Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Corporate contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals: An

empirical analysis informed by legitimacy theory
Samanthi Silva
€t Lüneburg, Universita
Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM), Leuphana Universita €tsallee 1, D-21335, Lüneburg, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The research objective is to analyze how companies address their contribution to the United Nations
Received 28 February 2020 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to manage their legitimacy. Reaching the SDGs by 2030 is
Received in revised form considered vital for the well-being of humanity and the planet with multiple parties challenged to
5 January 2021
contribute. This requires changes in current routines, including the “business as usual” of companies, as
Accepted 11 January 2021
achieving the SDGs without companies is unlikely. However, how companies address their contribution
Available online 13 January 2021
to the SDGs is unexplored. Informed by legitimacy theory, FTSE 100 reports on sustainability perfor-
Handling editor: Yutao Wang mance are analyzed deductively with a classification scheme, complemented by an inductive thematic
analysis. Two-thirds of companies address the SDGs and legitimize their contributions by mapping the
Keywords: SDGs to existing activities or using them as inspiration for future activities, either for their core business
Corporate sustainability or sustainability as an add-on. The resulting four legitimization strategies - conciliatory, transparency,
Reporting stimulation, and transformation - largely indicate symbolic rather than substantive disclosure without
Legitimacy changes to the “business as usual”. The paper contributes to literature and practice by developing a
Sustainability performance
framework of four corporate legitimization strategies and evaluates these efforts critically. The paper
Transformation
concludes that at this point, while all four strategies might be suitable from a legitimacy perspective, if
Transparency
the aim is to achieve the SDGs by 2030, the dominantly symbolic legitimization strategies are
insufficient.
© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction the World Wildlife Fund (Verles and Vellacott, 2018).

These calls by various stakeholders create pressure on com-
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a collabo- panies to address their contributions to the SDGs (García-S anchez
rative vision and plan (Schaltegger et al., 2018) that multiple et al., 2020; van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020; van Zanten and
parties, including companies, are challenged to address for the van Tulder, 2018). While companies can choose to ignore the
well-being of humanity and the natural environment (Avrampou external pressure, there is a risk of losing legitimacy (Suchman,
et al., 2019; Hajer et al., 2015). While the SDGs are primarily 1995). Since companies have often managed their legitimacy and
aimed at states, the resolution by the United Nations (UN) General communicated their sustainability performance in corporate re-
Assembly (2015) calls upon companies to address their contribu- ports (Castello  and Lozano, 2011; Deegan et al., 2002; Deegan,
tion to the SDGs by applying “their creativity and innovation to 2019), one possibility to respond to the external pressure is to
solving sustainable development challenges” (UN General address the SDGs as part of sustainability reporting. Research found
Assembly, 2015: 29). Due to the importance of the SDGs for the that in particular larger companies, such as multinational enter-
well-being of humanity and the natural environment, as well as the prises (MNEs) have already started choosing this response and have
need for corporate support to reach them (van Zanten and van begun reporting on the SDGs (Guandalini et al., 2019; Rosati and
Tulder, 2018), this call has been picked up by institutions, such as Faria, 2019b; Williams et al., 2019).
the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (Williams Addressing the SDGs, however, presents a challenge, as this
et al., 2019) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as global external policy covers a multitude of topics among its 17
goals and 169 targets and was mainly developed for states, lacking
applicability for companies (Hacking, 2019; Kühnen et al., 2019;
Sullivan et al., 2018). Despite these obstacles, a study by the World
E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125962
0959-6526/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 2018) system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995:
found that 50% of 250 corporations interviewed claim to have 574). Legitimacy theory has long been used (Deegan, 2002; Deegan
realigned their strategy and objectives to the SDGs. At this point, et al., 2002) and continues to be used (Deegan, 2019; Dumay et al.,
however, research has not explored how corporations have begun 2018) to explain why companies report on their social and envi-
reporting on their contributions to the SDGs (Dahlmann et al., ronmental performance.
2019). This article extends previous research regarding the The pressure for companies to contribute to the SDGs has been
reporting on SDGs from whether (Rosati and Faria, 2019a) to how built up by stakeholders such as NGOs, e.g. Gold Standard (2019),
corporations report on their contributions to the SDGs. This has the media, e.g. Forbes (Freeland, 2019; Hackenberg, 2019) and The
been identified as a research gap (Adams and Larrinaga, 2019; Guardian (Earley, 2016; Watson, 2015) and governments, e.g.
Witte and Dilyard, 2017) and addressed in a multitude of recent United Kingdom Cabinet Office (2019) and the German Federal
calls for papers (Avellan and Caucci, 2018; Ivanaj et al., 2020; Nonet Government (2019). Furthermore, guidance by the Global Report-
et al., 2020). ing Initiative and UN Global Compact (2019) focus on the SDGs
To answer the research question and analyze how companies (Adams et al., 2020; Global Reporting Initiative, 2019). These ex-
report on their contributions to the SDGs, this paper first introduces pectations and pressures might turn into a threat to the legitimacy
the theoretical frame, legitimacy theory, which informs the analysis of the organization if they are not addressed (DiMaggio and Powell,
of SDG disclosure. In the research methods, a classification scheme 1983; Ivanaj et al., 2017; van Zanten and van Tulder, 2018; Zucker,
for analyzing reporting on the SDGs is developed by building on 1987).
previous disclosure analyses. This deductive approach is com- Suchman (1995) identified a literature stream on strategic
plemented by an iterative, inductive approach. The key findings legitimacy that follows the understanding that legitimacy can be
show an emphasis on traditional non-financial reporting themes managed, in particular, legitimacy can be gained and maintained. A
with some links to business operations, although with an overall focus on gaining legitimacy is of particular importance for the SDGs
low tendency of changes linked to the SDGs. A framework of four because their introduction was rather recent. A key aspect of
legitimization strategies for the SDGs is introduced and discussed disclosing information is to build legitimacy (Hahn et al., 2015), for
critically concerning its potential for substantive, rather than example through reporting (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014), thereby
symbolic, change. With this, the paper contributes to literature and creating transparency (Hahn et al., 2015) and decreasing informa-
practice through the development of a framework of four legiti- tion asymmetry (e.g. Akerlof, 1970). However, a risk of voluntary
mization strategies and evaluates these efforts critically from the reporting disclosed by the organization is a skewed or blurred
perspective of legitimacy theory. representation (Hahn and Lülfs, 2014). For example, Boiral (2013)
found that 90% of negative events occurring in the studied firms
2. Theoretical frame for analyzing corporate contributions to were not reported. This indicates that reports might present a
the SDGs distorted picture and highlights the necessity to assess the pre-
sented information critically.
While research has addressed sustainability and corporate so-
cial responsibility (CSR) reporting in-depth (Boiral and Heras- 2.2. Analytical lens for discussing SDG disclosure: Substantive or
Saizarbitoria, 2020; Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Kolk, 2003), the symbolic
focus on the SDGs has been limited, so far (Dahlmann et al., 2019;
Rosati and Faria, 2019a). However, the theoretical frames applied to Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) highlight that when organizations
analyze sustainability and CSR disclosure apply to SDG disclosure as manage their legitimacy, they tend to choose from a spectrum of
well. Multiple theoretical viewpoints, such as institutional, symbolic to substantive responses, which remains an important
including legitimacy (Deegan, 2019; Shabana and Ravlin, 2016), analytical lens thirty years later (Deegan, 2019). While substantive
€ risch et al., 2014), but also agency,
stakeholder (Hall et al., 2015; Ho disclosure is linked to changes of the management and other pro-
in particular, information asymmetry theory (García-Sa nchez et al., cesses (Adams and Frost, 2008; Jiang and Bansal, 2003; Maas et al.,
2020; Pucheta-Martínez et al., 2019) are suitable, as a high-quality 2016), symbolic disclosure is understood as simply changing the
disclosure aims at managing legitimacy, informing stakeholders presentation and portrayal of the organization, focusing on repu-
and reducing information asymmetry (Ching and Gerab, 2017). tation rather than actual changes (Bebbington et al., 2008; Perez-
While these theoretical frames have been linked to analyze Batres et al., 2012), which has been discussed as greenwashing
reporting (Kuruppu et al., 2019; Qian et al., 2020), this study is (Wu et al., 2020). Deegan (2019) highlights that a risk of legitimacy
informed by legitimacy theory as it presents one of the most theory lies in the perception that it simply manipulates opinion,
frequently applied theories in sustainability, including social and rather than affecting actual change in the management and per-
environmental, reporting (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Vourvachis and formance of the company. However, the understanding that legit-
Woodward, 2015). Furthermore, the analytical lens of symbolic or imacy management focuses exclusively on reputation management
substantive disclosure as part of legitimacy theory is best suited to (Bebbington et al., 2008) disconnected from internal sustainability
discuss the findings. management and performance of a company, juxtaposes the rele-
vance of the SDGs. Corporate sustainability management has linked
2.1. Managing legitimacy in the context of the SDGs externally reported sustainability performance to internal man-
agement efforts of the company (Maas et al., 2016; Schaltegger and
Companies use communication with their stakeholders as a Wagner, 2006; Silva et al., 2019). Therefore, although the focus of
means of managing their legitimacy (Deegan, 2019; Suchman, this research on external reports implies that internal processes are
1995). Reporting presents a channel of one-way communication not reviewed, the analytical lens of symbolic or substantive
of the corporation to its stakeholders (Deegan, 2019). Research disclosure is applicable to discuss the four developed legitimization
found that legitimacy concerns drive sustainability, including strategies critically.
environmental and social, reporting (Deegan, 2019; Hahn and For the case of the SDGs, Bebbington and Unerman (2018) argue
Kühnen, 2013; Patten, 1992). Legitimacy can be defined as “gener- that the SDGs could be used to adapt internal management or to
alized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are present the organization in a more favorable light, masking the lack
desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed of efforts. These two perspectives could be aligned with the two
2
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

extreme sides of substantive or symbolic (Ashforth and Gibbs, Michelon et al., 2015), tend to have a strong focus on sustainability
1990; Deegan, 2019) SDG disclosure. While both responses, i.e. disclosure (Guenther et al., 2016; Kolk, 2003), including SDG
symbolic or substantive, might have the same legitimizing effect reporting (Rosati and Faria, 2019a). This analysis focuses on the
(Perez-Batres et al., 2012), the link to the SDGs shows the short- most recent reports available to capture the most current snapshot,
comings of the symbolic response. which is common in reporting (Kolk, 2008). Therefore, FTSE 100
The SDGs provide an agenda deemed necessary to reach sus- reports on sustainability performance, including sustainability,
tainable development by 2030 (Dahlmann et al., 2019). This corporate (social) responsibility, or integrated reports for the
importance was picked up by multiple stakeholders and their core timeframe covering 2018 were included. For 3i, the recent report
concern is that change from current practices and business as usual was titled 2019 but referred to the year ending March 31, 2019, thus
is necessary (Scheyvens et al., 2016; Whiteman et al., 2013; mainly the year 2018, and was therefore used for analysis; the same
Williams et al., 2019). Previous research, e.g. Adams (2008) as a logic was applied in other instances. Integrated reports were
response to Bebbington et al. (2008), highlights the need to considered when companies explicitly referred to integrated re-
consider sustainability disclosure as part of the broader social, ports or when the corporate website linked to their sustainability
political and economic focus, e.g. the SDGs. However, symbolic performance in the annual report (e.g. IAG, 2018). In the case of
disclosure is defined by a lack of actual changes and rather focusing GlaxoSmithKline, it was unclear what constituted the sustainability
on a new type of presentation. Symbolic disclosure, therefore, lacks (or equivalent) report, thus both referenced documents on sus-
the changes that are needed for reaching the SDGs. tainability activities were analyzed. Another company (Ferguson)
Despite calls in research (Ivanaj et al., 2020; Nonet et al., 2020; referred to their publicly available CDP (2019) report, however, for
Witte and Dilyard, 2017) and indications in practice of corporations 2018, the company had not provided information to CDP (as of June
addressing the SDGs (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; PWC, 2015; 2019), thus no report was included in the analysis. For companies
WBCSD, 2018), an analysis of how companies have been reporting with online reports, e.g. Unilever (2018), the relevant file was
on their contributions to the SDGs is currently missing. To answer included. The supplementary material provides an overview of the
the research question systematically, a classification scheme for companies and their respective reports that were included in the
analyzing deductively the reporting of companies concerning their analysis.
contribution to the SDGs is developed and complemented with an
iterative inductive analysis, which are introduced next. 3.2. Deductive coding: Classification scheme for quality of
information
3. Research method
In order to analyze the disclosure of SDG reporting systemati-
This paper conducts an empirical analysis, consisting of a cally, a classification scheme is developed and applied. Informed by
deductive content analysis, which has long been a preferred legitimacy theory, this classification scheme builds on the premise
method in disclosure analyses (Adams et al., 1998; Hahn and Lülfs, that, based on stakeholder and institutional pressure, companies
2014; Michelon et al., 2015; Sassen and Azizi, 2018) as well as an engage in disclosing sustainability-related information to create
inductive thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun et al., 2019; Joffe, transparency (García-Sa nchez et al., 2020; Velte and Stawinoga,
2012). First, in the deductive analysis, reports were reviewed using 2017) and maintain legitimacy (Amran et al., 2014; Shabana and
criteria from a classification scheme developed for this analysis. Ravlin, 2016). The classification scheme draws on the extensive
Second, in the inductive analysis, the discovery of latent patterns in academic literature on sustainability (including CSR) reporting and
the data led to the development of a framework on how companies disclosure (Adams et al., 1998; Deegan et al., 2002; Fifka, 2013;
seek to legitimize their contribution to the SDG. Although each Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Michelon et al., 2015), focusing on what is
research approach has its advantages and disadvantages (Joffe and disclosed in relation to the SDGs (content) as well as how the in-
Yardley, 2004), by combining both (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, formation is reported (quality of information). Therefore, the clas-
2016), deductive content and inductive thematic analysis, their sification scheme contributes to the rigor of the research, by
benefits balance the shortcomings of each. The deductive content allowing the qualitative research to be objective and inter-
analysis benefits from a systematic approach with clear pre-defined subjectively verifiable, as well as preventing subjective bias.
categories (Joffe, 2012), which is common in reporting research
(e.g. Michelon et al., 2015), aimed at rigor by minimizing subjective 3.2.1. Content: What is disclosed in relation to the SDGs?
bias, as well as objectiveness and replicability. While the critique of This category focuses on what corporations report on the SDGs.
the content analysis is that the aggregation of data might be dis- First, this content category analyzes if the SDGs are referenced in
connecting the meaning from the data (Joffe and Yardley, 2004), general. Second, any specific SDGs are noted, including what details
this is compensated with the inductive thematic analysis, where are shared in connection to each SDG. This includes SDG-specific
the focus is on identifying meaningful patterns in the data (Braun information, e.g. how companies contribute to SDG 13 on climate
et al., 2019). change. Third, references to SDG target-level are noted, e.g. SDG
Next, the sample, the classification scheme for the deductive 12.3 on halving food waste. This highlights how detailed corpora-
analysis, and inductive approach to draw meaningful insights from tions report on the 17 SDGs and their 169 targets. The analysis also
the data are introduced and justified. takes into account if companies provide a reason for choosing to
focus on their specific set of SDGs.
3.1. Sample
3.2.2. Quality of information: How is information on contributions
To address the identified research question on how companies to the SDGs disclosed?
report on their contribution to the SDGs, this paper reviews the Rather than a sole descriptive focus on what or simply how
current approaches of Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100 much is disclosed, which has been a prominent approach for
companies. The focus on MNEs and large companies can be justi- analyzing corporate disclosure (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Michelon
fied, as MNEs tend to be more visible and therefore more vulner- et al., 2015), the classification scheme includes an analysis of the
able to maintain their legitimacy. Empirical research has found that quality of information. This provides better insights on the level of
large companies, in particular MNEs in the UK (Adams et al., 1998; content of a specific topic, which has been recommended (Beretta
3
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

and Bozzolan, 2008; Kannenberg and Schreck, 2019; Michelon research was accompanied by reviewing the information as part of
et al., 2015). While early studies tend to focus on whether any in- the deductive data analysis. For example, one code in the deductive
formation is provided (e.g. Rosati and Faria, 2019a), others use the analysis recorded what reasons companies provide when focusing
amount or quantity of information as an indication for the quality of on selected SDGs. These reasons sometimes provided insights into
disclosure (Michelon et al., 2015). Since approaches solely assessing the way companies describe their engagement with the SDGs or
the amount of information have been criticized in the disclosure even justify their contribution. The observations led to step two
literature (Beattie et al., 2004; Kannenberg and Schreck, 2019), (Braun et al., 2019), identifying potential emerging features,
subsequent analyses on (sustainability) disclosure have included resulting in new codes. For example, during the analysis, it became
additional criteria, beyond the amount of information (e.g. Ching clear that the tasks of some chief officers were linked to sustain-
et al., 2013; Ching et al., 2014; Michelon et al., 2015). This classifi- ability or in some cases even the SDGs. While this was coded, it
cation scheme builds on these criteria for quality measures by later emerged as not relevant for the analysis and was therefore
coding accuracy (Wiseman, 1982) and time orientation of informa- neglected. However, another observation was that companies
tion (Michelon et al., 2015). Table 1 provides an overview of the explicitly link the SDGs to their core business, while others did not
quality of disclosure. make this link, leading to a new code for SDG contributions linked
The accuracy of information is assessed by reviewing whether to the core business. For example, BP states that their “core business
the information is qualitative or quantitative, differentiating of delivering energy to the world contributes directly to goals 7, 8
financial and non-financial quantitative information (Beattie et al., and 13" (BP, 2018: 70), whereas St. James’s Place (2018) links the
2004; Wiseman, 1982). Time orientation reviews if a corporation SDGs to their corporate responsibility, i.e. as an add-on rather than
reports on the SDGs in a backward- or forward-looking manner, i.e. the core business. Their reported SDG contributions focus on
being past- or future-oriented (Beattie et al., 2004). This informa- employee volunteering, employability programs, donations to
tion is important to better understand how encompassing the charity and the use of renewable energy. Their core business is
approach of the corporation to reporting on the SDGs is. Time wealth management, but the reported SDG activities are not linked
orientation shows whether corporations have set themselves ob- to this.
jectives that they have been following or plan to follow in the Thirdly, reviewing the data critically led to the exploration of
future. Specific corporate goals, aiming for future change as well as potential themes for which different codes were collated (Braun and
communicating past progress (Maas et al., 2016), are relevant to Clarke, 2006; Braun et al., 2019). These themes were more latent
understand both past performance and the future direction of the (Braun et al., 2019; Joffe, 2012) in the data. In terms of how com-
company. This is an indication of the level of commitment and panies were engaging with the SDGs, two distinct considerations
implementation of SDG-related information. While this analysis became evident. Either companies seemed to link their contribution
focuses on a cross-sector analysis for 2018 and a longitudinal to the SDGs to their core business or they linked them to activities,
analysis is not included, even one time observations can indicate a which can be considered as an “add-on” of sustainability or CSR
past or future orientation because the reports can communicate the activities outside the core business. Furthermore, companies justi-
performance of previous years and/or indicate plans for the future. fied their corporate contributions by either looking at existing ac-
Linking time orientation to accuracy, i.e. qualitative or quantitative tivities and matching these to the SDGs or they used the SDGs to
description, provides a stronger indication for the commitment to inspire plans for the future. While time orientation was also inves-
specific objectives when details on specific SDGs are provided. tigated in the deductive content analysis, the emerging focus for the
thematic analysis was slightly different, as the reported information
was not linked to past or future performance, but the way companies
3.3. Inductive thematic analysis approached the SDGs and linked their activities to them was either in
a forward-looking or backward-looking manner. This meant that
To draw more meaningful insights from the data, reflexive companies either considered existing activities and mapped these to
thematic analysis has become a popular inductive approach (Braun the SDGs justifying how their existing activities contributed to the
et al., 2019; Nowell et al., 2017). The aim of thematic analysis “is to SDGs or they used the SDGs to develop new ideas (e.g. projects or
provide a coherent and compelling interpretation of the data, products) with the aim of SDG contributions. Based on these two
grounded in the data” (Braun et al., 2019: 848), in particular, to themes in the data, an analytical matrix (Nadin and Cassell, 2012)
uncover latent patterns. In this case, the latent patterns provide the was developed as an ‘organizing figure’ (Pratt, 2009: 858) to differ-
foundation for the development of the framework from the data. entiate how companies legitimize their corporate contributions to
Thematic analysis consists of a six-step process (Braun and Clarke, the SDGs. Along these two themes, four legitimization strategies
2006; Braun et al., 2019; Nowell et al., 2017). were developed conceptually, grounded in the data. The themes,
The first step is the familiarization with the data and gaining an along with the four legitimization strategies, are discussed in
overview of the entire dataset (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Joffe, 2012). Chapter 5 with Table 3 as the organizing figure.
In this study, this included reviewing the different sustainability Fourth, the emergent themes were reviewed for each company
reports for references to the SDGs and noting how the companies in the sample mentioning the SDGs. This included reviewing
framed their contribution to the SDGs. The first phase in this

Table 1
Quality of information regarding accuracy and time orientation.

Disclosure quality Past orientation Future orientation

Qualitative Past initiatives, e.g. activities to increase nutrition in the Plans for contributions to the SDGs are outlined
local community

Quantitative Financial Monetary indicators focusing on past activities, e.g. Monetary indicators focusing on future activities, e.g.
investments investments

Non-financial Non-monetary indicators, e.g. past greenhouse gas Set objectives, e.g. reduction by 20% by 2030
emissions

4
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

multiple analytical categories and several individual codes as well

as going back to the individual reports to determine how com-
panies legitimized their corporate contribution to the SDGs, which
was more evident in some cases. As the quote from BAE Systems
shows: “this year we have reviewed how our business contributes
to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and have included this
information within this report.” (BAE Systems, 2018: 10), they link
the SDGs to their existing business activities, as well as portraying
an orientation on past and existing activities. Other cases included a
more detailed consideration of how companies framed their
contribution to the SDGs.
During this analytical stage, it became clear that while all four
strategies present relevant choices as a response to managing
legitimacy as part of the SDGs, one legitimization strategy, the
transformation strategy, received less attention than the others.
Fig. 1. Reporting on the SDGs.
Methodological research on thematic analyses recognizes that this
can happen (Braun and Clarke, 2006). However, reviewing the two
themes resulting in the development of the transformation strategy most SDGs were presented without direct links to sub-targets of
shows that they are well used in the sample. 20 companies draw on the SDGs. An exception presents target 12.3 to halve food waste by
the SDG in a forward-looking manner as inspiration with 35 com- 2030, which has been selected by supermarket chains such as
panies linking the SDGs to their core business rather than to add-on Tesco, Sainsbury, and Morrison. The findings imply that even
activities. While the combination of both manifestations of the though some links to contributions to high-level goals were drawn,
theme (inspiration for core business activities) is less frequent, links in-depth links to sub-level targets have not yet been established.
to the academic literature highlight the validity of the trans- Even in cases with target-level information, the causal link
formation legitimization strategy, while highlighting that it regarding activities and contribution remains unclear. For example,
currently presents a gap in practice. RELX mentions sub-targets, e.g. SDG 16.3 (RELX, 2018), but does not
Fifth, the four manifestations of the two themes, the legitimi- provide information on how they aim to contribute to them.
zation strategies, were defined and named (Braun and Clarke,
2006). To minimize subjective bias and ensure rigor, these were
thoroughly discussed with external experts at multiple meetings 4.1. Quality of information
during their development, by presenting the research at two sci-
entific conferences as well as four research workshops with about While two-thirds of FTSE 100 companies have identified the
10e15 researchers, which is recommended for research conducted SDGs as a relevant reference framework, directly linked and iden-
by one researcher (King, 2012; Nowell et al., 2017). tified measurable indicators to report corporate contributions to
Sixth, the discussion of the themes as well as the developed the SDGs are still largely missing. When comparing the quality of
legitimization strategies are finalized through the selection of information as qualitative, quantitative financial and quantitative
relevant extracts as well as linking them to the research question non-financial information and differentiating the time orientation
and literature. In this analysis, the developed framework is not only (Table 2), the analysis shows that most information is provided as
discussed with examples from the data, but the strategies are also future-oriented context information by about half of the companies
linked to the existing literature, an approach recommended by rather than measurable, quantitative indicators. Furthermore, even
Nowell et al. (2017), and evaluated critically concerning their po- in cases where the need for measurable indicators is recognized,
tential corporate contribution to the SDGs. operationalization seems to be lacking. For example, Intertek
(2018) states “[w]e use the UN SDGs as a third party, independent
4. Findings framework to track our Country and Business Line progress in
sustainability.” (p. 32). Intertek’s indicators, however, are largely
To answer the research question, how companies report on their qualitative and a clear overview for tracking SDG-specific objec-
contributions to the SDGs, the FSTE 100 reports on their sustain- tives has been missing, so far. This aligns with previous research
ability performance were analyzed systematically. (Hak et al., 2016), which states that suitable indicators for
Figure 1 shows that out of the 87 FTSE 100 firms providing re- measuring progress to the SDGs are needed.
ports on their sustainability performance, 67 report on the SDGs, Table 2 indicates an interesting difference for quantitative non-
confirming previous research (Rosati and Faria, 2019a, 2019b). In financial information, where ten companies provide more future-
total, eight out of the 67 companies reference all SDGs individually. oriented information (39) than past-oriented (29) information. A
Regarding the quality and depth of reporting, 23 only make a general review of these ten companies shows that most of the quantitative
reference to the SDGs, showing limited adoption. For example, Lloyd non-financial indicators for future performance focus on planned
Banking Group states that they “have a role to play in supporting [… activities, e.g. Informa states that by “2020, we’ll identify five new
the SDGs]” (Lloyds Banking Group, 2018: 1), though which type of projects that engage our customers within a specific vertical around
role remains unexplained. While 44 companies provide some type of the SDGs and create value in helping address the goals” (Informa,
quantitative, qualitative financial or non-financial information on 2018: 36). While this seems to indicate that companies are using
the specific goal level, these often present singular instances. For the SDGs as inspiration to develop new objectives, whether com-
example, BT Group (2019) listed several SDGs as their contribution panies actually address these set goals and report on their progress,
across the strategic focus areas of their sustainability strategy and should be tracked.
added selected SDGs to descriptions of their activities, however, how While Table 2 provides details on the quality of information for
these were connected was not elaborated. reporting on the SDGs in general, Figure 2 provides an overview of
Thirteen companies mention at least one of the 169 SDG targets, how each SDG was addressed. The findings indicate that a high
although these also often present single, selected targets. Overall, number of companies simply reference the SDGs (category “general
5
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

Table 2
Results for the quality of information regarding accuracy and time orientation.

Disclosure quality Past orientation Future orientation

Qualitative Past initiatives: Plans for contributions:

34 companies 49 companies
“we are committed to Agenda 2030. “in line with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
In 2017 we conducted our first mapping of our contribution (UN SDGs) 14 and 15, BHP will, by FY2030, have made a
to the SDGs through Somos Choapa Programme initiatives measurable contribution to the conservation, restoration
and in 2018 we integrated this vision into the entire and sustainable use of marine and terrestrial ecosystems in
business.” (Antofagasta, 2018: 15) all regions where we operate” (BHP Group, 2018: 59)

Quantitative Financial Monetary indicators (past): Monetary indicators (future):

22 companies 13 companies
“We invest heavily in infrastructure, including £250 million “Lightsource BP established EverSource Capital with
additional investment in 2015e20 to increase our Everstone to manage the Green Growth Equity Fund aiming
resilience.” (United Utilities Group, 2019: 82) to raise up to $700 million of investment in low carbon
energy infrastructure projects across India” (BP, 2018: 70)

Non-financial Non-monetary indicators: Set objectives:

29 companies 39 companies
“The tonnes of pollutants […] removed using our products “SDG 6.3 aims to improve water quality by reducing
and services. This includes pollutants removed by both our pollution, eliminate dumping, and minimizing release of
automotive and stationary emission control technologies, as hazardous materials, halving the proportion of untreated
sold and used in a given year. The calculation is based on the waste water and substantially increasing recycling and safe
efficacy of our products to remove pollutants in order to reuse globally. In the paper industry, Chemical Oxygen
meet legislative requirements. This KPI contributes to both Demand (COD) of water is the best measure of the polluting
UN SDG 3 e Good Health and Wellbeing and UN SDG 11 e factor of water returned to nature. Of our 35 paper mills,
Sustainable Cities and Communities.” (Johnson Matthey, two operate in a closed loop system and six release their
2019: 236) water to municipal water-treatment plants. All others
process water onsite. We have also set ourselves a clear
target of a 60% reduction in COD by 2025, including those
mills that directly discharge to surface water.” (Smurfit
Kappa, 2018: 50)

reference” in Fig. 2), e.g. stating that a certain SDG is important to Using quantitative financial, i.e. monetary, information as an
them without further explanation. Some companies provided exemplary category for a more detailed review, the analysis shows
detailed information in more than one type of information cate- a focus on investments, saved costs as well as charitable donations.
gory, e.g. qualitative and quantitative, which is summarized in the The focus of SDG-related investments is on the environmental and
“mixed” category. The most-reported SDG is SDG 8 on decent work economic aspects of sustainability, while donations to charity
and economic growth (mentioned in 52 reports), followed by SDG solely focus on the social aspect of sustainability. Donations to
13 on climate action (50). SDG 12 on responsible production and charity focus on SDG 1 aiming at no poverty and on SDG 10 on the
consumption, though linked to companies, only received 45 refer- reduction of inequalities. WPP (2018), for example, highlights social
ences, so less than half of the FTSE 100 seem to perceive the ne- benefits of £331 million in 2018 based on their pro bono work for
cessity to explicitly report on their efforts for SDG 12 on responsible the SDGs as part of SDG 17. For investments, the focus is on quality
production and consumption as part of their sustainability education (SDG 4) through investments in the workforce (WPP,
reporting. Least referenced is SDG 2 on zero hunger. 2018) as well as investments in the infrastructure such as energy

Fig. 2. Reporting on the individual SDGs.

6
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

(Aviva, 2018; BP, 2018; SSE, 2018) for SDG 7 (affordable and clean is also true for the methodology of other novel measurement ap-
energy), SDG 9 (industry innovation and infrastructure), and SDG proaches. For example, Johnson Matthey (2019) claim that 87% of
11 (sustainable cities and governments). Overall, the focus on in- their sales contributed to the SDGs. The company seems to use
vestments outweighs the focus on donations to charity, indicating subjective criteria to assess whether a product contributes to the
that the consideration of SDGs in quantitative financial, i.e. mone- SDG, stating that “a judgement is made” (p. 236) without the pro-
tary terms, seems to be more relevant to business activities rather vision of criteria. While this presents the only attempt to classify
than sustainability or CSR activities as add-ons that are decoupled the entire product portfolio concerning its contributions to the
from the core business. SDGs, a lack of providing criteria for replicability is a shortcoming
The next section discusses three main findings based on the regarding transparency.
content analysis of the reports and relevance concerning legitimacy While SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production
and contributions to the SDGs. could have been considered an important topic for MNEs, the
reporting under this goal includes an eclectic mix of qualitative and
4.2. Emphasis on traditional themes of non-financial reporting quantitative information. The complication might lie in the lack of
specific company-level objectives in the SDG itself. The topics sor-
SDG disclosure of FTSE 100 corporations seems to be particularly ted in this category by the companies range from basic, long-
strong in areas that have a tradition of being reported as part of standing environmental initiatives (e.g. waste and emission
their non-financial performance. For example, health and safety reduction) to more innovative approaches aiming at sector and
concerns have long been relevant in operational management and supply chain, e.g. building a network of sustainability champions
subsequent reporting, especially for manufacturing companies. throughout their supply chain in the area of sustainability
SDG 3 on good health and well-being is often reported with qual- (InterContinental Hotels, 2018; Taylor Wimpey, 2018).
itative and quantitative information for the company itself, the Linking the SDGs to the business and operations might be a first
supply chain as well as projects in communities. indication leading to substantive changes and generating contri-
Similarly, the level of detail is high for SDG 13 on climate action butions to the SDGs. However, a closer look at the way these ac-
for both qualitative and quantitative, as well as past and future tivities linking SDGs and business operations are reported, reveals
information. SDG 13 is the second most frequently referenced SDG. rather basic activities (e.g. commitment to paying a living wage),
While some companies are reporting on it without any quantifi- without actual changes to the core business. Furthermore, even
cation (Croda International plc, 2018), others provide an overview novel approaches, e.g. mapping the sales of products to the SDGs,
of past emissions and future emission targets (Aviva, 2018; show a lack of transparency and clarity in terms of the measure-
Rentokil, 2018; Rio Tinto, 2018). ment approach. This lack of transparency prevents clear insights
Details on equality measures are often addressed providing goal into whether these products actually contribute to the SDGs.
level information. Activities regarding SDG 5, gender equality, Questions include whether negative impacts to some SDGs are
mainly focus on women in leadership positions for both qualitative considered and compensated or if simply positive contributions to
and quantitative non-financial information, such as percentages of selected SDGs are accounted for. Nevertheless, the novel approach
women in leadership positions. Closely linked to SDG 5 on gender provides an innovative perspective to evaluate the current status-
equality is SDG 10 on reducing inequalities, where companies quo of contributions to the SDGs of products and services with
mainly affirm their support for inclusiveness, fairness, and diversity opportunities to adjust these to increase contributions to the SDGs
in particular for minorities. in the future.
While at first glance, this emphasis on traditional non-financial
reporting indicates that companies work with the SDGs and 4.4. Industry trends
actively connect their current activities to the SDGs, it also points to
the fact that companies have not made any changes but rather Joint industry initiatives can facilitate and align contributions to
benefit from their established reporting by providing a link to the the SDGs of companies in the same industry, e.g. how supermarket
SDGs. Although this makes sense from a business perspective, it chains can contribute to reaching SDG 12.3 aimed at halving food
indicates that companies do not draw on the SDGs to make waste. This shows that joint industry initiatives might be a suitable
changes, but rather map existing activities to suitable SDGs. How- approach to increase awareness and reach specific SDGs by 2030.
ever, companies could also use the SDGs as inspiration to initiate Furthermore, joint industry initiatives could be utilized by stake-
changes in their business operations, which is discussed next. holders to gain company involvement for specific SDG goals or
targets. This is of particular relevance because industry initiatives
4.3. Links to business and operations or companies in the same industry targeting the same SDG do not
present a trend. Except for industries with obvious SDG links, e.g.
Links to general business activities are often drawn for SDG 8 on the energy sector, focusing on SDG 7, clean energy, other industries
decent work and economic growth, e.g. the contribution of com- have so far not (yet) shown a mimetic behavior. For example, while
panies to increase employment. Companies highlight their some financial institutions report on their contributions based on
commitment to SDG 8 either through rather standard company providing financing necessary for reaching the SDGs, e.g. Barclays
activities, e.g. employment and training opportunities, by (2018), others seem to put a higher emphasis on developmental,
committing to pay a living wage or to prevent labor abuses in the rather philanthropic efforts with partners, e.g. Lloyds Banking
supply chain. The topics covered under SDG 9 on industry inno- Group (2018), confirming previous research (Avrampou et al.,
vation and infrastructure are in particular on digitalization and 2019). These different patterns, e.g. mimetic in energy-related in-
innovation, which should be reliable, sustainable, and resilient. In dustries with rather obvious links to the SDGs and non-mimetic in
terms of innovative reporting approaches, companies increasingly other industries, could be explained with the phase of legitimacy
set measurable objectives using novel approaches to report on their management, i.e. on gaining rather than maintaining legitimacy
progress, e.g. GlaxoSmithKline (2018) claims to have “reached 102 (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Suchman, 1995). Alternatively, it could
million people through access strategies, including through tiered also be argued that the energy sector is under stronger pressure
pricing and product donations” (p. 2). However, the way in which and risk of losing its legitimacy than others . It presents an inter-
these 102 million people have been determined is not clear, which esting angle for future research, in particular as the FTSE 100
7
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

sample only provides limited opportunities for sector comparison. After introducing and discussing each strategy, these are eval-
At the same time, from a practice perspective, this presents a po- uated concerning their symbolic or substantive approach for their
tential lever for stakeholders. By establishing joint industry initia- contribution to the SDGs.
tives, stakeholders could engage with companies in one industry to
gain the support of (selected) SDGs and aim for better integration of
5.1. Conciliatory strategy
the SDG(s) across companies in the sector.

When companies communicate that they determine their

5. Discussing legitimatization strategies for corporate contribution by reviewing their existing and established activities
contributions to the SDGs of CSR, responsibility, or sustainability add-ons that are not directly
linked to their core business, this presents a conciliatory strategy.
While the findings indicate that companies often report on the Rather than making changes to contribute to the SDGs, companies
SDGs by simply mapping existing efforts to the SDGs, the inductive claim that their current sustainability and CSR activities (rather
analysis uncovered two dominant themes concerning how com- than their business activities) are already aligned with (selected)
panies draw on the SDGs to justify their contribution. MNEs focus SDGs. Based on these already developed activities and objectives,
on either past or future activities to link their SDG contributions to they legitimize their contribution to the SDGs. For example,
either sustainability as an add-on or core business activities. Along National Grid (2019) explicitly states that they selected the SDGs
these two themes, a framework of four legitimization strategies for based on the objectives that they already pursued as part of their
corporate contributions to the SDGs is conceptually developed. The non-financial activities. Similarly, Antofagasta (2018) communi-
four legitimization strategies, including conciliatory, transparency, cates to have used the SDGs to structure and categorize their sus-
stimulation, and transformation strategies, can co-exist and might tainability programs and other policies, e.g. their climate change
be implemented in parallel. In accordance with legitimacy theory standard. The sustainability report of Diageo (2018a) states that
(Suchman, 1995), companies may choose a combination of strate- their program “Water of Life has reached more than 10 million
gies, although out of the 65 portraying a legitimization strategy, people in India and in 21 countries in Africa since 2006, including
only six show this tendency. For example, while Anglo American 234,000 this year. It is focused on access to water, sanitation, and
(2018) followed a conciliatory strategy, they were the only com- hygiene in line with SDG 6” (p. 47). Although it could be argued that
pany recognizing “that conventional business models would have these activities contribute to the predecessor of the SDGs, the
to change to a certain degree to achieve the 2030 vision of the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs themselves had not yet
SDGs” (Anglo American, 2018: 17), indicating a transformation been developed in 2006. Thus, rather than inspiring and creating
strategy. substantive change in corporations to create contributions to the
The framework in Table 3 presents four legitimization strategies SDGs, in a conciliatory legitimization strategy, companies seem to
for corporate contributions to the SDGs with a brief description, an simply remap their existing efforts to the SDGs, showing that they
evaluation of the level of contribution, and an indicative example. It contribute to the SDGs. However, the reason for introducing the
should be noted that to categorize each company with regard to SDGs and subsequent stakeholder pressure on firms to contribute is
their legitimization strategy, each report was reviewed and several based on the understanding that the current conduct is not geared
reported aspects were considered to check for suitability. towards sustainable development. Rather, this approach could be

Table 3
Legitimization strategies for corporate contributions to the SDGs.

Past-oriented Future-oriented

Sustainability (and equiv., Conciliatory Stimulation

e.g. CSR, responsibility) Companies highlight how they contribute to the SDGs through their Companies communicate they will use (or have used) the SDGs as
as an add-on existing sustainability efforts (22 companies) inspiration to develop a new sustainability strategy (14 companies)

Contribution to the SDGs: Contribution to the SDGs:

Limited to reframing existing efforts that are solely focused on social Limited to social and environmental activities, i.e. the majority of the
and environmental efforts without a clear link to the core business business might have strong negative impacts on the SDGs

Indicative example: Indicative example:

“Whilst not formally integrated into our overall business strategy, our "As we continue to define our sustainability strategy and goals for
ongoing work in sustainability aligns with a number of the UN’s SDGs.” 2030, we are using the […] SDGs as our framework.”
(DS Smith, 2019: 42) (Carnival, 2018: 10)

Core business Transparency Transformation

Companies have reviewed and report how their existing business Companies communicate they will use (or have used) the SDGs as
activities contribute to the SDGs (29 companies) inspiration to develop new business opportunities, or even a new
business model, which contribute(s) to the SDGs
Contribution to the SDGs: (6 companies)
Limited to past business activities that were already taking place and
are simply reframed Contribution to the SDGs:
Depending on the depth of changes: companies can use the SDG to
Indicative example: “In addition this year we have reviewed how our inspire specific business opportunities (low contribution) or they can
business contributes to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and use the SDGs as guidance to transform their entire business model with
have included this information within this report.” (BAE Systems, the objective to contribute to the SDGs (high contribution)
2018: 10)
Indicative example: “show that business was prepared to rise to the SDG
challenge, while recognizing that conventional business models would
have to change to a certain degree to achieve the 2030 vision of the
SDGs” (Anglo American, 2018: 17)

8
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

understood as a reactionary strategy to satisfy stakeholder pressure and shortcomings. Similar to the evaluation in the findings
(Schaltegger and Burritt, 2018). Thus, the strategy is considered regarding business operations (chapter 4.3.), links to the core
conciliatory as it aims at pacifying stakeholders demanding po- business indicate a higher potential for change with regard to the
tential changes. Although the way existing information is portrayed SDGs than focusing on sustainability and CSR as an add on. How-
has been adapted with the aim of maintaining legitimacy, actual ever, as companies focus on existing activities rather than the SDGs
changes in the business are missing. as an inspiration to change their core business, a contribution to the
While this conciliatory strategy can be useful to the company to SDGs based on changing business as usual is not applicable.
legitimize their contribution in a symbolic way (Shabana and Nevertheless, links to the core business can present a first step to
Ravlin, 2016), the overall contribution to the SDGs tends to be highlight material links to SDGs, which can initiate trans-
low. The reason for this is that, if previous activities of companies formational activities, in a next step.
were already geared towards sustainable development as outlined
in the SDGs, the SDGs themselves would not have been necessary 5.3. Stimulation strategy
(Williams et al., 2019). However, at this moment, global sustainable
development is not reached and, therefore, choosing the concilia- A different approach to the SDGs is to use them as inspiration to
tory strategy has limited potential to contribute to reaching the develop and plan activities that contribute to the SDGs. For
SDGs by 2030. example, companies can use the SDGs as guidance for developing
their future sustainability or CSR activities. For a stimulation
5.2. Transparency strategy strategy, the SDGs are used in an inspirational way to create
changes. However, in these instances, the focus is on activities that
A second legitimization strategy pursued by companies, is are separate from the core business. This presents a stimulation
linking their existing core business activities to the SDGs. The key strategy as companies use the SDGs as an inspiration for deter-
difference to the conciliatory strategy is that companies focus on mining their future sustainability objectives. In particular, many
their core business rather than just their CSR or sustainability ac- corporations report the year 2020 as the finish line for their current
tivities as an add-on. This communicated approach creates the sustainability or CSR strategy (e.g. Croda International plc, 2018).
impression that the company makes it more transparent how Planning beyond this deadline and looking for inspiration for new
existing core business activities contribute to the SDGs, thus sustainability objectives, corporations turn to the SDGs for guid-
describing a transparency legitimization strategy. ance. Diageo (2018a) states that they begin “looking beyond 2020,
Overall, most companies choose a transparency strategy to with longer-term objectives to enhance the value we create and our
legitimize their contribution to the SDGs. In particular, by stating contribution to the SDGs for 2030.” (p. 41). In contrast, the Diageo
which SDGs have the strongest link, i.e. are most material, to their (2018b) sustainability addendum states that the 2020 targets
core business. For example, Reckitt Benckiser describe the SDGs as a were developed with the SDGs in mind. This, however, presents a
blueprint of challenges that need to be addressed, and their busi- contradiction, which indicates that the company has not integrated
nesses “identified the SDGs where they can have the greatest the SDGs strategically, so far. Some companies that have not pro-
impact. By working to eradicate the burden of preventable disease, vided detailed information on their sustainability efforts previously
enhancing hygiene, improving infant and child nutrition (particu- might find it easier to use the SDGs as guidance for developing
larly during the first 1000 days) and helping the world live more future activities and indicators. Evraz (2018), in their first sustain-
sustainably, RB can have a positive and lasting impact” (Reckitt ability report, set out several qualitative statements as their ‘input’
Benckiser, 2018: 2). Others are rather referencing their business as to the SDGs, without a timeline or further specifications.
usual, for example, Standard Life Aberdeen (2018) states that based Although renewing CSR and non-core business-related sus-
on their focus on “fair work and inclusive employment” (Standard tainability strategies after 2020 presents an opportunity for com-
Life Aberdeen, 2018: 6), they mainly contribute to SDG 8. panies to re-evaluate their current sustainability performance, a
This selective focus on particular SDGs, e.g. SDG 8 for Standard risk persists. Lacking the link to the core business implies that all
Life Aberdeen, and neglecting other SDGs, can either portray an activities and changes tend to be on the periphery of the business
issue in line with previous sustainability reporting called cherry- rather than its core, resulting in a reported contribution to the SDGs
picking (Hahn and Lülfs, 2014) or an approach to identify mate- that is more symbolic than substantive.
rial SDGs (Whitehead, 2017) with a focus on the strongest contri-
butions. Cherry-picking in sustainability reporting holds the risk of 5.4. Transformation strategy
providing only a favorable picture while neglecting the negative
and thus not showing a comprehensive picture of the company, A fourth approach to how companies have used the SDGs is as
which has been dubbed SDG washing (Eccles and Karbassi, 2018; an inspiration to make changes to their business. Changes with
Nieuwenkamp, 2020). The approach might satisfy stakeholder links to the core business can relate to adapted organizational
pressure superficially by reporting contributions to the SDGs, practices (e.g. Narayanan and Adams, 2017), selected business op-
reducing the risk of the company to lose its license to operate (Prno portunities (Gerstlberger et al., 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2019), e.g.
and Slocombe, 2014) and maintaining their legitimacy. In contrast the development of specific products aimed at contributing to the
to the criticism linked to cherry-picking, this approach to select the SDGs, or the entire business model (Bocken et al., 2014; Schaltegger
SDGs most relevant to the business can also present a materiality et al., 2016; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008).
selection based on where companies see that they can have the This range implies that the contribution to the SDGs can vary
biggest impact. The question remains on whether the SDGs that are from low to high depending on the changes. At the low end of the
not in focus and therefore receive no attention in the report are spectrum of the transformation strategy is that companies use the
simply less relevant without strong impacts or if negative impacts SDGs to start identifying business cases, where specific products
on the areas covered by these SDGs occur. The issue of selecting contribute to the SDGs. For example, HSBC (2019) reports issuing
SDGs as a strategic choice to focus on materiality and the strongest two SDG bonds aimed at projects aligned with selected SDGs.
impact versus the accusation of cherry-picking warrants further While this presents necessary first steps in transforming the
research. product portfolio, the majority of products could be lacking con-
Linking the SDGs to the existing core business has both benefits tributions to the SDGs or worse, continue contributing to
9
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

unsustainability. Going one step further, Informa states that they contributions. The findings show rather smaller changes (e.g.
collaborated with different business units to brainstorm on how to selected new products or positions in the company) than a trans-
transform their business, identifying the SDGs as a lever for growth formation of the business model. Even with regard to future busi-
(Informa, 2018). As a result, they “are already seeing more and more ness opportunities, the response was limited with only six
colleagues thinking about how products and partnerships can companies showing indications for a transformation strategy.
better support their markets to solve big challenges like the SDGs” However, the necessity of transforming business models has
(p. 40). Furthermore, Informa is the only company showing evi- been discussed and outlined in the academic literature (Hall and
dence that their focus on the SDGs was supported through orga- Wagner, 2012; Schaltegger et al., 2012, 2016), lately in particular
nizational changes, as they seem to have at least one dedicated concerning the SDGs (Kolk et al., 2017; Pizzi et al., 2020; Scheyvens
individual focusing on the SDGs, evidenced by the job title “SDG et al., 2016). Although van Zanten and van Tulder (2018) highlight
and Impact Specialist” (Informa, 2018: 39). that there is a clear business imperative for engaging the SDGs as
A higher contribution to the SDGs can be reached by changing they offer potential for new business models and additional reve-
the core business model (e.g. Schaltegger et al., 2016) as part of the nue, the findings of this study indicate that it has only been
transformation strategy. One company (Anglo American, 2018) implemented to a limited extent by the FTSE 100, so far. This,
outlines the necessity to use the SDGs to transform the business however, presents an opportunity for future research, as empirical
model so that their core business is set up in a way that contributes research focusing on the motivation of companies to engage with
to the SDGs. Despite recognizing this need, however, no company the SDGs and a review of internal activities will provide more
has portrayed actual changes in this regard. nuanced insights, as business opportunities might not necessarily
Although first indicative steps highlight the emergence of a be communicated externally before their implementation.
transformation strategy, none have actually applied this to their Lastly, while this analysis and discussion is informed by legiti-
business model. Rather different approaches and claims in the di- macy theory, other theoretical perspectives have not been applied
rection of a transformation strategy are evidenced. These, however, to analyze the data, although their importance has been recognized
present first levers, e.g. personnel focusing on the SDGs, changing in the literature review. Therefore, future research could benefit
product and services, different management and measurement from analyzing corporate contributions to the SDGs from other
approaches, which could be adopted by others in order to create theoretical perspectives, such as stakeholder theory or signaling
more substantive change aimed at contributing to the SDGs. theory, as previous analyses of sustainability reports have done
before (Ching and Gerab, 2017; Cho et al., 2015; Hahn and Kühnen,
6. Critical review of legitimization strategies: Substantive or 2013). In particular, analyzing stakeholder expectations and satis-
symbolic SDG disclosure faction concerning corporate responses to the SDGs can provide
further insights into whether current levels of SDG disclosure are
Although the discussed legitimization strategies for contribu- deemed sufficient. Furthermore, signaling theory, as a way to
tions to the SDGs depict logical managerial steps to gaining and dissolve information asymmetry (Connelly et al., 2011) and create
maintaining legitimacy through the provision of information as a transparency (Hahn et al., 2015), provides a relevant angle to
response to external stakeholder pressure, looking back at the call analyze whether the current legitimization strategies offer an
on companies by the UN General Assembly (2015) reveals their approach to reduce information asymmetry regarding the MNEs
shortcomings. To reach the SDGs by 2030 requires substantive response and intention concerning the SDGs.
change from business as usual (Dahlmann et al., 2019; Williams
et al., 2019). 7. Conclusion
This study finds that the way the MNEs in the sample portray
their contribution to the SDGs, indicates rather symbolic than The paper contributes to the literature by critically discussing
substantive change (as described by Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990) in the strategies that companies choose to address their legitimacy
response to the external stakeholder pressure (e.g. as described in concerning their corporate contributions to the SDGs. Most FTSE
Shabana and Ravlin, 2016) concerning the SDGs. While the focus of 100 companies legitimize their approach to corporate contribu-
this research is based on the reports of companies and can thus not tions to the SDGs with rather symbolic responses through concil-
be tied back to what corporations manage internally, the way iatory, transparency, and stimulation strategies. Using the SDGs to
companies report their sustainability efforts, e.g. their contribution inspire and identify changes to the business model, as indicated by
to the SDGs, can indicate aspirations linked to action (Christensen a transformation legitimization strategy has the potential to create
et al., 2013, 2019). Because the different legitimization strategies substantive change. So far, however, the transformation strategies
indicate rather symbolic (i.e. backward-looking or without links to chosen by MNEs are linked to marginal changes to selected prod-
the core business) than substantive disclosure, they are currently ucts. While the need for a transformation of the entire business
largely lacking aspirations for substantive change concerning their model aiming at contributing to the SDGs has been identified,
corporate contributions to the SDGs. In particular, linking the SDGs implementation is lacking.
to CSR-related and sustainability add-on activities that are separate The analysis presents opportunities for practice and research.
from the core business, and by focusing on past activities points to a Research can use the framework to further investigate how com-
reframing without any effects to the management and operations panies with a transformation strategy draw on the SDGs to facilitate
(Shabana and Ravlin, 2016; Shrivastava et al., 2013). This implies change, thereby increasing substantial contributions. Furthermore,
that the conciliatory, transparency, stimulation as well as minor focusing on SDG reporting but choosing a different theoretical lens,
changes as part of the transformation strategy are rather symbolic e.g. stakeholder or information asymmetry theory, or method, e.g.
because the majority of companies lack indications of change explorative, can provide further insights. The practice of selecting
aimed at contributions to the SDGs. material SDGs, sometimes criticized as cherry-picking, warrants
While the transformation strategy indicates the most substan- further research. In particular, whether a focus on SDGs with ma-
tive approach affecting internal processes (Shabana and Ravlin, terial links to the core business leads to higher contributions to the
2016) with potential future changes to the core business and SDGs or whether the neglected SDGs are those with negative im-
organizational structure (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990), it is currently pacts, should be investigated. Lastly, practice can use the developed
limited due to its wide spectrum and with predominantly low framework to reflect which legitimization strategy companies are
10
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

applying. Management can use this to reflect critically upon their content/dam/home-barclays/documents/citizenship/ESG/Barclays-ESG-2018.
pdf. Accessed 30 October 2019.
current legitimization strategy and potentially change their
Beattie, V., McInnes, B., Fearnley, S., 2004. A methodology for analysing and eval-
approach, while external stakeholders can constructively provide uating narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile and
ideas for future adaptation and be more specific in their demands. metrics for disclosure quality attributes. Account. Forum. 28, 205e236. https://
The resulting changes are likely to increase contributions to the doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.07.001.
Bebbington, J., Unerman, J., 2018. Achieving the united Nations sustainable devel-
SDGs. opment goals. Accounting. Account Audit. & Account. J. 31, 2e24. https://
doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929.
Credit author statement Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., Moneva, J.M., 2008. Corporate social reporting and
reputation risk management. Accounting. Account Audit. & Account. J. 21,
337e361. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810863932.
The manuscript, including the different stages regarding design Beretta, S., Bozzolan, S., 2008. Quality versus quantity: the case of forward-looking
of the work, data collection, analysis and discussion, was developed disclosure. J. Account. Audit Finance. 23, 333e376. https://doi.org/10.1177/
F0148558X0802300304.
by a single author. BHP Group, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.bhp.com/-/media/documents/
investors/annual-reports/2018/bhps.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Declaration of competing interest Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review
to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42e56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
The authors declare that they have no known competing Boiral, O., 2013. Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and Aþ
financial interests or personal relationships that could have GRI reports. Account Audit. Account. J. 26, 1036e1071. https://doi.org/10.1108/
AAAJ-04-2012-00998.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., 2020. Sustainability reporting assurance: creating
stakeholder accountability through hyperreality? J. Clean. Prod. 243 https://
Acknowledgements doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118596.
Boyatzis, 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code
Development. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
I am grateful to Stefan Schaltegger, Jacob Ho€risch and my col- BP, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-
leagues at Leuphana University for their valuable comments during sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/sustainability/group-reports/bp-sustainability-
the development of this research. I would like to thank the Leu- report-2018.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.
phana ProScience program for their funding. 3, 77e101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., Terry, G., 2019. Thematic analysis. In:
Appendix A. Supplementary data Liamputtong, P. (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences.
Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 843e860.
BT Group, 2019. Digital Impact and Sustainability Report. https://www.btplc.com/
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at Digitalimpactandsustainability/Ourreport/Downloads/2019/BT_Digital_Impact_
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125962. Sustainability_Report_2018_19.pdf. Accessed 30 October 2019.
Carnival, 2018. Sustainability Report. carnivalsustainability.com/download-files/
2018-carnival-sustainability-full.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
References Castello , I., Lozano, J.M., 2011. Searching for new forms of legitimacy through
corporate responsibility rhetoric. J. Bus. Ethics. 100, 11e29. https://doi.org/
Adams, C.A., 2008. A commentary on: corporate social responsibility reporting and 10.1007/s10551-011-0770-8.
reputation risk management. Account Audit. & Account. J. 21, 365e370. https:// CDP, 2019. Ferguson plc. https://www.cdp.net/en/responses/20712?back_to=https%
doi.org/10.1108/09513570810863950. 3A%2F%2Fwww.cdp.net%2Fen%2Fresponses%3Fpage%3D4357%26per_page%
Adams, C.A., Frost, G.R., 2008. Integrating sustainability reporting into management 3D20%26queries%255Bname%255D%3D%26sort_by%3Dproject_year%26sort_dir
practices. Account. Forum 32, 288e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/ %3Ddesc&queries%5Bname%5D=. Accessed August 7, 2019.
j.accfor.2008.05.002. Ching, H.Y., Gerab, F., 2017. Sustainability reports in Brazil through the lens of
Adams, C.A., Larrinaga, C., 2019. Progress: engaging with organisations in pursuit of signaling, legitimacy and stakeholder theories. Soc. Responsib. J. 13, 95e110.
improved sustainability accounting and performance. Account Audit. Account. J. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-10-2015-0147.
32, 2367e2394. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2018-3399. Ching, H.Y., Gerab, F., Toste, T., 2013. Analysis of sustainability reports and quality of
Adams, C.A., Hill, W.-Y., Roberts, C.B., 1998. Corporate social reporting practices in information disclosed of top Brazilian companies. Int. Bus. Res. 6, 62e77.
Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour? Br. Account. Rev. 30, 1e21. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v6n10p62.
https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.1997.0060. Ching, H.Y., Gerab, F., Toste, T., 2014. Scoring sustainability reports using GRI in-
Adams, C.A., Druckman, P., Picot, R.C., 2020. Sustainable Development Goals dicators: a study based on ISE and FTSE4Good price indexes. J. Manag. Res. 6,
Disclosure (SDGD) recommendations. http://www.ifac.org/system/files/ 27e48. https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v6i3.5333.
publications/files/Adams_Druckman_Picot_2020_Final_SDGD_ Cho, C.H., Laine, M., Roberts, R.W., Rodrigue, M., 2015. Organized hypocrite, orga-
Recommendations.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2020. nizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Account. Org. Soc. 40, 78e94.
Akerlof, G., 1970. The market for "lemons": quality uncertainty and the market https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003.
mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 83, 488e500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431. Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M., Thyssen, O., 2013. CSR as aspirational talk. Organi-
Amran, A., Lee, S.P., Devi, S.S., 2014. The influence of governance structure and zation. 20, 372e393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310.
strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M., Thyssen, O., 2019. Talkeaction dynamics: Modalities
Bus. Strat. Environ. 23, 217e235. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1767. of aspirational talk. Organ. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619896267.
Anglo American, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.angloamerican.com/ Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D., Reutzel, C.R., 2011. Signaling theory: a review
~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group/PLC/investors/annual-reporting/2019/ and assessment. J. Manag. 37, 39e67. https://doi.org/10.1177/
aa-sustainability-report-2018.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019. 0149206310388419.
Antofagasta, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.antofagasta.co.uk/media/ Croda International plc, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.croda.com/en-gb/
3557/2018-antofagasta-sustainability-report-english.pdf. Accessed October 30, sustainability/sustainability-reports#. Accessed October 30, 2019.
2019. Dahlmann, F., Stubbs, W., Griggs, D., Morrell, K., 2019. Corporate actors, the UN
Ashforth, B.E., Gibbs, B.W., 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Sustainable Development Goals and earth system governance: a research
Organ. Sci. 1, 177e194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177. agenda. Anthrop. Rev. 6, 167e176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619848217.
Avellan, T., Caucci, S., 2018. Sustainable development goals: call for papers. Sustain. Deegan, C., 2002. Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental
Manag. Forum. https://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1631520/ disclosuresea theoretical foundation. Account Audit. Account. J. 15, 282e311.
application/pdf/SMFþCfP-SDG.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852.
Aviva, 2018. Corporate Responsibility Summary. https://www.aviva.com/content/ Deegan, C.M., 2019. Legitimacy theory: Despite its enduring popularity and
dam/aviva-corporate/documents/investors/pdfs/reports/2018/corporate- contribution, time is right for a necessary makeover. Account Audit. & Account.
responsibility-summary-2018.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019. J. 32, 2307e2329. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2018-3638.
Avrampou, A., Skouloudis, A., Iliopoulos, G., Khan, N., 2019. Advancing the Sus- Deegan, C., Rankin, M., Tobin, J., 2002. An examination of the corporate social and
tainable Development Goals: Evidence from leading European banks. Sustain. environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory.
Dev. 27, 743e757. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1938. Account Audit. & Account. J. 15, 312e343. https://doi.org/10.1108/
BAE Systems, 2018. Corporate Responsibility Summary. https://www.baesystems. 09513570210435861.
com/en/download-en/20190530125237/1434632799371.pdf. Accessed October Diageo, 2018a. Annual Report. https://www.diageo.com/PR1346/aws/media/6212/
30, 2019. b0000391_diageo_ar-2018_interactive.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Barclays, 2018. Environmental social governance report. https://home.barclays/ Diageo, 2018b. Sustainability and Responsibility Addendum. https://www.diageo.

11
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

com/PR1346/aws/media/6427/diageo_sustainability-responsibility_ Hak, T., Janouskova, S., Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: a need for
perfaddendum_2018_final.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019. relevant indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 60, 565e573. https://doi.org/10.1016/
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomor- j.ecolind.2015.08.003.
phism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Socio. Rev. 48, Hall, J., Wagner, M., 2012. Integrating sustainability into firms’ processes: perfor-
147e160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101. mance effects and the moderating role of business models and innovation. Bus.
DS Smith, 2019. Sustainability Report. https://www.dssmith.com/contentassets/ Strat. Environ. 21, 183e196. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.728.
c187988864b9404bb959135d7b92b92c/ds-smith-sustainability-report-2019. Hall, M., Millo, Y., Barman, E., 2015. Who and what really counts? Stakeholder
pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019. prioritization and accounting for social value. J. Manag. Stud. 52, 907e934.
Dumay, J., Villiers, C. de, Guthrie, J., Hsiao, P.-C., 2018. Thirty years of accounting, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12146.
auditing and accountability journal. Account Audit. & Account. J. 31, 1510e1541. Ho€ risch, J., Freeman, R.E., Schaltegger, S., 2014. Applying stakeholder theory in
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2017-2915. sustainability management links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual
Earley, K., 2016. More than half of all businesses ignore UN's sustainable develop- framework. Organ. Environ. 27, 328e346. https://doi.org/10.1177/
ment goals. The Guardian, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- 1086026614535786.
business/2016/sep/30/businesses-ignore-un-sustainable-development-goals- HSBC, 2019. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) Update. https://www.
survey. Accessed 2 September 2019. hsbc.com/-/files/hsbc/our-approach/measuring-our-impact/pdfs/190408-esg-
Eccles, R.G., Karbassi, L., 2018. The right way to support the sustainable develop- update-april-2019-eng.pdf?download¼1. Accessed October 30, 2019.
ment goals. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the- IAG, 2018. Annual Report. https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Files/I/IAG/
right-way-to-support-the-uns-sustainable-development-goals/. Accessed documents/annual-report-and-accounts-2018-interactive.pdf. Accessed
February 28, 2020. October 30, 2019.
Evraz, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://sr2018.evraz.com/download/full-reports/ Informa, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://informa.com/Documents/
csr_en_annual-report_pages.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019. sustainability/Informa%20Sustainability%20Report%202018%20-%20The%
Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E., 2016. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a 20Role%20We%20Play%20-%20FINAL%20Low%20Res%5b96%5d.pdf. Accessed
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. October 30, 2019.
Int. J. Qual. Methods. 5, 80e92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107. InterContinental Hotels, 2018. Responsible Business Report. https://www.ihgplc.
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., 2014. Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on com/-/media/ihg/files/responsible-business/2018-responsible-business/
transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. J. Bus. Ethics. downloads/2018/ihg_rbr_2018_digital.pdf?
122, 53e63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5. la=en&hash=0AD6E5F9E3D5E1DD390F5C2CA519FB48. Accessed October 30,
Fifka, M.S., 2013. Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in 2019.
comparative perspective - a review of the empirical literature and a meta- Intertek, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://intertek-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/
analysis. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22, 1e35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.729. www-intertek-com/media/investors/2019/Intertek-2018-Sustainability-Report.
Freeland, G., 2019. Being A Good Corporate Citizen Is Good for Your Bottom Line. pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Forbes, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/grantfreeland/2019/08/05/being-a- Ivanaj, S., Ivanaj, V., McIntyre, J., Guimara ~es Da Costa, N., Lozano, R., 2017. Multi-
good-corporate-citizen-is-good-for-your-bottom-line/#28a5bfa87af6. Accessed national Enterprises’ strategic dynamics and climate change: drivers, barriers
2 September 2019. and impacts of necessary organisational change. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1521e1524.
García-Sa nchez, I.-M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Aibar-Guzma n, B., Aibar-Guzma n, C., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.071.
2020. Do institutional investors drive corporate transparency regarding busi- Ivanaj, S., McIntyre, J., Ivanaj, V., Guimara ~es Da Costa, N., 2020. The role of multi-
ness contribution to the sustainable development goals? Bus. Strat. Environ. 29, national enterprises and the sustainable development goals: call for papers.
2019e2036. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2485. J. Clean. Prod. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-cleaner-
German Federal Government, 2019. Germany’s National Sustainable Development production/call-for-papers/the-role-of-multinational-enterprises-in-
Strategy. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/sustainability/ supporting-the-sdgs Accessed 20 February 2019.
germany-s-national-sustainable-development-strategy-354566. Accessed Jiang, R.J., Bansal, P., 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001. J. Manag. Stud. 40,
September 2, 2019. 1047e1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00370.
Gerstlberger, W., Praest Knudsen, M., Stampe, I., 2014. Sustainable development Joffe, H., 2012. Thematic analysis. In: Harper, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods
strategies for product innovation and energy efficiency. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23, in Mental Health and Psychotherapy. A Guide for Students and Practitioners.
131e144. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1777. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, pp. 209e223.
GlaxoSmithKline, 2018. Progress Report. https://www.gsk.com/media/5341/2018- Joffe, H., Yardley, L., 2004. Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks, D., Yardley, L.
progress-summary.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019. (Eds.), Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. SAGE, London,
Global Reporting Initiative, 2019. Business reporting on the SDGs: An analysis of the pp. 56e68.
goals and targets. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI_UNGC_ Johnson Matthey, 2019. Annual Report and Accounts. https://matthey.com/-/media/
Business-Reporting-on-SDGs_Analysis-of-Goals-and-Targets.pdf. Accessed June files/annual-report-2019/annual-report-2019-secured.pdf. Accessed October
25, 2019. 30, 2019.
Global Reporting Initiative, UN Global Compact, 2019. Integrating the SDGs into Kannenberg, L., Schreck, P., 2019. Integrated reporting: boon or bane? A review of
corporate reporting: A practical guide. https://www.globalreporting.org/ empirical research on its determinants and implications. J. Bus. Econ. 89,
resourcelibrary/GRI_UNGC_Reporting-on-SDGs_Practical_Guide.pdf. Accessed 515e567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0922-8.
July 3, 2019. King, N., 2012. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell, C.,
Gold Standard, 2019. About us: Vision and mission. https://www.goldstandard.org/ Symon, G. (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational
about-us/vision-and-mission. Accessed October 16, 2019. Research. SAGE, London, pp. 256e270.
Guandalini, I., Sun, W., Zhou, L., 2019. Assessing the implementation of sustainable Kolk, A., 2003. Trends in sustainability reporting by the fortune global 250. Bus.
development goals through switching cost. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 1430e1441. Strat. Environ. 12, 279e291. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.033. Kolk, A., 2008. Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring
Guenther, E., Guenther, T., Schiemann, F., Weber, G., 2016. Stakeholder relevance for multinationals’ reporting practices. Bus. Strat. Environ. 17, 1e15. https://doi.org/
reporting: explanatory factors of carbon disclosure. Bus. Soc. 55, 361e397. 10.1002/bse.511.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315575119. Kolk, A., Kourula, A., Pisani, N., 2017. Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable
Hackenberg, J., 2019. The UN's sustainable development goals aren't just doing Development Goals: what do we know and how to proceed? Transnatl. Corp.
good, they're good business. Forbes, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ 24, 9e32. https://ssrn.com/abstract¼2988607.
jonquilhackenberg/2019/08/29/the-uns-sustainable-development-goals-arent- Kühnen, M., Silva, S., Beckmann, J., Eberle, U., Hahn, R., Hermann, C., Schaltegger, S.,
just-doing-good-theyre-good-business/#5971cf5553d9. Accessed 2 September Schmid, M., 2019. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life
2019. cycle sustainability assessment: insights from the Handprint research project.
Hacking, T., 2019. The SDGs and the sustainability assessment of private-sector Nachhaltigkeits Manag. Forum | Sustain. Manag. Forum 27, 65e82. https://
projects: theoretical conceptualisation and comparison with current practice doi.org/10.1007/s00550-019-00484-y.
using the case study of the Asian Development Bank. Impact Assess. Proj. Kuruppu, S.C., Milne, M.J., Tilt, C.A., 2019. Gaining, maintaining and repairing
Apprais. 37, 2e16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1477469. organisational legitimacy: when to report and when not to report. Account
Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of Audit. Account. J. 32, 2062e2087. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1282.
results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. Lloyds Banking Group, 2018. Responsible Business Update. https://www.
J. Clean. Prod. 59, 5e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005. lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/documents/our-group/responsibility/
Hahn, R., Lülfs, R., 2014. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability hbpp-2019/2002-update/lbg_rbupdate_artwork_190507.pdf. Accessed October
reporting: a qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. J. Bus. Ethics. 30, 2019.
123, 401e420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4. Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., Crutzen, N., 2016. Integrating corporate sustainability
Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., Schiemann, F., 2015. Organizations, climate change, and assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 136,
transparency: reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure. Organ. Environ. 28, 237e248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.008.
80e102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575542. Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., Ricceri, F., 2015. CSR reporting practices and the quality of
€m, J.,
Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., Boer, Y. de, Rockstro disclosure: an empirical analysis. Crit. Perspect. Account. 33, 59e78. https://
Ludwig, K., Kok, M., 2015. Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003.
transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability. Nadin, S., Cassell, C., 2012. Using data matrices. In: Cassell, C., Symon, G. (Eds.),
7, 1651e1660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021651. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. SAGE,

12
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

London, pp. 271e287. Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., Hughes, E., 2016. The private sector and the SDGs: the need
Narayanan, V., Adams, C.A., 2017. Transformative change towards sustainability: the to move beyond ‘Business as Usual’. Sustain. Dev. 24, 371e382. https://doi.org/
interaction between organisational discourses and organisational practices. 10.1002/sd.1623.
Account. Bus. Res. 47, 344e368. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Shabana, K.M., Ravlin, E.C., 2016. Corporate social responsibility reporting as sub-
00014788.2016.1257930. stantive and symbolic behavior: a multilevel theoretical analysis. Bus. Soc. Rev.
National Grid, 2019. Non-financial performance report 2018/2019. https://www. 121, 297e327. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12089.
nationalgrid.com/group/responsibility-and-sustainability/our-progress/our- Shrivastava, P., Ivanaj, S., Persson, S., 2013. Transdisciplinary study of sustainable
performance. Accessed October 30, 2019. enterprise. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22, 230e244. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1773.
Nieuwenkamp, R., 2020. Ever heard of SDG washing? The urgency of SDG due Silva, S., Nuzum, A.-K., Schaltegger, S., 2019. Stakeholder expectations on sustain-
diligence. https://oecd-development-matters.org/2017/09/25/ever-heard-of- ability performance measurement and assessment. A systematic literature re-
sdg-washing-the-urgency-of-sdg-due-diligence/. Accessed October 30, 2019. view. J. Clean. Prod. 217, 204e215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.203.
Nonet, G.A.-H., Goessling, T., van Tulder, R., Bryson, J.M., 2020. Multistakeholder Smurfit, Kappa, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.smurfitkappa.com/-/
engagement for the sustainable development goals: ethical and organisational media/files/smurfit-digital-marketing-platform/publications—global/
challenges. Call for papers: special issue. J. Bus. Ethics. https://www.springer. sustainability-reports/smurfit_kappa_sustainability_report_2018.pdf. Accessed
com/journal/10551/updates/17210558. Accessed 20 February 2019. October 7, 2020.
Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., Moules, N.J., 2017. Thematic analysis: striving SSE, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://sse.com/media/522476/SSE-plc-
to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int. J. Qual. Methods. 16 https://doi.org/ Sustainability-Report-2018.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
10.1177/1609406917733847, 160940691773384. St. James’s Place, 2018. Corporate Responsibility Report. http://www.annualreports.
Patten, D.M., 1992. Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the co.uk/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/s/LSE_SJP_2018.pdf. Accessed
Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory. Account. Org. Soc. 17, 471e475. December 3, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90042-Q. Standard Life Aberdeen, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.
Perez-Batres, L.A., Doh, J.P., van Miller, V., Pisani, M.J., 2012. Stakeholder pressures as standardlifeaberdeen.com/_resources/links/corporate-stewardship-and-
determinants of CSR strategic choice: why do firms choose symbolic versus sustainability/read-our-2018-sustainability-report. Accessed October 30, 2019.
substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct? J. Bus. Ethics. 110, 157e172. Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1419-y. Organ. Environ. 21, 103e127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608318042.
Pizzi, S., Rosati, F., Venturelli, A., 2020. The determinants of business contribution to Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches.
the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score. Bus. Strat. Environ. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 571e610. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628. Sullivan, K., Thomas, S., Rosano, M., 2018. Using industrial ecology and strategic
Pratt, M.G., 2009. From the editors: for the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up management concepts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Clean.
(and reviewing) qualitative research. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 856e862. https:// Prod. 174, 237e246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.201.
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44632557. Taylor, Wimpey, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/-/
Prno, J., Slocombe, D.S., 2014. A systems-based conceptual framework for assessing media/Head%20Office/IR%20Comms%20images/2019/SR%202018/Taylor%
the determinants of a social license to operate in the mining industry. Environ. 20Wimpey%20Sustainability%20Report%202018%20WR.pdf. Accessed October
Manag. 53, 672e689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0221-7. 30, 2019.
Pucheta-Martínez, M.C., Bel-Oms, I., Nekhili, M., 2019. The contribution of financial UN General Assembly, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sus-
entities to the sustainable development through the reporting of corporate tainable Development. A/RES/70/1. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.
social responsibility information. Sustain. Dev. 27, 388e400. https://doi.org/ asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed December 17, 2016.
10.1002/sd.1911. Unilever, 2018. Sustainable Living Progress Report. https://www.unilever.com/
PWC, 2015. Making it Your Business: Engaging with the Sustainable Development Images/uslp-performance-summary-2018_tcm244-536032_en.pdf. Accessed
Goals. PWC, London. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/SDG/SDG% October 30, 2019.
20Research_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 11 November 2019. United Kingdom Cabinet Office, 2019. Implementing the Sustainable Development
Qian, W., Tilt, C., Dissanayake, D., Kuruppu, S., 2020. Motivations and impacts of Goals. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-the-
sustainability reporting in the Indo-Pacific region: normative and instrumental sustainable-development-goals/implementing-the-sustainable-development-
stakeholder approaches. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27, 3370e3384. https://doi.org/ goals. Accessed September 2, 2019.
10.1002/bse.2577. United Utilities Group, 2019. Annual Report. http://unitedutilities.
RELX, 2018. Corporate Responsibility Report. https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/ annualreport2019.com/site-essentials/downloads/annual-report-2019.
R/RELX-Group/documents/responsibility/download-center/2018-cr-report.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Accessed October 30, 2019. van der Waal, J., Thijssens, T., 2020. Corporate involvement in sustainable devel-
Reckitt Benckiser, 2018. Sustainability Insights 2018. https://www.rb.com/ opment goals: exploring the territory. J. Clean. Prod. 252 https://doi.org/
sustainability/policies-and-reports/. Accessed October 30, 2019. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119625.
Rentokil, 2018. Responsible Business Report. https://staticcontents.investis.com/ van Zanten, J.A., van Tulder, R., 2018. Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable
html/r/rentokil/ri-2018-responsible-business-report/index.html. Accessed Development Goals: an institutional approach to corporate engagement. J. Int.
October 30, 2019. Bus. Pol. 1, 208e233. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x.
Rio Tinto, 2018. Sustainable Development Report. https://www.riotinto.com/ Velte, P., Stawinoga, M., 2017. Integrated reporting: the current state of empirical
documents/RT_2018_Sustainable_development_report.pdf. Accessed October research, limitations and future research implications. J. Manag. Contr. 28,
30, 2019. 275e320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-016-0235-4.
Rosati, F., Faria, L.G.D., 2019a. Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: the Verles, M., Vellacott, T., 2018. Business and the sustainable development goals: Best
relationship with institutional factors. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 1312e1326. https:// practices to seize opportunity and maximise credibility. https://www.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.107. goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/sdg_report_optimized.pdf.
Rosati, F., Faria, L.G.D., 2019b. Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Accessed October 16, 2019.
Agenda: organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corp. Vourvachis, P., Woodward, T., 2015. Content analysis in social and environmental
Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 26, 588e597. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1705. reporting research: trends and challenges. J. Appl. Account. Res. 16, 166e195.
Sassen, R., Azizi, L., 2018. Voluntary disclosure of sustainability reports by Canadian https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2013-0027.
universities. J. Bus. Econ. 88, 97e137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0869- Watson, B., 2015. How can companies integrate sustainable development goals?
1. 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/oct/12/united-
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., 2018. Business cases and corporate engagement with nations-sdg-un-global-compact-sustainability-world-business-council.
sustainability: differentiating ethical motivations. J. Bus. Ethics. 147, 241e259. Accessed September 2, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2938-0. WBCSD, 2018. Business and the SDGs: A survey of WBCSD members and Global
Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2006. Integrative management of sustainability per- Network partners. https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/5173/69178.
formance, measurement and reporting. Int. J. Account. Audit. Perform. Eval. 3, Accessed June 11, 2019.
1e19. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAAPE.2006.010098. Whitehead, J., 2017. Prioritizing sustainability indicators: using materiality analysis
Schaltegger, S., Freund, F.L., Hansen, E.G., 2012. Business cases for sustainability. The to guide sustainability assessment and strategy. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26,
role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innovat. 399e412. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1928.
Sustain. Dev. 6, 95e119. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2012.046944. Whiteman, G., Walker, B., Perego, P., 2013. Planetary boundaries. Ecological foun-
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2016. Business models for sus- dations for corporate sustainability. J. Manag. Stud. 50, 307e336. https://
tainability: a co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, inno- doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x.
vation, and transformation. Organ. Environ. 29, 264e289. https://doi.org/ Williams, A., Whiteman, G., Parker, J.N., 2019. Backstage interorganizational
10.1177/1086026616633272. collaboration: corporate endorsement of the sustainable development goals.
Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., Hockerts, K., 2018. Collaborative entrepreneurship Acad. Manag. Discov. 5, 367e395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0154.
for sustainability. Creating solutions in light of the UN sustainable development Wiseman, J., 1982. An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate
goals. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Ventur. 10, 131e152. https://doi.org/10.1504/ annual reports. Account. Org. Soc. 7, 53e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-
IJEV.2018.092709. 3682(82)90025-3.
Schaltegger, S., Ho €risch, J., Freeman, R.E., 2019. Business cases for sustainability: a Witte, C., Dilyard, J., 2017. Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue: the
stakeholder theory perspective. Organ. Environ. 32, 191e212. https://doi.org/ contribution of multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development
10.1177/1086026617722882. Goals. Transnatl. Corp. 24, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.18356/799ae8b0-en.

13
S. Silva Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962

WPP, 2018. Sustainability. https://www.wpp.com/-/media/project/wpp/files/ social responsibility and information transparency. Manag. Sci. 66, 3095e3112.
sustainability/sustainability-report-2018/wpp-sustainability-report-2018.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3340.
Accessed October 30, 2019. Zucker, L.G., 1987. Institutional theories of organization. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 13,
Wu, Y., Zhang, K., Xie, J., 2020. Bad greenwashing, good greenwashing: corporate 443e464. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303.

14