). However, as highlighted in KPMG’s (2017) international
survey of corporate responsibility reporting, the GRI framework has become the most
popular framework for corporate sustainability reporting globally (75% adoption in world
largest companies in 2017). The results from sub-Saharan African companies follow this
global trend, although portraying a slightly different picture. This is investigated further in
Section 6.
Figure 3 shows that more than half the stand-alone sustainability reports at least
mentioned the GRI framework [11]. This rate remained stable for the three-year period.
Given the overall low uptake of sustainability reporting in the region, over 50% inclusion of
the GRI framework in reports is notable and clearly demonstrates the popularity of GRI
among those pioneer reporters.
There is also slight growth in companies mentioning GRI in their integrated reports, but
the rate of increase does not correspond to the substantial growth of the total number of
integrated reports as highlighted in the previous section. In particular, a large increase in the
production of integrated reports is noted from 2015 to 2016, whereas the number of
integrated reports mentioning the GRI framework remained relatively unchanged, which
distorts the adoption rate to below 50%. GRI “advocates for the inclusion of robust
sustainability metrics” in integrated reports and believes that it has a “central role to play
and a duty to collaborate actively in the further development of integrated reporting” (GRI
website [12]). In spite of the effort and leadership made by GRI in recent years, it seems the
role of GRI in promoting IR is an area worth further exploration. Nonetheless, these trends
highlight how social and environmental awareness is becoming embedded into the Level 1
NIE norms and suggests formal institutional arrangements will continue to become
influential in the region.

45
42
40
36 37 36
35 Total number of sustainability
30
30 reports produced

25 Number of sustainability
20 reports menoning GRI
19 18 19
20 17 17 Total number of integrated
15 reports produced
12
10 Number of integrated reports
Figure 3. menoning GRI
5
Reporting and the
GRI guidelines 0
2014 2015 2016
5.2.2 Country institutional differences. Breaking down the reporting levels to individual State of
countries reveals more noteworthy results. Out of the 48 countries (excluding South Africa) in the business
region, companies in 27 countries produced neither sustainability reports nor integrated reports,
and these were predominantly LDCs or low-income countries (UN, 2018). Figure 3 illustrates the
sustainability
number of reports produced in each of the remaining 22 countries during 2014 and 2016. reporting
In general, countries with firms that issued both integrated and sustainability reports
(towards the left end of Figure 4) have higher numbers of total reports than countries that only
issued sustainability reports (towards the right end of Figure 4). Kenya stands out in terms of
the total amount of reporting. Firms in Kenya issued 31 reports with 14 sustainability reports
and 17 integrated reports over the three years. The results suggest that as any form of
sustainability reporting increases, the likelihood of firms considering using IR as a framework
may also increase – further suggestive of a move towards formal institutions. An anomaly is
the low popularity of IR in Nigeria with only one integrated report being produced. This may
be because there is a GRI-certified training partner based in Nigeria, but there are also training
partners in Kenya where there was also extensive reporting but using both IR and
sustainability reports; and in Ghana where reporting was much lower. Alternatively, there may
be some institutional influence from South Africa, where IR is mandatory. However, this does
not explain the larger take-up in Kenya where more than half the companies use IRs.
A key institutional factor in explaining differences between countries is socio-economic
status and listing status. When using the UN (2018) classification of country income, almost
50% of the sample companies (N = 1,641) are within either least developed or low-income (or
both) countries. A comparison of reports produced by companies in low and middle-income
countries (Figure 5) shows that those in the poorer, least developed, countries clearly
produced fewer reports of any kind over the period of analysis. This difference is confirmed
by statistical analysis using Chi2 likelihood ratio (p # 0.05). However, when poorer country
companies do report, they tend to favour sustainability reports. This may be because
sustainability reporting based on the GRI guidelines provides a more concrete framework,
focussed on measurement, rather than changing the narrative of how a firm conceptualises
the value-add process as required by IR. Thus, it is more readily applicable when funds are
not available to reconceptualise and integrate the six capitals into business practice. This is

35

30

25

20

15
Integrated
10 report

5 Sustainability
report
0
Nigeria
Kenya

Madagascar
Namibia

Zimbabwe
Angola
Côte d'Ivoire

Cameroon

Cape Verde

Guinea
Liberia
Botswana

DRC
Swaziland

South Sudan
Tanzania

Malawi

Rwanda
Mozambique
Burkina Faso
Ghana
Maurius

Figure 4.
Reporting companies
in 22 sub-Saharan
African countries
Source: Provided by GRI
SAMPJ clearly an area for further investigation but shows how governance and accountability (NIE
Level 3) is being shaped by these voluntary codes. In particular, the voluntary codes provide
a narrative framework within which sub-Saharan African companies are couching the
social, environmental and economic impacts of their activities with stakeholders.
Of the 758 companies in countries classified as LDC/low-income countries, only 28%
(210) are listed companies. The proportion of listed companies increases significantly in the
lower and upper middle-income categories. Further, Figure 6(a) and (b) presents the
proportional Venn diagrams [13] to indicate the relationships between listing status and
reporting, with the circles representing relative size and overlap. Figure 6(a) shows a strong
relationship between listing and undertaking any form of sustainability reporting
(AnyReportingYN) and is statistically significant (p # 0.05), with listed firms being twice as
likely to report in some way. Similarly, listed firms are more likely to have a sustainability
section (ARSECTIONYN) in their annual reports (p # 0.05). Figure 6(b) shows that the
majority of companies that report using integrated reports are listed and over half stand-
alone sustainability reports are issued by listed firms. The likelihood of producing either a
sustainability report (SRYN) or integrated report (IRYN) is twice for listed firms than non-
listed firms (p # 0.05). This shows how public visibility increases the demands for
governance and accountability placed on companies.

SR IR

71

Figure 5. 21
Comparison of 71
38
reporting by
companies in low and Least developed / Low Middle Income
middle-income Income
countries
Source: Provided by GRI

Figure 6.
(a) Relationships
between listing
status, annual reports
(ARs) and any type of
sustainability
reporting; (b)
Relationships
between listing
status, IRs and SRs
5.2.3 Industry differences. As industry has been found to be an explanatory factor for the State of
extent of reporting in other contexts (Maroun, 2017), a breakdown of the reporting numbers business
by industries is illustrated in Figure 7 and suggests that industry regulation is a potential
institutional factor. The financial sector clearly surpasses any other industry sector in terms
sustainability
of sustainability reporting. A total of 56 (28%) sustainability and integrated reports were reporting
produced by the financial industry during 2014–2016. This implies that the financial sector
may be larger and accumulate greater wealth compared to other industries and may be
subject to greater regulation (Bartels et al., 2016). However, whether this applies across all
sub-Saharan African countries requires further investigation. The mining sector is a major
industry in the sub-Saharan region, but the total number of reports issued by mining
companies is just 24, less than half the number produced by the financial sector.

5.3 Phase I summary

The analysis of the reporting data for the region suggests the presence of formal
institutional factors which influence the uptake of sustainability reporting in the region.
However, there are clear variations which deserve further attention. Therefore, the next
section delves into the stand-alone sustainability reports produced. Discussion of these
factors is found in Section 8.

6. Results II: sustainability reporting

The stand-alone sustainability reports are analysed based on the volume of reporting and
the results augment the overview data in Section 5, further contributing to RQ1.

6.1 Overview
Table 3 provides an overview of the numbers of sustainability reports produced in each
country by year. While some companies are owned by multinational companies, if they
produced an independent sustainability report for their country, they are treated independently
(as can be seen in Table 3, two or three reports each year were classified as “global” as they did
not focus on one country). Where there were new entrants to the cohort of reporters each year
this is shaded; and where reporters left, it is indicated in boxes and bold.
Nigeria, as one of the largest and most developed economies (World Bank, 9 January
2018 [14]), had the highest number of reporters but this may also reflect that there is a GRI
training partner in Nigeria. Five of the eight companies that reported in Nigeria are from the
financial sector.

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 7.
Reporting by
industries in Sub-
Saharan region
Source: Provided by GRI
SAMPJ Country 2014 (%) 2015 (%) 2016 (%) Total (%)

Angola 1 4 1 4 1 3 3 4
Botswana 2 8 2 8 2 7 6 8
Burkina Faso 0 0 1 4 1 3 2 3
Congo 1 4 1 4 3 10 5 6
Côte d’Ivoire 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1
Ghana 1 4 1 4 2 7 4 5
Kenya 3 13 3 12 4 14 10 13
Madagascar 1 4 1 4 1 3 3 4
Malawi 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 1
Mauritius 1 4 1 4 2 7 4 5
Mozambique 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1
Namibia 1 4 2 8 2 7 5 6
Nigeria 8 33 6 24 4 14 18 23
Rwanda 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 1
Sierra Leone 1 4 1 4 1 3 3 4
Tanzania 1 4 1 4 1 3 3 4
Global* 2 8 3 12 3 10 8 10
Total 24 25 29 78

Notes: *those for which either only parent company reports were produced, or they covered multiple
Table 3. countries. These include: 2014: AB InBev and GS4 (parent company); 2015: AB InBev; Nestlé PLC – Central
Stand-alone and West Africa (multiple countries); and TATA Chemicals (parent company); 2016: AB InBev; Anadarko
sustainability reports Petroleum (parent company); New Forests Company (covers 4 countries)

Only nine companies (37%) referred to the GRI guidelines in 2014. Of those that did, three
used the G3 or G3.1 framework, whereas the other six used the G4 version even during the
transition period which allowed for companies to switch to the G4 version. All incidences of
non-reporting on social and environmental aspects of company activity occurred in reports
of non-GRI reporting firms. Three firms who did not use the GRI in 2014 excluded
mentioning environmental dimensions which are important omissions given that two
operate in mining (Tanzania) and agribusiness (Malawi). From 2015, all companies that used
the GRI framework used the G4 guidelines and 66% of these reported extensively (eight
companies). Non-GRI reporting companies are again the most prevalent in terms of not
reporting on economic issues (80%). While all companies in the sample reported on social
and environmental issues, firms which did not use GRI tended to have shorter reports and
those using GRI had a higher level of text/narrative sustainability reporting, reaffirming the
argument that voluntary codes frame the accountability and governance narratives at NIE
Level 3.
Few companies in the sample had their external sustainability reports assured
independently, and where they did, they were GRI-reporters. This lends weight to the view
that GRI guidelines provide a framework that enables both reporting and assurance as GRI
provides advice on doing so (GRI, 2013). However, in 2016, three companies used local firms
rather than Big Four firms, to assure their sustainability reporting (from Namibia, Botswana
and Cote d’Ivoire). It may be that these companies were attracted by lower assurance costs
while still delivering some form of external validity to the reporting they produced. Two
firms that assured their reports in 2015 did not do so in 2016, suggesting a potential
resourcing issue, which is affirmed by the interviews (Section 7).
There was an increase in the 2016 sample of firms that reported on some of the SDGs.
This accounts for 48% of the sample in 2016. Only 3 firms from the 15 non-GRI reporting
firms mentioned any of the SDGs. However, 11 of the 14 GRI reporting firms have some State of
form of SDG-related disclosure, signifying the growing importance of integrating efforts business
towards the SDGs as part of a firm’s sustainability performance.
sustainability
6.2 Institutional influences reporting
Stand-alone sustainability reports were examined to determine the extent and nature of the
reporting on social and environmental issues.
6.2.1 Embeddedness of informal social institutions. The stand-alone sustainability
reports reflected the informal institutions and social norms underpinning projects that were
undertaken for maintaining the quality of local community life. The disclosures attempt to
demonstrate that business entities are paying attention to challenges in the surrounding
society, striving towards better outcomes for the local community and are aware of their
commitment towards them. Commonly addressed issues include community training and
information dissemination programmes; community and livelihood development;
contribution to arts and culture; creating awareness about diseases; contributions made in
terms of equipment; funding and sponsorships; and assistance to charitable and non-profit
organisations and volunteer programmes.
Aside from the abovementioned activities and projects, the companies in the sample also
address various problems currently affecting the sub-Saharan region. They include HIV/
AIDS, Malaria, post-natal mortality and supporting internally displaced persons. As
demonstrated below, the companies claim to have carried out various projects in an attempt
to uplift the lives of children, families and young people affected by diseases and civil unrest
that have been prevalent in the region for a prolonged period. The following are a few
examples of what was reported in selected sustainability reports:
EMTS championed the campaign, Give a Net; Save a Life, in commemoration of World Malaria
Day; through online advocacy, a regular approach for us. For every net bought by an employee of
EMTS, the company agreed to match it. The nets were then shared across six geo-political zones
(EMTS, Nigeria, 2016).

Ambatovy regularly takes part in World AIDS Day that is held each year on December 1st and, in
2016, we organized World AIDS Day events at each of our sites, with awareness-raising,
education and voluntary testing (Ambatovy, Madagascar, 2016).

Helping Babies Breathe is a training program focused on teaching local nurses, midwives, and
birth assistants how to save a newborn’s life in the first critical minute after birth[. . .] The
outcomes of the program are an increased level of local capacity, access to appropriate equipment,
a sustainable model for ongoing training and skills development, and ultimately, increased
newborn survival (Golden Star, Ghana, 2016).
The aspects of labour practices and human rights represent a second cluster of information
disclosed within the social dimension of disclosures made by the sample companies. Various
interests of employees and human rights are addressed frequently: people-oriented
initiatives such as employee training and advancement, workplace/occupational health and
safety, employment policies and recreational opportunities provided for employees.
However, the information on these issues disclosed in sustainability reports is limited
compared to the information disclosed regarding initiatives undertaken for needs of local
communities. Different types of strategies that have been launched to promote diversity and
ensure human rights are protected, such as emphasising a diversified workforce, including
hiring future employees who represent diverse backgrounds, and protect human rights and
indigenous rights, are disclosed:
SAMPJ Seven Energy management firmly believes that adherence to the principles of Human Rights
forms a key component of the successful protection of assets. The fair treatment of and respect for
indigenous peoples encourages a secure operating environment. Each member of staff undergoes
an induction into the Seven Energy procedures (Seven Energy, Nigeria, 2014).
The disclosures suggest that the social dimension of the sustainability concept is strongly
embedded in local issues, or the “social embeddedness” (Williamson, 2000) concept of NIE.
This informal institutional environment, which is noted to have “a pervasive influence upon
the long-run character of economies” (North, 1991, p. 111), is strongly cultural and informal
and formal institutions that align with this are more likely to be maintained (Williamson,
2000).
6.2.2 Emergence of formal institutions. Particularly related to environmental
information, disclosure in the stand-alone sustainability reports was less focussed on local
issues, and included broader aspects such as emissions and often referring to external
benchmarks, suggesting the emergence of the influence of more formal institutions:
We have calculated our carbon footprint for the third year using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (a
Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised edition)). Our consolidation approach for
calculating our emissions is operational control. We used the tCO2e Emission Factors from the UK
Governmental Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Energy and
Climate Change (DECC) 2013 GHG conversion factors for company reporting, which include the
gases CO2, N2O and CH4 (Safaricom Limited, Kenya, 2014).
Information on the aspects of water and energy also noted external benchmarks. However,
even though the scarcity of water in the sub-Saharan region is well documented, the extent
of information reported on this is limited. An example from one company states:
As a first step, BWH has – through third-party expertise – conducted an energy and water
benchmarking exercise of three of the group’s largest buildings in Windhoek [. . .]. The purpose of
the first phase was to enumerate the electrical energy and water consumption levels and to
evaluate in broad terms the potential for energy and water saving opportunities at these facilities
(Bank Windhoek Holdings Limited, Namibia, 2015).
Given the diverse nature of industry sectors in sub-Saharan Africa, a number of companies
merely mentioned that they adhere to the existing laws and regulations. This was more
prevalent for companies operating in industries with less environmental impact, such as in
the financial sector. This illustrates how adherence to social norms may vary according to
the industries that companies operate in. An NIE lens would suggest that transaction costs
are higher in environmentally sensitive industries. Stronger external scrutiny and harsher
regulatory penalties for environmental mishaps may convince companies operating in these
industries to try harder to conform to social norms through voluntary social and
environmental disclosure. This reduces information asymmetry (North, 1992) and signals
“good behaviour” to markets that may build a sense of trust with regulators and
communities (Knack and Keefer, 1995).

6.3 Phase II summary

Overall, the sustainability reports published by the sample companies address regional
social challenges that are well documented (Mabhaudhi et al., 2016). Thus, there is strong
evidence that NIE Level 1 institutions dominate. However, the GRI framework is being used,
suggesting emergence of more formal institutions, but there was only brief occurrence of
GRI content indices and most of the narrative is positive in nature. Given there are no
explicit indicators to report against for the context-specific issues, this may be one reason for
slow take-up of the framework. Alternatively, specific indicators such as labour/
management relations, equal remuneration for women and men, freedom of association and State of
collective bargaining, forced and compulsory labour, corruption, public policy or anti- business
competitive behaviour, which are clearly relevant to the region, may be more likely to be sustainability
disclosed by businesses operating in contexts with more stable governments and less
volatile economies. Nonetheless, direct engagement with managers responsible for
reporting
producing these sustainability reports is needed to comprehend the whole picture regarding
how they decide on what they report and the reasons for doing so.

7. Results III: managers’ perspectives

The final phase of the analysis comprises interviews with managers from companies
operating in the financial sector in three countries to provide examples of the main
motivations and barriers to answer RQ2; to confirm results emerging from the first two
phases; and to note which are important areas to follow up in future research. It is important
to note these are three of the highest reporting countries, so views are of managers with a
reasonable level of experience. Quotations provided in the following sections are
representative of key themes and are not intended to cover every aspect or issue raised by
interviewees.

7.1 Perceptions of sustainability reporting

As suggested by Phase I and II analysis, the concept of sustainability reporting appears to
be only emerging in the region and is dominated by embedded social norms. The interviews
reveal a similar view and support the upwards trend noted in Phase I.
The interviewees from Botswana noted that public perceptions seem to be shifting, with
increased expectations that companies will be environmentally and socially aware. An
interview from one of the two organisations represented, valued sustainability reporting as
a mechanism to disclose its accountability to the wider community:
We evolved over time as an organization from philanthropy to CSR [15] to where we are now
where we say it’s a shared growth. When we prosper the communities in which we operate in
prosper and when they prosper, we prosper. It’s that virtuous cycle, it’s no longer a stand-alone
department, activity, initiative report. It is actually the way to do business (B2).
Similarly, managers in the Nigerian company perceive sustainability reporting to be in its
infancy in the country, notwithstanding that Nigeria has the highest number of reporting
companies in the sample analysed in Section 5. Both the Nigerian and Kenyan interviewees
noted that they felt that public awareness of the issue seems to be increasing, so the
influence of stakeholders may emerge as an important driver in the future:
If you look at the wider picture of Nigeria, we are not there yet, it is still a new concept for our
people. So, sustainability is still very new for us as a nation. But I think it’s catching on, because
an average Nigeria consumer is becoming more aware (N1).

Over the last 5 years, the frequency has probably doubled, I have received more questions, more
emails asking for sustainability, ESG, GRI related responses more than I saw when I started e.g. if
in 2013 the number was (X) currently the number is (2x) in terms of the demand and the frequency
(K1).
In spite of this, one interviewee noted that their company was now including SDGs in their
sustainability reports, supported by the GRI guidelines as a consistent framework to explain
social and environmental activities, confirming the emergence of more formal institutions:
SAMPJ The reporting for this year will be a bit different because we will add the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) component. We are supposed to highlight what it is we are doing under
the SDG component[. . .] We felt the GRI format worked well for us. You do not want to do
something then when asked what philosophy you used you are not able to explain. When
someone is reading, they want to know what your thinking was, so when you say you are doing
GRI they can see the thought pattern (K3).

7.2 Institutional drivers

When specifically asked about why they report, or the benefits they perceive from reporting,
the major influences appear to be business benefit or gain, regulation and internal pressure
from top-level management and growing stakeholder pressure. All of these factors
centre around formal and informal institutions as explained by NIE and their ability to drive
changes in company practice. For instance, the emergence of external stakeholder pressure
and internal pressures from top-level management to produce social and environmental
reports point towards shifting societal norms and awareness within the African context as
noted in the preceding section.
Business benefits stand as a clear example of how alignment with informal institutions
may reduce transaction costs by signalling trust to important stakeholders. Voluntary social
and environmental reporting may help companies navigate increasing pressure to
demonstrate accountability. Indeed, transparency and the importance of building a strong
reputation was noted as a key factor; for example, one interviewee notes:
[. . .] it’s about engaging stakeholders and once you set the tone and people have information you
find that they have the right perceptions, or you sort of shade the narrative, so enhancing the
reputation and also just what other entities are doing but more than anything also just the
requirement (B1).
The Nigerian interviewee indicated a perception that there is little pressure on companies in
terms of broader stakeholders seen in developed countries, but rather, the pressure comes
from potential investors; more specifically, funding bodies and foreign investors, a theme
that appeared among all interviewees:
Companies that do a sustainability report will get an added premium to investors than those that
do not prepare sustainability reports (K1).

We have companies such as Dutch Development Bank, (FMO) who has invested in us and
sustainability is particularly important to them and so it is important because with current and
future investors as a bank are largely international, and as you know in Europe and US there is a
large emphasis on this (N2).
One Botswanan interviewee noted that they believe that firms in the region are moving
towards international best practice reporting, and perceived that reporting assisted external
parties to carry out due diligence more easily:
There are funders (lenders) that we have been talking to and they would say do you have any
ESMS policy? What is your CSR? and it’s part of that due diligence to say are we going to lend
you money, are we going to partner with you and if you do not have this things, do you have
considerations for the environment, like this building here is green certified, energy saving, so
people really take that seriously even some investors want to deal with a company that is fully
engaged on sustainability of the globe (B1).
In terms of benefits to the business, some interviewees mentioned that “investment” in social
and environmental reporting led to long-term benefits. One benefit seen was a form of
“information integration”, which provided impetus for diverse silos of information to be State of
better synthesised to aid in management decision-making. One interviewee whose company business
was championing IR, noted:
sustainability
The pros mean once done you have a one stop shop that speaks to your company story year on reporting
year, which you can give to anybody and they can get all the company nuggets whether its
customer, citizenship, strategy. Everything is in one place and can be understood well (B2).
For interviewee B2, access to information and the reflection that it was actively encouraged
as part of the reporting process also translated into performance improvement and better
goal congruence with the company’s strategic intent, as well as long-term financial benefit.
They also indicate a desire to drive institutional change within the banking sector:
[. . .][I]t is very much driven by our ethos, our values, our desire to be thought leaders to move
ahead, to hold ourselves to a higher standard to look in the mirror harder and come back and say
this is where we are and then to also just drive for growth, so to say year on year how have we
improved. Once you start you have something to compare with even if you remain flat and there
is no growth but if year on year your improving, your tightening is becoming sharper, you can
actually come back and demonstrate that you have perfected the communities and environments
and the people amongst which you work then you know you’re doing good (B2).
Industry regulation and standard practice were clearly drivers, with government direction
considered important for the development of sustainability reporting practice in the future:
[. . .]the banking industry is actually one of the industries that are at the forefront on reporting
when it comes to sustainability activities. The Banking industry has a set of rules and guidelines
that were created about 5 years ago and these regulations have sort of pushed us forward as an
industry. So, we are more aware and purposefully create projects and activities that are focused
on sustainability (N1).
In addition, strong leadership is seen as an internal driver:
I think we are fortunate because we have support right from the top, right from our board and
flowing through our executive management and everyone having the same conversations. So, it is
not such a hard slog (N1).
In summary, key motivations referred to by interviewees focussed on formal global
institutional pressures (Level 2 – NIE), either directly or indirectly through enhancing
reputation in line with international standards to achieve greater foreign investment and
acceptance. Informal, national institutional pressures facilitate this (Level 1 – NIE) and
internal governance mechanisms are also key (Level 3 – NIE). The link between changes in
embedded social norms and the emergence of more formal institutions (Williamson, 2000)
appears particularly salient in the context.

7.3 Institutional barriers

In spite of identifying strong motivations for sustainability reporting, the interviewees noted
a few challenges:
It’s expensive, takes a lot of time, it is also like looking in the mirror as well, and actually asking
what have I really done? So, if you really haven’t done anything (and you know companies have
different goals and agendas), you can’t be out talking about zero work (B2).

There are a number of interviews that need to be done. Information gathering from different parts
of the business. Just to ensure that you have a coherent report. This takes months from the time
you start the process to having a document in front of you. There’s back and forth, proofing,
SAMPJ interviewing and getting to the place where we have actually produced something that tells the
whole story (B2).
As well as costs, a lack of leadership is seen to impede the reporting process. The same
interviewee, who noted the need for Boards and senior management to lead on this issue,
noted that cost can be a greater problem without leadership support:
Cost might be a problem, a lot of things especially when you start sustainability activities, cost is
always the major deterrent and if you don’t have leadership support, it’s always a much harder
compensation to have, when your trying to push initiatives through, it’s very difficult (N1).
Finally, it was noted that there is, in some cases, a lack of understanding of the concept of
sustainability.
There are people who are still not very clear on what sustainability is and what it means.
Sometimes it’s just another buzz word or is it another thing to just tick on what you are doing
from a shared role (K4).

7.4 Phase III summary

Notwithstanding the limited number of interviews undertaken, the interviewees all noted
interest and enthusiasm for sustainability reporting, reflecting the trends seen in the larger
sample. The main barriers are related to NIE Level 3, resourcing, but also include a lack of
Level 2 institutions and the early stage of embedding sustainability into social norms as a
lack of understanding of the concept and expertise was noted.

8. Discussion and conclusions

The analysis in this paper provides some perspective into the key reporting issues that
companies in selected sub-Saharan African countries are grappling with in their contexts.
These issues provide a preliminary agenda for future, in-depth research to further explore
issues and trends and inform more targeted policy solutions.

8.1 Key findings

Reporting is clearly growing but is underdeveloped as in other developing countries (KPMG,
2017). Interviews revealed motivations for, and barriers to, reporting are influenced by both
internal and external factors, but a clear finding is that there is still difficulty with
understanding the concept of sustainability itself, and sufficient expertise to deal with it.
This is borne out by the analysis of the stand-alone reports, which are at a nascent stage.
While these results are similar to previous research (Amaeshi et al., 2006; Achua, 2008;
Nyuur et al., 2014), they have implications for the future when considered from the lens of
NIE. More specific understanding of the context, greater attention to regulation and better
governance mechanisms internally and externally are needed. A key factor is the
relationship between the development of social norms (Level 1) and the emergence of formal
institutions (Levels 2 and 3) in the specific context, which are hampered by firm-level
barriers such as resource and capacity constraints (Level 4).

8.2 Informal and formal institutions (Level 2)

Prior research using NIE generally takes the Level 1 informal institutions as a given
(Williamson, 2000) but our finding that socio-economic status significantly impacts
reporting, even within developing regions, suggests that this needs to be given more
credence, and understanding the local context better is likely to inform understanding of
their development. This will, in turn, inform improved policy, at both firm and industry State of
level, in the current absence of formal institutions in this context. business
Although formal institutional arrangements to produce sustainability reports are
lacking, institutional structures through associations such as the GRI and IIRC are growing
sustainability
in influence and these provide the bridge between informal and formal institutions. Formal reporting
institutions are more likely to emerge when informal institutions and social norms
concerning social and environmental issues are more deeply embedded (Gray and Laughlin,
2012), and this is clearly seen within sub-Saharan country contexts. The importance of
sustainability reporting is still not fully embedded within social norms in the sub-Saharan
African context and there are no strong drivers for producing comprehensive sustainability.
This means that the notion of sustainability reporting is still emerging, and this is occurring
in parallel with very early, but increasing, interest in the issues within society. Within the
sample analysed, more than one-third provided sustainability information, mostly on their
corporate websites, which could signal the rise of more formal institutions, spearheaded by
voluntary reporting organisations, which are attempting to embed new social norms for
business practice in Africa. The increasing awareness can also be seen from the finding that
more than half of those companies that provide stand-alone sustainability or integrated
reports mention (in some cases adopt) the GRI framework. The report analysis showed that
GRI reporting firms also tend to have longer reports on average. This provides the
preliminary evidence that more formal institutional influence on reporting, albeit through
voluntary frameworks, is positive in developing reporting practice; while most firms
favoured more graphics and less textual information, those which use GRI reporting
guidelines tended to favour more text or narrative disclosures.
A further sign that reporting is developing is that external assurance of sustainability
reports increased over the period and that companies producing a stand-alone sustainability
report are showing increasing appetite towards integrating discussion of SDGs. However,
the companies analysed do not appear to have picked up on the GRI guidance on how to
specifically report on the SDGs, notwithstanding the guidance provided by the SDG
Compass [16] jointly developed by GRI, UN Global Compact and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. Similarly, the IIRC provides advice on alignment of the SDGs
with the IR framework (Adams, 2017). This would be an avenue for further development
and engagement with companies in sub-Saharan Africa given the importance of the SDGs
emerging in their reporting. This point has particular significance given the increasing role
that GRI is playing in reporting on SDGs and national and global context-specific impacts.
The reporting across the sample analysed comprises a range of development activities but
appears to be concentrated on more direct poverty alleviation and health-care projects where
activities and impact can be more readily understood at the firm level. Higher, macro-level
goals such as reduced inequality, sustainable cities and communities and responsible
consumption and production are largely unreported.

8.3 Governance and accountability (Level 3)

The barriers to sustainability reporting reveal areas that could be improved, including,
spreading awareness and cultivating further understanding about sustainability reporting
in the population; bringing about changes in attitudes of employees to embrace
sustainability reporting; and improving systems and infrastructure in companies to
facilitate better sustainability reporting.
The results confirm that there is a strong role for formal institutions to support managers
through training in understanding the concept of sustainability and how it can be
implemented and reported on in their organisations. In particular, education for leaders and
SAMPJ top-level management may be required to facilitate the acceptance of the need for
sustainability reporting throughout the other levels of the companies, as governance has
been identified as key to improved progress towards SDGs (Adams et al., 2020). Thus, there
is an important role for global standard setters such as GRI and IIRC to better codify the key
elements of companies’ social contracts and accountability requirements, which can inform
future workshops and training they offer. Ultimately, this will embed sustainability into
decision-making and risk management practices in organisations.
In addition, the cost of implementing sustainability reporting is clearly of particular
importance in developing country contexts. Hence, companies need to invest in leadership
who are committed to signing up to reporting frameworks and who are prepared to invest
resources (which leads to an NIE Level 4 analysis that is beyond the scope of this paper) to
achieve, and report on, sustainability.

8.4 Implications
Based on the insights from the broad findings from this study, the message appears to be
that the concept of sustainability reporting is growing in sub-Saharan African countries as
societies begin to value social and environmental responsibility of companies. Importantly,
the growing formal and informal institutions in the region appear to be normalising the
behaviour of companies’ reporting in line with developed countries, but this brings with it
challenges in terms of meeting the needs of the local context. These insights suggest some
implications for future policy direction. The policy recommendations for organisations such
as GRI include, first, a clear need for educational outreach to promote sustainability
reporting knowledge and awareness in the region, with a particular focus on reporting
substance and quality over format and quantity/volume. This includes using text and
narrative disclosure over non-text photographic disclosure; and integration of social and
environmental information with economic information rather than separate disclosures on
the three aspects.
Second, implications for regulators and other government bodies include that working
with companies in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Botswana to set them on a path to
becoming new regional leaders of sustainability reporting could be beneficial. With South
Africa being the leader in the past, firms in these countries could provide new exemplars to
those in low-middle income countries in the region. Similarly, regional regulators could
improve environmental regulations because current disclosure of environmental issues is
predominantly focussed on environmental compliance. Formalising institutions in this way
would lead to much stronger levels of sustainability reporting, as specific information
asymmetries are identified.
Third, increased support to companies in the least developed countries, such as the 26 of
48 countries where no improvement in sustainability reporting has been seen at all, is
needed. To overcome the reporting barriers identified in this study will be the key for
reporting standard setting organisations such as GRI and IIRC to focus on. Informal
institutions are also important to provide context-specific arrangements (Toye, 1995) to
improve sustainability reporting. Sustainability reporting which is not compelled by formal
regulation may lead to companies engaging with stakeholders, especially vulnerable
communities, in more authentic ways. Future research that engages with governments,
industry bodies and stock exchanges is essential to inform future policy and regulation.
Fourth, the noticeable trend towards the use of IR, but also an increase in the use of GRI
standards, shows the value of informal and formal institutions in developing countries.
There is a clear need, however, to build on the current work being done on how GRI
standards integrate with the IR framework.
 Finally, as SDGs are clearly on the agenda of companies in the region, there may be State of
opportunities to refine reporting frameworks to identify specific indicators for key social business
challenges, specifically found in this regional context, such as health issues (HIV/AIDS) and
forced labour, which can be mapped against the SDGs.
sustainability
The study has a number of limitations, given its preliminary nature and the reporting
difficulty in gaining access to date in this region. In particular, data on company
characteristics (e.g. size and ownership) was not available for the data set analysed;
therefore, the results can only be interpreted as indicative. Further, the “broad” nature
of the data, using three sources, results in the need for further studies with more
“depth”. The potential bias towards English reporting and/or English-speaking
countries and the consideration of sustainability reporting and IR together provide
potential avenues for future investigation; specifically understanding why IR has been
adopted more readily in some countries. Similarly, the paper only considers the content
of sustainability reports, not other reporting media, and considers only the production
of reports, and it does not examine users’ perceptions. The use of reports from the
region by stakeholders would be a valuable area for future research – while this study
indicates they are produced mainly for foreign investors and funders, the value to those
and other stakeholders is an important area for future consideration. Finally,
the interviews were very limited and were with managers who are likely to have a
positive bias towards sustainability, so a broader range of interviews is needed to
confirm these findings.

Notes
1. [Link]/
2. Others point out that ubuntu is not anthropocentric, as some have argued, but can be understood
as a relationship between humans and the natural environment (Chibvongodze, 2016), thus likely
to support notions of sustainability.
3. [Link]/
4. [Link]
5. [Link]/standards/[Accessed18/5/2018]
6. Young (2005) notes the importance of research–policy links and highlights the contextual issues
that shape policy; in particular, he notes the lack of high-quality research on policy issues as a
major constraint to training new policymakers.
7. Some data for 2017 were also provided, but these were excluded from this analysis as the data
were incomplete because of production timelines.
8. 1599 unique companies; some operate in more than one country.
9. [Link]
10. This is a limitation of the study as the researchers were not able to read reports other than those
produced in English.
11. Which does not mean they are applying it comprehensively but are at least using the guidelines
to inform their reporting.
12. [Link]
[Link]/2017/01/gri-iirc-team-up-to-make-corporate-reporting-less-confusing/
[Link]
SAMPJ 13. Proportional Venn diagrams attempt to make each of the zones (the circles, the outside rectangle
and the set intersections) proportional to the population (value) assigned to the zone. Note that
the overlap regions of three-circle Venn diagrams are not always to scale, because an ideal
solution is generally not possible using circles.
14. [Link]/en/region/afr/brief/global-economic-prospects-sub-saharan-africa-2018
15. Interviewees often used sustainability and CSR interchangeably, indicating a less developed
understanding of the terms.
16. [Link]/information/SDGs/Pages/[Link]

References
Abeydeera, S., Tregidga, H. and Kearins, K. (2016), “Sustainability reporting–more global than local?”,
Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 478-504.
Abugre, J.B. and Nyuur, R.B. (2015), “Organizations’ commitment to and communication of CSR
activities: insights from Ghana”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 161-178.
Achua, J.K. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility in Nigerian banking system”, Society and Business
Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Ackah-Baidoo, A. (2012), “Enclave development and ‘offshore corporate social responsibility”:
implications for oil-rich Sub-Saharan Africa”, Resources Policy, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 152-159.
Adams, C.A. (2017), “The sustainable development goals, integrated thinking and the integrated
report”, IIRC and ICAS. ISBN 978-1-909883-41-3, available at: [Link]/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0010/336475/SDGs-and-the-integratedreport_full17.pdf (accessed 10 January 2020).
Adams, C.A. Druckman, P.B. and Picot, R.C. (2020), “Sustainable development goal disclosure (SDGD)
recommendations”, published by ACCA, Chartered Accountants ANZ, ICAS, IFAC, IIRC and
WBA, available at: [Link]/-/media/76df1ba4bc654398a28e7d40
[Link] (accessed 10 January 2020).
Adelle, C. (2016), “How Africa can up its game to meet environmental challenges”, The Conversation,
February 11, available at: [Link]
environmental-challenges-54204 (accessed 10 January 2020).
Adewuyi, A.O. and Olowookere, A.E. (2010), “CSR and sustainable community development in Nigeria:
WAPCO, a case from the cement industry”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 522-535.
Aerts, W., Cormier, D. and Magnan, M. (2006), “Intra-industry imitation in corporate environmental
reporting: an international perspective”, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 299-331.
Amaeshi, K., Adi, A., Ogbechie, C. and Amao, O. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility in Nigeria:
western mimicry or indigenous influences?”, Research Gate, pp. 1-21.
Aminu, A., Chiroma, M., Shehu, A., Ojobo, H. and Abdullahi, A. (2016), “Possible roles of corporate
social responsibility (CSR) in promoting sustainable development in Nigeria”, Journal of
Advances in Social Science and Humanities, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Amponsah-Tawiah, K. and Dartey-Baah, K. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility in Ghana: a sectoral
analysis”, in Vertigans, S., Idowu, S.O. and Schmidpeter, R. (Eds), Corporate Social Responsibility
in Sub-Saharan Africa, Springer International, Cham.
Arthur, C.L., Wu, J., Yago, M. and Zhang, J. (2017), “Investigating performance indicators disclosure in
sustainability reports of large mining companies in Ghana”, Corporate Governance: The
International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 643-660.
Atkins, J. and Maroun, W. (2014), “South African institutional investors’ perceptions of integrated
reporting”, ACCA, available at: [Link]/ab109 (accessed 10 January 2020).
Baptiste, I. (2001), “Qualitative data analysis: common phases, strategic differences”, Forum: State of
Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, doi: 10.17169/fqs-2.3.917.
business
Bartels, W. Fogelberg, T. Hoballah, A. and van der Lugt, C.T. (2016), “Carrots and sticks: global trends
in sustainability reporting regulation and policy”, GRI, Amsterdam, available at: www.
sustainability
[Link]/media/i3qpk1pm/[Link] reporting
Bates, R.H. (1995), “Social dilemmas and rational individuals: an assessment of the new
institutionalism”, in Harriss, J., Hunter, J. and Lewis, C. (Eds), The New Institutional Economics
and Third World Development, Routledge, London, pp. 27-48.
Chibvongodze, D.T. (2016), “Ubuntu is not only about the human! An analysis of the role of African
philosophy and ethics in environment management”, Journal of Human Ecology, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 157-166.
Coase, R.H. (1995), “My evolution as an economist”, in Breit, W. and Spencer, R.W. (Eds), Lives of the
Laureates, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
da Rosa, F., Guesser, T., Hein, N., Pfitscher, E. and Lunkes, R. (2015), “Environmental impact
management of Brazilian companies: analyzing factors that influence disclosure of waste,
emissions, effluents, and other impacts”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 96,
pp. 148-160.
David-Barrett, E. and Okamura, K. (2016), “Norm diffusion and reputation: the rise of the extractive
industries transparency initiative”, Governance, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 227-246.
Dissanayake, D., Tilt, C. and Xydias-Lobo, M. (2016), “Sustainability reporting by publicly listed
companies in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 129, pp. 169-182.
Elijido-Ten, E. (2009), “Can stakeholder theory add to our understanding of Malaysian environmental
reporting attitudes?”, Management and Accounting Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 85-110.
Emel, J., Makene, M. and Wangari, E. (2012), “Problems with reporting and evaluating mining industry
community development projects: a case study from Tanzania”, Sustainability, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 257-277.
Flower, J. (2015), “The international integrated reporting council: a story of failure”, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, Vol. 27, pp. 1-17.
Gray, R. and Laughlin, R. (2012), “It was 20 years ago today”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 228-255.
GRI (2013), “The external assurance of sustainability reporting”, Research and Development Series,
Global Reporting Initiative, available at: [Link]/resourcelibrary/GRI-
[Link] (accessed 12 July 2018).
GRI (2016), “Forging a path to integrated reporting”, Global Reporting Initiative, available at: www.
[Link]/resourcelibrary/GRI-CLG_IntegratedReporting.pdf (accessed 3 October
2018).
Gurvitsh, N. and Sidorova, I. (2012), “Environmental and social accounting disclosures as a vital
component of sustainability reporting integrated into annual reports of the baltic companies for
the years 2007-2011: based on companies listed on NASDAQ OMX baltic main list as of june
2012”, GSTF Business Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 38-44.
Hahn, R. and Kühnen, M. (2013), “Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends,
theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 59, pp. 5-21.
Haji, A.A. and Anifowose, M. (2016), “The trend of integrated reporting practice in South Africa:
ceremonial or substantive?”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 190-224.
Hinson, R., Boateng, R. and Madichie, N. (2010), “What does My website say about My CSR activities?
An investigation of banks operating in Ghana”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28
No. 7, pp. 498-518.
SAMPJ Ismail, T., Okupe, A. and Amaeshi, K. (2017), “Sub-Saharan Africa”, in Vissner, W. (Ed.), The World
Guide to Sustainable Enterprise, Routledge, London, pp. 12-23.
Ives, K. and Buchner, M. (2011), “Implementing CSR in South Sudan: challenges faced by the oil sector
in implementing international human rights”, Integrity/Norwegian People’s Aid, pp. 1-26.
Jensen, J.C. and Berg, N. (2012), “Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated
reporting. An institutionalist approach”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 299-316.
Johnson-Rokosu, S.F. and Olanrewaju, R.A. (2016), “Corporate sustainability reporting practice in an
emerging market: a case of listed companies in Nigeria”, Knowledge Horizons. Economics, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 148-156.
Katamba, D., Tushabomwe Kazooba, C., Babiiha Mpisi, S., Marvin Nkiko, C., Nabatanzi-Muyimba, A.K.
and Hensley Kekaramu, J. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility management in Uganda:
lessons, challenges, and policy implications”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 375-390.
Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1995), “Institutions and economic performance: cross-country tests using
alternative institutional measures”, Economics & Politics, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 207-227.
KPMG, GRI, UNEP and Centre for Corporate Governance in Africa (2016), “Carrots sticks: global trends
in sustainability reporting regulation and policy”, available at: [Link]
dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/05/[Link] (accessed 10 January 2020).
KPMG (2008-2017), “The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting, KPMG international”,
available at: [Link]
[Link]
Kuada, J. and Hinson, R.E. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices of foreign and
local companies in Ghana”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 521-536.
Kühn, A.L., Stiglbauer, M. and Fifka, M.S. (2015), “Contents and determinants of corporate social
responsibility website reporting in Sub-Saharan Africa: a seven-country study”, Business and
Society, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 437-480.
Lauwo, S.G., Otusanya, O.J. and Bakre, O. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility reporting in the
mining sector of Tanzania”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 1038-1074.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Campbell, T.T. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility practices in
developing and transitional countries: Botswana and Malawi”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 90, pp. 429-440.
Mabhaudhi, T., Chibarabada, T. and Modi, A. (2016), “Water-food-nutrition-health nexus: linking water
to improving food, nutrition and health in Sub-Saharan Africa”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 107.
Maroun, W. (2017), “Determinants of reporting”, in de Villiers, C. and Maroun, W. (Eds). Sustainability
Accounting and Integrated Reporting, Routledge, London, doi: 10.4324/9781315108032.
Marx, B. and van Dyk, V. (2011), “Sustainability reporting and assurance: an analysis of assurance
practices in South Africa”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 19 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-55.
Mbaku, J.M. (2004), Institutions and Development in Africa, Africa World Press, Inc, Trenton, NJ.
Mbigi, L. and Maree, J. (1995), Ubuntu: The Spirit of African Transformational Management,
Knowledge Resources, Rannburg.
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S. and Ricceri, F. (2015), “CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure:
an empirical analysis”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 33, pp. 59-78.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldana, J. (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook,
3rd ed., SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H. and Walton, S. (2009), “Words not actions! The ideological role of sustainable State of
development reporting”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8,
pp. 1211-1257.
business
Moll, J., Burns, J. and Major, M. (2006), “Institutional theory”, in Hoque, Z. (Ed.), Methodological Issues in
sustainability
Accounting Research: Theories, Methods and Issues, Spiramus Press, London. reporting
Momin, M.A. and Parker, L.D. (2013), “Motivations for corporate social responsibility reporting by
MNC subsidiaries in an emerging country: the case of Bangladesh”, The British Accounting
Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 215-228.
Muthuri, J.N. and Gilbert, V. (2011), “An institutional analysis of corporate social responsibility in
Kenya”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 467-483.
Mzembe, A.N. and Meaton, J. (2014), “Driving corporate social responsibility in the Malawian mining
industry: a stakeholder perspective”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 189-201.
North, D.C. (1991), “Institutions”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 97-112.
North, D.C. (1992), “Institutions and economic theory”, The American Economist, Vol. 36 No. 1, Spring,
pp. 3-6.
North, D.C. (1993), “Institutions and economic performance”, in Maki, U., Gustafsson, B. and Knudsen,
C. (Eds), Rationality, Institutions and Economic Methodology, Routledge, London, pp. 242-261.
Nyahunzvi, D.K. (2013), “CSR reporting among Zimbabwe’s hotel groups: a content analysis”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 595-613.
Nyuur, R.B., Ofori, D.F. and Debrah, Y. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility in Sub-Saharan Africa:
hindering and supporting factors”, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 93-113.
Ofori, D.F., Nyuur, R.B. and S-Darko, M.D. (2014), “Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance: fact or fiction? A look at Ghanaian banks”, Acta Commercii, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Schneider, G. and Nega, B. (2016), “Limits of the new institutional economics approach to African
development”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 435-443.
Setia, N., Abhayawansa, S., Josh, M. and Huynh, A.V. (2015), “Integrated reporting in South Africa:
some initial evidence”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 397-424.
Shirley, M.M. (2005), “Institutions and development”, in Menard, C. and Shirley, M.M. (Eds), Handbook
of New Institutional Economics, Springer, Dordrecht.
Smerecnik, K.R. and Andersen, P.A. (2011), “The diffusion of environmental sustainability innovations
in North American hotels and ski resorts”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 171-196.
Steyn, M. (2014), “Organisational benefits and implementation challenges of mandatory integrated
reporting: perspectives of senior executives at South African listed companies”, Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 476-503.
Tilt, C.A. (2016), “Social and environmental disclosure studies: the importance of context”, Journal of
Corporate Social Responsibility, Vol. 1 No. 2, doi: 10.1186/s40991-016-0003-7.
Tilt, C.A. (2018), “Making social and environmental accounting research relevant in developing
countries: a matter of context?”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 145-450.
Toye, J. (1995), “The new institutional economics and its implications for development theory”, in
Harris, J., Hunter, J. and Lewis, C. (Eds), The New Institutional Economics and Third World
Development, Routledge, London.
Ugwuegbu, D.C.E. (2001), The Psychology of Management in African Organizations, Quorum,
Westport, CT.
SAMPJ UN (2016), “Greening Africa’s industrialization. Economic commission for Africa”, United Nations,
available at: [Link]/en/africa/osaa/pdf/pubs/[Link] (accessed 10 June 2013).
UN (2017), “UNAIDS data 2017, joint United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)”, United
Nations, available at: [Link]/sites/default/files/media_asset/20170720_Data_book_
2017_en.pdf (accessed 1 October 2018).
UN (2018), “World economic situation prospects, United Nations”, United Nations, available at: www.
[Link]/development/desa/dpad/publication/world-economic-situation-and-prospects-2018/ (accessed 2
July 2017).
UNDP (2015), “Sustainable development goals”, United Nations Development Programme, available at:
[Link]/content/undp/en/home/[Link] (accessed 8 May
2018).
Unerman, J. (2000), “Methodological issues: reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting
content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 667-680.
Williamson, O.E. (2000), “The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead”, Journal of
Economic Literature, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 595-613.
Winkler, D. (2017), “How do multinationals report their economic, social, and environmental impacts?
Evidence from global reporting initiative data”, Policy Research Working Paper 8274, World
Bank, available at: [Link] (accessed 20 May 2018).
Yoon, M.Y. (2017), “Sub-Saharan Africa”, Sharing Power, Routledge, pp. 91-102.
Young, J. (2005), “Research, policy and practice: why developing countries are different”, Journal of
International Development, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 727-734.
Zoogah, D.B., Peng, M.W. and Woldu, H. (2015), “Institutions, resources, and organizational
effectiveness in Africa”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-31.

Further reading
Institute of Directors Southern Africa [IoDSA] (2009), “King report on corporate governance for South
Africa 2009”, available at: [Link]
King_Report_on_Governance_fo.pdf (accessed 20 June 2020).

Corresponding author
Wei Qian can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]