ABSTRACT
In recent years, sustainability reporting has undergone several modifi cations. One of the fi rst and most important changes took place during the 1970s, with a notable expansion in the reporting of fi nancial and nonfi nancialmostly social-issues (Abbott & Monsen, 1979; Dierkes, 1979). Around the same time, several authors examined empirical data on social disclosure in annual reports and made recommendations (Abbott & Monsen, 1979; Bowman & Haire, 1976; Epstein, Flamholtz, & McDonough, 1976; Parket & Eilbirt, 1975). Indeed, a considerable number of empirical studies on social reports were conducted during the second half of the 1970s, some of them including comparative studies of international cases (Brockhoff, 1979; Budäus, 1977; Dierkes, 1979; Gröjer & Stark, 1977; Lessem, 1977; Schoenfeld, 1978; Schreuder, 1979). Empirical research on environmental performance also emerged around this time, offering confl icting ideas regarding the relationship between environmental and economic performance. Studies suggest that paying attention to a fi rm’s social responsibilities reduces the risk exposure that capital markets are increasingly sensitive to (Narver, 1971). Moreover, a positive relationship between profi tability and environmental performance ratings has also been documented (Bragdon Jr. & Marlin, 1972). In addition, the association among profi tability, size, total risk, systematic risk, price-to-earnings ratio and pollution performance ratings has also been measured, with only the correlation coeffi - cients for size, systematic risk and price-to-earnings ratio being statistically signifi cant (Spicer, 1978).
