Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose The aim of this study is to critically examine the transparency and reporting practice of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) controversies within the pharmaceutical and textile industry. Based on the four core dimensions of transparency, we explore which reporting medium is most frequently chosen for the disclosure of negative ESG contributions, the nature and information content of the disclosed incidents and how voluntary adherence to sustainability reporting standards and independent assurances affect the reporting. Design/methodology/approach We use conceptual content analysis and employ a counter-accounting approach to analyse the disclosure of 190 ESG controversies in 104 corporate reports from the pharmaceutical and textile industries, covering a three-year period from 2018–2020. Findings The very large majority of controversies are reported only once in the legal proceedings section of the annual report, but not again in the sustainability report, where it would be necessary to provide a balanced picture. Moreover, companies tend to disclose only those controversies that are either associated with high media attention or are expected to be related to litigation, resulting in 26 per cent of controversies not being disclosed at all. The overall quality of disclosure is unsatisfactory and in need of improvement, but comparably higher in the pharmaceutical industry than in the textile industry. Interestingly, neither the application of sustainability reporting standards nor independent assurance seems to positively impact the disclosure behaviour. Originality/value Our paper provides new insights into the shortcomings of current ESG controversy disclosures by revealing patterns of selective reporting practices and the strategic framing of issues. In addition, it contributes to the debates on corporate cherry-picking in the adoption of sustainability reporting guidelines and on the effectiveness of external assurance of sustainability reports. Based on the findings, it offers important implications for practitioners, in particular management, policy makers, rating agencies and assurance providers.
Schwoy et al. (Fri,) studied this question.