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).

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125962
0959-6526/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
S. Silva
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 2018)
found that 50% of 250 corporations interviewed claim to have
realigned their strategy and objectives to the SDGs. At this point,
however, research has not explored how corporations have begun
reporting on their contributions to the SDGs (Dahlmann et al.,
2019). This article extends previous research regarding the
reporting on SDGs from whether (Rosati and Faria, 2019a) to how
corporations report on their contributions to the SDGs. This has
been identified as a research gap (Adams and Larrinaga, 2019;
Witte and Dilyard, 2017) and addressed in a multitude of recent
calls for papers (Avellan and Caucci, 2018; Ivanaj et al., 2020; Nonet
et al., 2020).
To answer the research question and analyze how companies
report on their contributions to the SDGs, this paper first introduces
the theoretical frame, legitimacy theory, which informs the analysis
of SDG disclosure. In the research methods, a classification scheme
for analyzing reporting on the SDGs is developed by building on
previous disclosure analyses. This deductive approach is com-
plemented by an iterative, inductive approach. The key findings
show an emphasis on traditional non-financial reporting themes
with some links to business operations, although with an overall
low tendency of changes linked to the SDGs. A framework of four
legitimization strategies for the SDGs is introduced and discussed
critically concerning its potential for substantive, rather than
symbolic, change. With this, the paper contributes to literature and
practice through the development of a framework of four legiti-
mization strategies and evaluates these efforts critically from the
perspective of legitimacy theory.
2. Theoretical frame for analyzing corporate contributions to
the SDGs
While research has addressed sustainability and corporate so-
cial responsibility (CSR) reporting in-depth (Boiral and Heras-
Saizarbitoria, 2020; Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Kolk, 2003), the
focus on the SDGs has been limited, so far (Dahlmann et al., 2019;
Rosati and Faria, 2019a). However, the theoretical frames applied to
analyze sustainability and CSR disclosure apply to SDG disclosure as
well. Multiple theoretical viewpoints, such as institutional,
including legitimacy (Deegan, 2019; Shabana and Ravlin, 2016),
€ risch et al., 2014), but also agency,
stakeholder (Hall et al., 2015; Ho
in particular, information asymmetry theory (García-Sa nchez et al.,
2020; Pucheta-Martínez et al., 2019) are suitable, as a high-quality
disclosure aims at managing legitimacy, informing stakeholders
and reducing information asymmetry (Ching and Gerab, 2017).
While these theoretical frames have been linked to analyze
reporting (Kuruppu et al., 2019; Qian et al., 2020), this study is
informed by legitimacy theory as it presents one of the most
frequently applied theories in sustainability, including social and
environmental, reporting (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Vourvachis and
Woodward, 2015). Furthermore, the analytical lens of symbolic or
substantive disclosure as part of legitimacy theory is best suited to
discuss the findings.
2.1. Managing legitimacy in the context of the SDGs
Companies use communication with their stakeholders as a
means of managing their legitimacy (Deegan, 2019; Suchman,
1995). Reporting presents a channel of one-way communication
of the corporation to its stakeholders (Deegan, 2019). Research
found that legitimacy concerns drive sustainability, including
environmental and social, reporting (Deegan, 2019; Hahn and
Kühnen, 2013; Patten, 1992). Legitimacy can be defined as “gener-
alized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are
desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995:
574). Legitimacy theory has long been used (Deegan, 2002; Deegan
et al., 2002) and continues to be used (Deegan, 2019; Dumay et al.,
2018) to explain why companies report on their social and envi-
ronmental performance.
The pressure for companies to contribute to the SDGs has been
built up by stakeholders such as NGOs, e.g. Gold Standard (2019),
the media, e.g. Forbes (Freeland, 2019; Hackenberg, 2019) and The
Guardian (Earley, 2016; Watson, 2015) and governments, e.g.
United Kingdom Cabinet Office (2019) and the German Federal
Government (2019). Furthermore, guidance by the Global Report-
ing Initiative and UN Global Compact (2019) focus on the SDGs
(Adams et al., 2020; Global Reporting Initiative, 2019). These ex-
pectations and pressures might turn into a threat to the legitimacy
of the organization if they are not addressed (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983; Ivanaj et al., 2017; van Zanten and van Tulder, 2018; Zucker,
1987).
Suchman (1995) identified a literature stream on strategic
legitimacy that follows the understanding that legitimacy can be
managed, in particular, legitimacy can be gained and maintained. A
focus on gaining legitimacy is of particular importance for the SDGs
because their introduction was rather recent. A key aspect of
disclosing information is to build legitimacy (Hahn et al., 2015), for
example through reporting (Fernandez-Feijoo et al., 2014), thereby
creating transparency (Hahn et al., 2015) and decreasing informa-
tion asymmetry (e.g. Akerlof, 1970). However, a risk of voluntary
reporting disclosed by the organization is a skewed or blurred
representation (Hahn and Lülfs, 2014). For example, Boiral (2013)
found that 90% of negative events occurring in the studied firms
were not reported. This indicates that reports might present a
distorted picture and highlights the necessity to assess the pre-
sented information critically.
2.2. Analytical lens for discussing SDG disclosure: Substantive or
symbolic
Ashforth and Gibbs (1990) highlight that when organizations
manage their legitimacy, they tend to choose from a spectrum of
symbolic to substantive responses, which remains an important
analytical lens thirty years later (Deegan, 2019). While substantive
disclosure is linked to changes of the management and other pro-
cesses (Adams and Frost, 2008; Jiang and Bansal, 2003; Maas et al.,
2016), symbolic disclosure is understood as simply changing the
presentation and portrayal of the organization, focusing on repu-
tation rather than actual changes (Bebbington et al., 2008; Perez-
Batres et al., 2012), which has been discussed as greenwashing
(Wu et al., 2020). Deegan (2019) highlights that a risk of legitimacy
theory lies in the perception that it simply manipulates opinion,
rather than affecting actual change in the management and per-
formance of the company. However, the understanding that legit-
imacy management focuses exclusively on reputation management
(Bebbington et al., 2008) disconnected from internal sustainability
management and performance of a company, juxtaposes the rele-
vance of the SDGs. Corporate sustainability management has linked
externally reported sustainability performance to internal man-
agement efforts of the company (Maas et al., 2016; Schaltegger and
Wagner, 2006; Silva et al., 2019). Therefore, although the focus of
this research on external reports implies that internal processes are
not reviewed, the analytical lens of symbolic or substantive
disclosure is applicable to discuss the four developed legitimization
strategies critically.
For the case of the SDGs, Bebbington and Unerman (2018) argue
that the SDGs could be used to adapt internal management or to
present the organization in a more favorable light, masking the lack
of efforts. These two perspectives could be aligned with the two
S. Silva
extreme sides of substantive or symbolic (Ashforth and Gibbs,
1990; Deegan, 2019) SDG disclosure. While both responses, i.e.
symbolic or substantive, might have the same legitimizing effect
(Perez-Batres et al., 2012), the link to the SDGs shows the short-
comings of the symbolic response.
The SDGs provide an agenda deemed necessary to reach sus-
tainable development by 2030 (Dahlmann et al., 2019). This
importance was picked up by multiple stakeholders and their core
concern is that change from current practices and business as usual
is necessary (Scheyvens et al., 2016; Whiteman et al., 2013;
Williams et al., 2019). Previous research, e.g. Adams (2008) as a
response to Bebbington et al. (2008), highlights the need to
consider sustainability disclosure as part of the broader social,
political and economic focus, e.g. the SDGs. However, symbolic
disclosure is defined by a lack of actual changes and rather focusing
on a new type of presentation. Symbolic disclosure, therefore, lacks
the changes that are needed for reaching the SDGs.
Despite calls in research (Ivanaj et al., 2020; Nonet et al., 2020;
Witte and Dilyard, 2017) and indications in practice of corporations
addressing the SDGs (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; PWC, 2015;
WBCSD, 2018), an analysis of how companies have been reporting
on their contributions to the SDGs is currently missing. To answer
the research question systematically, a classification scheme for
analyzing deductively the reporting of companies concerning their
contribution to the SDGs is developed and complemented with an
iterative inductive analysis, which are introduced next.
3. Research method
This paper conducts an empirical analysis, consisting of a
deductive content analysis, which has long been a preferred
method in disclosure analyses (Adams et al., 1998; Hahn and Lülfs,
2014; Michelon et al., 2015; Sassen and Azizi, 2018) as well as an
inductive thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun et al., 2019; Joffe,
2012). First, in the deductive analysis, reports were reviewed using
criteria from a classification scheme developed for this analysis.
Second, in the inductive analysis, the discovery of latent patterns in
the data led to the development of a framework on how companies
seek to legitimize their contribution to the SDG. Although each
research approach has its advantages and disadvantages (Joffe and
Yardley, 2004), by combining both (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane,
2016), deductive content and inductive thematic analysis, their
benefits balance the shortcomings of each. The deductive content
analysis benefits from a systematic approach with clear pre-defined
categories (Joffe, 2012), which is common in reporting research
(e.g. Michelon et al., 2015), aimed at rigor by minimizing subjective
bias, as well as objectiveness and replicability. While the critique of
the content analysis is that the aggregation of data might be dis-
connecting the meaning from the data (Joffe and Yardley, 2004),
this is compensated with the inductive thematic analysis, where
the focus is on identifying meaningful patterns in the data (Braun
et al., 2019).
Next, the sample, the classification scheme for the deductive
analysis, and inductive approach to draw meaningful insights from
the data are introduced and justified.
3.1. Sample
To address the identified research question on how companies
report on their contribution to the SDGs, this paper reviews the
current approaches of Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100
companies. The focus on MNEs and large companies can be justi-
fied, as MNEs tend to be more visible and therefore more vulner-
able to maintain their legitimacy. Empirical research has found that
large companies, in particular MNEs in the UK (Adams et al., 1998;
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
Michelon et al., 2015), tend to have a strong focus on sustainability
disclosure (Guenther et al., 2016; Kolk, 2003), including SDG
reporting (Rosati and Faria, 2019a). This analysis focuses on the
most recent reports available to capture the most current snapshot,
which is common in reporting (Kolk, 2008). Therefore, FTSE 100
reports on sustainability performance, including sustainability,
corporate (social) responsibility, or integrated reports for the
timeframe covering 2018 were included. For 3i, the recent report
was titled 2019 but referred to the year ending March 31, 2019, thus
mainly the year 2018, and was therefore used for analysis; the same
logic was applied in other instances. Integrated reports were
considered when companies explicitly referred to integrated re-
ports or when the corporate website linked to their sustainability
performance in the annual report (e.g. IAG, 2018). In the case of
GlaxoSmithKline, it was unclear what constituted the sustainability
(or equivalent) report, thus both referenced documents on sus-
tainability activities were analyzed. Another company (Ferguson)
referred to their publicly available CDP (2019) report, however, for
2018, the company had not provided information to CDP (as of June
2019), thus no report was included in the analysis. For companies
with online reports, e.g. Unilever (2018), the relevant file was
included. The supplementary material provides an overview of the
companies and their respective reports that were included in the
analysis.
3.2. Deductive coding: Classification scheme for quality of
information
In order to analyze the disclosure of SDG reporting systemati-
cally, a classification scheme is developed and applied. Informed by
legitimacy theory, this classification scheme builds on the premise
that, based on stakeholder and institutional pressure, companies
engage in disclosing sustainability-related information to create
transparency (García-Sa nchez et al., 2020; Velte and Stawinoga,
2017) and maintain legitimacy (Amran et al., 2014; Shabana and
Ravlin, 2016). The classification scheme draws on the extensive
academic literature on sustainability (including CSR) reporting and
disclosure (Adams et al., 1998; Deegan et al., 2002; Fifka, 2013;
Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Michelon et al., 2015), focusing on what is
disclosed in relation to the SDGs (content) as well as how the in-
formation is reported (quality of information). Therefore, the clas-
sification scheme contributes to the rigor of the research, by
allowing the qualitative research to be objective and inter-
subjectively verifiable, as well as preventing subjective bias.
3.2.1. Content: What is disclosed in relation to the SDGs?
This category focuses on what corporations report on the SDGs.
First, this content category analyzes if the SDGs are referenced in
general. Second, any specific SDGs are noted, including what details
are shared in connection to each SDG. This includes SDG-specific
information, e.g. how companies contribute to SDG 13 on climate
change. Third, references to SDG target-level are noted, e.g. SDG
12.3 on halving food waste. This highlights how detailed corpora-
tions report on the 17 SDGs and their 169 targets. The analysis also
takes into account if companies provide a reason for choosing to
focus on their specific set of SDGs.
3.2.2. Quality of information: How is information on contributions
to the SDGs disclosed?
Rather than a sole descriptive focus on what or simply how
much is disclosed, which has been a prominent approach for
analyzing corporate disclosure (Hahn and Kühnen, 2013; Michelon
et al., 2015), the classification scheme includes an analysis of the
quality of information. This provides better insights on the level of
content of a specific topic, which has been recommended (Beretta
S. Silva
and Bozzolan, 2008; Kannenberg and Schreck, 2019; Michelon
et al., 2015). While early studies tend to focus on whether any in-
formation is provided (e.g. Rosati and Faria, 2019a), others use the
amount or quantity of information as an indication for the quality of
disclosure (Michelon et al., 2015). Since approaches solely assessing
the amount of information have been criticized in the disclosure
literature (Beattie et al., 2004; Kannenberg and Schreck, 2019),
subsequent analyses on (sustainability) disclosure have included
additional criteria, beyond the amount of information (e.g. Ching
et al., 2013; Ching et al., 2014; Michelon et al., 2015). This classifi-
cation scheme builds on these criteria for quality measures by
coding accuracy (Wiseman, 1982) and time orientation of informa-
tion (Michelon et al., 2015). Table 1 provides an overview of the
quality of disclosure.
The accuracy of information is assessed by reviewing whether
the information is qualitative or quantitative, differentiating
financial and non-financial quantitative information (Beattie et al.,
2004; Wiseman, 1982). Time orientation reviews if a corporation
reports on the SDGs in a backward- or forward-looking manner, i.e.
being past- or future-oriented (Beattie et al., 2004). This informa-
tion is important to better understand how encompassing the
approach of the corporation to reporting on the SDGs is. Time
orientation shows whether corporations have set themselves ob-
jectives that they have been following or plan to follow in the
future. Specific corporate goals, aiming for future change as well as
communicating past progress (Maas et al., 2016), are relevant to
understand both past performance and the future direction of the
company. This is an indication of the level of commitment and
implementation of SDG-related information. While this analysis
focuses on a cross-sector analysis for 2018 and a longitudinal
analysis is not included, even one time observations can indicate a
past or future orientation because the reports can communicate the
performance of previous years and/or indicate plans for the future.
Linking time orientation to accuracy, i.e. qualitative or quantitative
description, provides a stronger indication for the commitment to
specific objectives when details on specific SDGs are provided.
3.3. Inductive thematic analysis
To draw more meaningful insights from the data, reflexive
thematic analysis has become a popular inductive approach (Braun
et al., 2019; Nowell et al., 2017). The aim of thematic analysis “is to
provide a coherent and compelling interpretation of the data,
grounded in the data” (Braun et al., 2019: 848), in particular, to
uncover latent patterns. In this case, the latent patterns provide the
foundation for the development of the framework from the data.
Thematic analysis consists of a six-step process (Braun and Clarke,
2006; Braun et al., 2019; Nowell et al., 2017).
The first step is the familiarization with the data and gaining an
overview of the entire dataset (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Joffe, 2012).
In this study, this included reviewing the different sustainability
reports for references to the SDGs and noting how the companies
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
Qualitative Past initiatives, e.g. activities to increase nutrition in the
local community
Quantitative Financial Monetary indicators focusing on past activities, e.g.
investments
Non-financial Non-monetary indicators, e.g. past greenhouse gas
emissions
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
research was accompanied by reviewing the information as part of
the deductive data analysis. For example, one code in the deductive
analysis recorded what reasons companies provide when focusing
on selected SDGs. These reasons sometimes provided insights into
the way companies describe their engagement with the SDGs or
even justify their contribution. The observations led to step two
(Braun et al., 2019), identifying potential emerging features,
resulting in new codes. For example, during the analysis, it became
clear that the tasks of some chief officers were linked to sustain-
ability or in some cases even the SDGs. While this was coded, it
later emerged as not relevant for the analysis and was therefore
neglected. However, another observation was that companies
explicitly link the SDGs to their core business, while others did not
make this link, leading to a new code for SDG contributions linked
to the core business. For example, BP states that their “core business
of delivering energy to the world contributes directly to goals 7, 8
and 13" (BP, 2018: 70), whereas St. James’s Place (2018) links the
SDGs to their corporate responsibility, i.e. as an add-on rather than
the core business. Their reported SDG contributions focus on
employee volunteering, employability programs, donations to
charity and the use of renewable energy. Their core business is
wealth management, but the reported SDG activities are not linked
to this.
Thirdly, reviewing the data critically led to the exploration of
potential themes for which different codes were collated (Braun and
Clarke, 2006; Braun et al., 2019). These themes were more latent
(Braun et al., 2019; Joffe, 2012) in the data. In terms of how com-
panies were engaging with the SDGs, two distinct considerations
became evident. Either companies seemed to link their contribution
to the SDGs to their core business or they linked them to activities,
which can be considered as an “add-on” of sustainability or CSR
activities outside the core business. Furthermore, companies justi-
fied their corporate contributions by either looking at existing ac-
tivities and matching these to the SDGs or they used the SDGs to
inspire plans for the future. While time orientation was also inves-
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
approached the SDGs and linked their activities to them was either in
a forward-looking or backward-looking manner. This meant that
companies either considered existing activities and mapped these to
the SDGs justifying how their existing activities contributed to the
SDGs or they used the SDGs to develop new ideas (e.g. projects or
products) with the aim of SDG contributions. Based on these two
themes in the data, an analytical matrix (Nadin and Cassell, 2012)
was developed as an ‘organizing figure’ (Pratt, 2009: 858) to differ-
entiate how companies legitimize their corporate contributions to
the SDGs. Along these two themes, four legitimization strategies
were developed conceptually, grounded in the data. The themes,
along with the four legitimization strategies, are discussed in
Chapter 5 with Table 3 as the organizing figure.
Fourth, the emergent themes were reviewed for each company
in the sample mentioning the SDGs. This included reviewing
Future orientation
Plans for contributions to the SDGs are outlined
Monetary indicators focusing on future activities, e.g.
investments
Set objectives, e.g. reduction by 20% by 2030
S. Silva
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.
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
shows that they are well used in the sample. 20 companies draw on
the SDG in a forward-looking manner as inspiration with 35 com-
panies linking the SDGs to their core business rather than to add-on
activities. While the combination of both manifestations of the
theme (inspiration for core business activities) is less frequent, links
to the academic literature highlight the validity of the trans-
formation legitimization strategy, while highlighting that it
currently presents a gap in practice.
Fifth, the four manifestations of the two themes, the legitimi-
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
during their development, by presenting the research at two sci-
entific conferences as well as four research workshops with about
10e15 researchers, which is recommended for research conducted
by one researcher (King, 2012; Nowell et al., 2017).
Sixth, the discussion of the themes as well as the developed
legitimization strategies are finalized through the selection of
relevant extracts as well as linking them to the research question
and literature. In this analysis, the developed framework is not only
discussed with examples from the data, but the strategies are also
linked to the existing literature, an approach recommended by
Nowell et al. (2017), and evaluated critically concerning their po-
tential corporate contribution to the SDGs.
4. Findings
To answer the research question, how companies report on their
contributions to the SDGs, the FSTE 100 reports on their sustain-
ability performance were analyzed systematically.
Figure 1 shows that out of the 87 FTSE 100 firms providing re-
ports on their sustainability performance, 67 report on the SDGs,
confirming previous research (Rosati and Faria, 2019a, 2019b). In
total, eight out of the 67 companies reference all SDGs individually.
Regarding the quality and depth of reporting, 23 only make a general
reference to the SDGs, showing limited adoption. For example, Lloyd
Banking Group states that they “have a role to play in supporting […
the SDGs]” (Lloyds Banking Group, 2018: 1), though which type of
role remains unexplained. While 44 companies provide some type of
quantitative, qualitative financial or non-financial information on
the specific goal level, these often present singular instances. For
example, BT Group (2019) listed several SDGs as their contribution
across the strategic focus areas of their sustainability strategy and
added selected SDGs to descriptions of their activities, however, how
these were connected was not elaborated.
Thirteen companies mention at least one of the 169 SDG targets,
although these also often present single, selected targets. Overall,
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
Fig. 1. Reporting on the SDGs.
most SDGs were presented without direct links to sub-targets of
the SDGs. An exception presents target 12.3 to halve food waste by
2030, which has been selected by supermarket chains such as
Tesco, Sainsbury, and Morrison. The findings imply that even
though some links to contributions to high-level goals were drawn,
in-depth links to sub-level targets have not yet been established.
Even in cases with target-level information, the causal link
regarding activities and contribution remains unclear. For example,
RELX mentions sub-targets, e.g. SDG 16.3 (RELX, 2018), but does not
provide information on how they aim to contribute to them.
4.1. Quality of information
While two-thirds of FTSE 100 companies have identified the
SDGs as a relevant reference framework, directly linked and iden-
tified measurable indicators to report corporate contributions to
the SDGs are still largely missing. When comparing the quality of
information as qualitative, quantitative financial and quantitative
non-financial information and differentiating the time orientation
(Table 2), the analysis shows that most information is provided as
future-oriented context information by about half of the companies
rather than measurable, quantitative indicators. Furthermore, even
in cases where the need for measurable indicators is recognized,
operationalization seems to be lacking. For example, Intertek
(2018) states “[w]e use the UN SDGs as a third party, independent
framework to track our Country and Business Line progress in
sustainability.” (p. 32). Intertek’s indicators, however, are largely
qualitative and a clear overview for tracking SDG-specific objec-
tives has been missing, so far. This aligns with previous research
(Hak et al., 2016), which states that suitable indicators for
measuring progress to the SDGs are needed.
Table 2 indicates an interesting difference for quantitative non-
financial information, where ten companies provide more future-
oriented information (39) than past-oriented (29) information. A
review of these ten companies shows that most of the quantitative
non-financial indicators for future performance focus on planned
activities, e.g. Informa states that by “2020, we’ll identify five new
projects that engage our customers within a specific vertical around
the SDGs and create value in helping address the goals” (Informa,
2018: 36). While this seems to indicate that companies are using
the SDGs as inspiration to develop new objectives, whether com-
panies actually address these set goals and report on their progress,
should be tracked.
While Table 2 provides details on the quality of information for
reporting on the SDGs in general, Figure 2 provides an overview of
how each SDG was addressed. The findings indicate that a high
number of companies simply reference the SDGs (category “general
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
“we are committed to Agenda 2030.
In 2017 we conducted our first mapping of our contribution
to the SDGs through Somos Choapa Programme initiatives
and in 2018 we integrated this vision into the entire
business.” (Antofagasta, 2018: 15)
49 companies
“in line with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
(UN SDGs) 14 and 15, BHP will, by FY2030, have made a
measurable contribution to the conservation, restoration
and sustainable use of marine and terrestrial ecosystems in
all regions where we operate” (BHP Group, 2018: 59)

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

22 companies
“We invest heavily in infrastructure, including £250 million
additional investment in 2015e20 to increase our
resilience.” (United Utilities Group, 2019: 82)
13 companies
“Lightsource BP established EverSource Capital with
Everstone to manage the Green Growth Equity Fund aiming
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
“The tonnes of pollutants […] removed using our products
and services. This includes pollutants removed by both our
automotive and stationary emission control technologies, as
sold and used in a given year. The calculation is based on the
efficacy of our products to remove pollutants in order to
meet legislative requirements. This KPI contributes to both
UN SDG 3 e Good Health and Wellbeing and UN SDG 11 e
Sustainable Cities and Communities.” (Johnson Matthey,
2019: 236)
39 companies
“SDG 6.3 aims to improve water quality by reducing
pollution, eliminate dumping, and minimizing release of
hazardous materials, halving the proportion of untreated
waste water and substantially increasing recycling and safe
reuse globally. In the paper industry, Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) of water is the best measure of the polluting
factor of water returned to nature. Of our 35 paper mills,
two operate in a closed loop system and six release their
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
them without further explanation. Some companies provided
detailed information in more than one type of information cate-
gory, e.g. qualitative and quantitative, which is summarized in the
“mixed” category. The most-reported SDG is SDG 8 on decent work
and economic growth (mentioned in 52 reports), followed by SDG
13 on climate action (50). SDG 12 on responsible production and
consumption, though linked to companies, only received 45 refer-
ences, so less than half of the FTSE 100 seem to perceive the ne-
cessity to explicitly report on their efforts for SDG 12 on responsible
production and consumption as part of their sustainability
reporting. Least referenced is SDG 2 on zero hunger.
Using quantitative financial, i.e. monetary, information as an
exemplary category for a more detailed review, the analysis shows
a focus on investments, saved costs as well as charitable donations.
The focus of SDG-related investments is on the environmental and
economic aspects of sustainability, while donations to charity
solely focus on the social aspect of sustainability. Donations to
charity focus on SDG 1 aiming at no poverty and on SDG 10 on the
reduction of inequalities. WPP (2018), for example, highlights social
benefits of £331 million in 2018 based on their pro bono work for
the SDGs as part of SDG 17. For investments, the focus is on quality
education (SDG 4) through investments in the workforce (WPP,
2018) as well as investments in the infrastructure such as energy

Fig. 2. Reporting on the individual SDGs.

6
S. Silva
(Aviva, 2018; BP, 2018; SSE, 2018) for SDG 7 (affordable and clean
energy), SDG 9 (industry innovation and infrastructure), and SDG
11 (sustainable cities and governments). Overall, the focus on in-
vestments outweighs the focus on donations to charity, indicating
that the consideration of SDGs in quantitative financial, i.e. mone-
tary terms, seems to be more relevant to business activities rather
than sustainability or CSR activities as add-ons that are decoupled
from the core business.
The next section discusses three main findings based on the
content analysis of the reports and relevance concerning legitimacy
and contributions to the SDGs.
4.2. Emphasis on traditional themes of non-financial reporting
SDG disclosure of FTSE 100 corporations seems to be particularly
strong in areas that have a tradition of being reported as part of
their non-financial performance. For example, health and safety
concerns have long been relevant in operational management and
subsequent reporting, especially for manufacturing companies.
SDG 3 on good health and well-being is often reported with qual-
itative and quantitative information for the company itself, the
supply chain as well as projects in communities.
Similarly, the level of detail is high for SDG 13 on climate action
for both qualitative and quantitative, as well as past and future
information. SDG 13 is the second most frequently referenced SDG.
While some companies are reporting on it without any quantifi-
cation (Croda International plc, 2018), others provide an overview
of past emissions and future emission targets (Aviva, 2018;
Rentokil, 2018; Rio Tinto, 2018).
Details on equality measures are often addressed providing goal
level information. Activities regarding SDG 5, gender equality,
mainly focus on women in leadership positions for both qualitative
and quantitative non-financial information, such as percentages of
women in leadership positions. Closely linked to SDG 5 on gender
equality is SDG 10 on reducing inequalities, where companies
mainly affirm their support for inclusiveness, fairness, and diversity
in particular for minorities.
While at first glance, this emphasis on traditional non-financial
reporting indicates that companies work with the SDGs and
actively connect their current activities to the SDGs, it also points to
the fact that companies have not made any changes but rather
benefit from their established reporting by providing a link to the
SDGs. Although this makes sense from a business perspective, it
indicates that companies do not draw on the SDGs to make
changes, but rather map existing activities to suitable SDGs. How-
ever, companies could also use the SDGs as inspiration to initiate
changes in their business operations, which is discussed next.
4.3. Links to business and operations
Links to general business activities are often drawn for SDG 8 on
decent work and economic growth, e.g. the contribution of com-
panies to increase employment. Companies highlight their
commitment to SDG 8 either through rather standard company
activities, e.g. employment and training opportunities, by
committing to pay a living wage or to prevent labor abuses in the
supply chain. The topics covered under SDG 9 on industry inno-
vation and infrastructure are in particular on digitalization and
innovation, which should be reliable, sustainable, and resilient. In
terms of innovative reporting approaches, companies increasingly
set measurable objectives using novel approaches to report on their
progress, e.g. GlaxoSmithKline (2018) claims to have “reached 102
million people through access strategies, including through tiered
pricing and product donations” (p. 2). However, the way in which
these 102 million people have been determined is not clear, which
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
is also true for the methodology of other novel measurement ap-
proaches. For example, Johnson Matthey (2019) claim that 87% of
their sales contributed to the SDGs. The company seems to use
subjective criteria to assess whether a product contributes to the
SDG, stating that “a judgement is made” (p. 236) without the pro-
vision of criteria. While this presents the only attempt to classify
the entire product portfolio concerning its contributions to the
SDGs, a lack of providing criteria for replicability is a shortcoming
regarding transparency.
While SDG 12 on responsible consumption and production
could have been considered an important topic for MNEs, the
reporting under this goal includes an eclectic mix of qualitative and
quantitative information. The complication might lie in the lack of
specific company-level objectives in the SDG itself. The topics sor-
ted in this category by the companies range from basic, long-
standing environmental initiatives (e.g. waste and emission
reduction) to more innovative approaches aiming at sector and
supply chain, e.g. building a network of sustainability champions
throughout their supply chain in the area of sustainability
(InterContinental Hotels, 2018; Taylor Wimpey, 2018).
Linking the SDGs to the business and operations might be a first
indication leading to substantive changes and generating contri-
butions to the SDGs. However, a closer look at the way these ac-
tivities linking SDGs and business operations are reported, reveals
rather basic activities (e.g. commitment to paying a living wage),
without actual changes to the core business. Furthermore, even
novel approaches, e.g. mapping the sales of products to the SDGs,
show a lack of transparency and clarity in terms of the measure-
ment approach. This lack of transparency prevents clear insights
into whether these products actually contribute to the SDGs.
Questions include whether negative impacts to some SDGs are
considered and compensated or if simply positive contributions to
selected SDGs are accounted for. Nevertheless, the novel approach
provides an innovative perspective to evaluate the current status-
quo of contributions to the SDGs of products and services with
opportunities to adjust these to increase contributions to the SDGs
in the future.
4.4. Industry trends
Joint industry initiatives can facilitate and align contributions to
the SDGs of companies in the same industry, e.g. how supermarket
chains can contribute to reaching SDG 12.3 aimed at halving food
waste. This shows that joint industry initiatives might be a suitable
approach to increase awareness and reach specific SDGs by 2030.
Furthermore, joint industry initiatives could be utilized by stake-
holders to gain company involvement for specific SDG goals or
targets. This is of particular relevance because industry initiatives
or companies in the same industry targeting the same SDG do not
present a trend. Except for industries with obvious SDG links, e.g.
the energy sector, focusing on SDG 7, clean energy, other industries
have so far not (yet) shown a mimetic behavior. For example, while
some financial institutions report on their contributions based on
providing financing necessary for reaching the SDGs, e.g. Barclays
(2018), others seem to put a higher emphasis on developmental,
rather philanthropic efforts with partners, e.g. Lloyds Banking
Group (2018), confirming previous research (Avrampou et al.,
2019). These different patterns, e.g. mimetic in energy-related in-
dustries with rather obvious links to the SDGs and non-mimetic in
other industries, could be explained with the phase of legitimacy
management, i.e. on gaining rather than maintaining legitimacy
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Suchman, 1995). Alternatively, it could
also be argued that the energy sector is under stronger pressure
and risk of losing its legitimacy than others . It presents an inter-
esting angle for future research, in particular as the FTSE 100
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
contributions to the SDGs
While the findings indicate that companies often report on the
SDGs by simply mapping existing efforts to the SDGs, the inductive
analysis uncovered two dominant themes concerning how com-
panies draw on the SDGs to justify their contribution. MNEs focus
on either past or future activities to link their SDG contributions to
either sustainability as an add-on or core business activities. Along
these two themes, a framework of four legitimization strategies for
corporate contributions to the SDGs is conceptually developed. The
four legitimization strategies, including conciliatory, transparency,
stimulation, and transformation strategies, can co-exist and might
be implemented in parallel. In accordance with legitimacy theory
(Suchman, 1995), companies may choose a combination of strate-
gies, although out of the 65 portraying a legitimization strategy,
only six show this tendency. For example, while Anglo American
(2018) followed a conciliatory strategy, they were the only com-
pany 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), indicating a transformation
strategy.
The framework in Table 3 presents four legitimization strategies
for corporate contributions to the SDGs with a brief description, an
evaluation of the level of contribution, and an indicative example. It
should be noted that to categorize each company with regard to
their legitimization strategy, each report was reviewed and several
reported aspects were considered to check for suitability.
contribution by reviewing their existing and established activities
of CSR, responsibility, or sustainability add-ons that are not directly
linked to their core business, this presents a conciliatory strategy.
Rather than making changes to contribute to the SDGs, companies
claim that their current sustainability and CSR activities (rather
than their business activities) are already aligned with (selected)
SDGs. Based on these already developed activities and objectives,
they legitimize their contribution to the SDGs. For example,
National Grid (2019) explicitly states that they selected the SDGs
based on the objectives that they already pursued as part of their
non-financial activities. Similarly, Antofagasta (2018) communi-
cates to have used the SDGs to structure and categorize their sus-
tainability programs and other policies, e.g. their climate change
standard. The sustainability report of Diageo (2018a) states that
their program “Water of Life has reached more than 10 million
people in India and in 21 countries in Africa since 2006, including
234,000 this year. It is focused on access to water, sanitation, and
hygiene in line with SDG 6” (p. 47). Although it could be argued that
these activities contribute to the predecessor of the SDGs, the
Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs themselves had not yet
been developed in 2006. Thus, rather than inspiring and creating
substantive change in corporations to create contributions to the
SDGs, in a conciliatory legitimization strategy, companies seem to
simply remap their existing efforts to the SDGs, showing that they
contribute to the SDGs. However, the reason for introducing the
SDGs and subsequent stakeholder pressure on firms to contribute is
based on the understanding that the current conduct is not geared
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
activities contribute to the SDGs (29 companies)
Contribution to the SDGs:
Limited to past business activities that were already taking place and
are simply reframed
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
have included this information within this report.” (BAE Systems,
2018: 10)
Companies communicate they will use (or have used) the SDGs as
inspiration to develop new business opportunities, or even a new
business model, which contribute(s) to the SDGs
(6 companies)
Contribution to the SDGs:
Depending on the depth of changes: companies can use the SDG to
use the SDGs as guidance to transform their entire business model with
the objective to contribute to the SDGs (high contribution)
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
understood as a reactionary strategy to satisfy stakeholder pressure
(Schaltegger and Burritt, 2018). Thus, the strategy is considered
conciliatory as it aims at pacifying stakeholders demanding po-
tential changes. Although the way existing information is portrayed
has been adapted with the aim of maintaining legitimacy, actual
changes in the business are missing.
While this conciliatory strategy can be useful to the company to
legitimize their contribution in a symbolic way (Shabana and
Ravlin, 2016), the overall contribution to the SDGs tends to be
low. The reason for this is that, if previous activities of companies
were already geared towards sustainable development as outlined
in the SDGs, the SDGs themselves would not have been necessary
(Williams et al., 2019). However, at this moment, global sustainable
development is not reached and, therefore, choosing the concilia-
tory strategy has limited potential to contribute to reaching the
SDGs by 2030.
5.2. Transparency strategy
A second legitimization strategy pursued by companies, is
linking their existing core business activities to the SDGs. The key
difference to the conciliatory strategy is that companies focus on
their core business rather than just their CSR or sustainability ac-
tivities as an add-on. This communicated approach creates the
impression that the company makes it more transparent how
existing core business activities contribute to the SDGs, thus
describing a transparency legitimization strategy.
Overall, most companies choose a transparency strategy to
legitimize their contribution to the SDGs. In particular, by stating
which SDGs have the strongest link, i.e. are most material, to their
core business. For example, Reckitt Benckiser describe the SDGs as a
blueprint of challenges that need to be addressed, and their busi-
nesses “identified the SDGs where they can have the greatest
impact. By working to eradicate the burden of preventable disease,
enhancing hygiene, improving infant and child nutrition (particu-
larly during the first 1000 days) and helping the world live more
sustainably, RB can have a positive and lasting impact” (Reckitt
Benckiser, 2018: 2). Others are rather referencing their business as
usual, for example, Standard Life Aberdeen (2018) states that based
on their focus on “fair work and inclusive employment” (Standard
Life Aberdeen, 2018: 6), they mainly contribute to SDG 8.
This selective focus on particular SDGs, e.g. SDG 8 for Standard
Life Aberdeen, and neglecting other SDGs, can either portray an
issue in line with previous sustainability reporting called cherry-
picking (Hahn and Lülfs, 2014) or an approach to identify mate-
rial SDGs (Whitehead, 2017) with a focus on the strongest contri-
butions. Cherry-picking in sustainability reporting holds the risk of
providing only a favorable picture while neglecting the negative
and thus not showing a comprehensive picture of the company,
which has been dubbed SDG washing (Eccles and Karbassi, 2018;
Nieuwenkamp, 2020). The approach might satisfy stakeholder
pressure superficially by reporting contributions to the SDGs,
reducing the risk of the company to lose its license to operate (Prno
and Slocombe, 2014) and maintaining their legitimacy. In contrast
to the criticism linked to cherry-picking, this approach to select the
SDGs most relevant to the business can also present a materiality
selection based on where companies see that they can have the
biggest impact. The question remains on whether the SDGs that are
not in focus and therefore receive no attention in the report are
simply less relevant without strong impacts or if negative impacts
on the areas covered by these SDGs occur. The issue of selecting
SDGs as a strategic choice to focus on materiality and the strongest
impact versus the accusation of cherry-picking warrants further
research.
Linking the SDGs to the existing core business has both benefits
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
and shortcomings. Similar to the evaluation in the findings
regarding business operations (chapter 4.3.), links to the core
business indicate a higher potential for change with regard to the
SDGs than focusing on sustainability and CSR as an add on. How-
ever, as companies focus on existing activities rather than the SDGs
as an inspiration to change their core business, a contribution to the
SDGs based on changing business as usual is not applicable.
Nevertheless, links to the core business can present a first step to
highlight material links to SDGs, which can initiate trans-
formational activities, in a next step.
5.3. Stimulation strategy
A different approach to the SDGs is to use them as inspiration to
develop and plan activities that contribute to the SDGs. For
example, companies can use the SDGs as guidance for developing
their future sustainability or CSR activities. For a stimulation
strategy, the SDGs are used in an inspirational way to create
changes. However, in these instances, the focus is on activities that
are separate from the core business. This presents a stimulation
strategy as companies use the SDGs as an inspiration for deter-
mining their future sustainability objectives. In particular, many
corporations report the year 2020 as the finish line for their current
sustainability or CSR strategy (e.g. Croda International plc, 2018).
Planning beyond this deadline and looking for inspiration for new
sustainability objectives, corporations turn to the SDGs for guid-
ance. Diageo (2018a) states that they begin “looking beyond 2020,
with longer-term objectives to enhance the value we create and our
contribution to the SDGs for 2030.” (p. 41). In contrast, the Diageo
(2018b) sustainability addendum states that the 2020 targets
were developed with the SDGs in mind. This, however, presents a
contradiction, which indicates that the company has not integrated
the SDGs strategically, so far. Some companies that have not pro-
vided detailed information on their sustainability efforts previously
might find it easier to use the SDGs as guidance for developing
future activities and indicators. Evraz (2018), in their first sustain-
ability report, set out several qualitative statements as their ‘input’
to the SDGs, without a timeline or further specifications.
Although renewing CSR and non-core business-related sus-
tainability strategies after 2020 presents an opportunity for com-
panies to re-evaluate their current sustainability performance, a
risk persists. Lacking the link to the core business implies that all
activities and changes tend to be on the periphery of the business
rather than its core, resulting in a reported contribution to the SDGs
that is more symbolic than substantive.
5.4. Transformation strategy
A fourth approach to how companies have used the SDGs is as
an inspiration to make changes to their business. Changes with
links to the core business can relate to adapted organizational
practices (e.g. Narayanan and Adams, 2017), selected business op-
portunities (Gerstlberger et al., 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2019), e.g.
the development of specific products aimed at contributing to the
SDGs, or the entire business model (Bocken et al., 2014; Schaltegger
et al., 2016; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008).
This range implies that the contribution to the SDGs can vary
from low to high depending on the changes. At the low end of the
spectrum of the transformation strategy is that companies use the
SDGs to start identifying business cases, where specific products
contribute to the SDGs. For example, HSBC (2019) reports issuing
two SDG bonds aimed at projects aligned with selected SDGs.
While this presents necessary first steps in transforming the
product portfolio, the majority of products could be lacking con-
tributions to the SDGs or worse, continue contributing to
S. Silva
unsustainability. Going one step further, Informa states that they
collaborated with different business units to brainstorm on how to
transform their business, identifying the SDGs as a lever for growth
(Informa, 2018). As a result, they “are already seeing more and more
colleagues thinking about how products and partnerships can
better support their markets to solve big challenges like the SDGs”
(p. 40). Furthermore, Informa is the only company showing evi-
dence that their focus on the SDGs was supported through orga-
nizational changes, as they seem to have at least one dedicated
individual focusing on the SDGs, evidenced by the job title “SDG
and Impact Specialist” (Informa, 2018: 39).
A higher contribution to the SDGs can be reached by changing
the core business model (e.g. Schaltegger et al., 2016) as part of the
transformation strategy. One company (Anglo American, 2018)
outlines the necessity to use the SDGs to transform the business
model so that their core business is set up in a way that contributes
to the SDGs. Despite recognizing this need, however, no company
has portrayed actual changes in this regard.
Although first indicative steps highlight the emergence of a
transformation strategy, none have actually applied this to their
business model. Rather different approaches and claims in the di-
rection of a transformation strategy are evidenced. These, however,
present first levers, e.g. personnel focusing on the SDGs, changing
product and services, different management and measurement
approaches, which could be adopted by others in order to create
more substantive change aimed at contributing to the SDGs.
6. Critical review of legitimization strategies: Substantive or
symbolic SDG disclosure
Although the discussed legitimization strategies for contribu-
tions to the SDGs depict logical managerial steps to gaining and
maintaining legitimacy through the provision of information as a
response to external stakeholder pressure, looking back at the call
on companies by the UN General Assembly (2015) reveals their
shortcomings. To reach the SDGs by 2030 requires substantive
change from business as usual (Dahlmann et al., 2019; Williams
et al., 2019).
This study finds that the way the MNEs in the sample portray
their contribution to the SDGs, indicates rather symbolic than
substantive change (as described by Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990) in
response to the external stakeholder pressure (e.g. as described in
Shabana and Ravlin, 2016) concerning the SDGs. While the focus of
this research is based on the reports of companies and can thus not
be tied back to what corporations manage internally, the way
companies report their sustainability efforts, e.g. their contribution
to the SDGs, can indicate aspirations linked to action (Christensen
et al., 2013, 2019). Because the different legitimization strategies
indicate rather symbolic (i.e. backward-looking or without links to
the core business) than substantive disclosure, they are currently
largely lacking aspirations for substantive change concerning their
corporate contributions to the SDGs. In particular, linking the SDGs
to CSR-related and sustainability add-on activities that are separate
from the core business, and by focusing on past activities points to a
reframing without any effects to the management and operations
(Shabana and Ravlin, 2016; Shrivastava et al., 2013). This implies
that the conciliatory, transparency, stimulation as well as minor
changes as part of the transformation strategy are rather symbolic
because the majority of companies lack indications of change
aimed at contributions to the SDGs.
While the transformation strategy indicates the most substan-
tive approach affecting internal processes (Shabana and Ravlin,
2016) with potential future changes to the core business and
organizational structure (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990), it is currently
limited due to its wide spectrum and with predominantly low
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
contributions. The findings show rather smaller changes (e.g.
selected new products or positions in the company) than a trans-
formation of the business model. Even with regard to future busi-
ness opportunities, the response was limited with only six
companies showing indications for a transformation strategy.
However, the necessity of transforming business models has
been discussed and outlined in the academic literature (Hall and
Wagner, 2012; Schaltegger et al., 2012, 2016), lately in particular
concerning the SDGs (Kolk et al., 2017; Pizzi et al., 2020; Scheyvens
et al., 2016). Although van Zanten and van Tulder (2018) highlight
that there is a clear business imperative for engaging the SDGs as
they offer potential for new business models and additional reve-
nue, the findings of this study indicate that it has only been
implemented to a limited extent by the FTSE 100, so far. This,
however, presents an opportunity for future research, as empirical
research focusing on the motivation of companies to engage with
the SDGs and a review of internal activities will provide more
nuanced insights, as business opportunities might not necessarily
be communicated externally before their implementation.
Lastly, while this analysis and discussion is informed by legiti-
macy theory, other theoretical perspectives have not been applied
to analyze the data, although their importance has been recognized
in the literature review. Therefore, future research could benefit
from analyzing corporate contributions to the SDGs from other
theoretical perspectives, such as stakeholder theory or signaling
theory, as previous analyses of sustainability reports have done
before (Ching and Gerab, 2017; Cho et al., 2015; Hahn and Kühnen,
2013). In particular, analyzing stakeholder expectations and satis-
faction concerning corporate responses to the SDGs can provide
further insights into whether current levels of SDG disclosure are
deemed sufficient. Furthermore, signaling theory, as a way to
dissolve information asymmetry (Connelly et al., 2011) and create
transparency (Hahn et al., 2015), provides a relevant angle to
analyze whether the current legitimization strategies offer an
approach to reduce information asymmetry regarding the MNEs
response and intention concerning the SDGs.
7. Conclusion
The paper contributes to the literature by critically discussing
the strategies that companies choose to address their legitimacy
concerning their corporate contributions to the SDGs. Most FTSE
100 companies legitimize their approach to corporate contribu-
tions to the SDGs with rather symbolic responses through concil-
iatory, transparency, and stimulation strategies. Using the SDGs to
inspire and identify changes to the business model, as indicated by
a transformation legitimization strategy has the potential to create
substantive change. So far, however, the transformation strategies
chosen by MNEs are linked to marginal changes to selected prod-
ucts. While the need for a transformation of the entire business
model aiming at contributing to the SDGs has been identified,
implementation is lacking.
The analysis presents opportunities for practice and research.
Research can use the framework to further investigate how com-
panies with a transformation strategy draw on the SDGs to facilitate
change, thereby increasing substantial contributions. Furthermore,
focusing on SDG reporting but choosing a different theoretical lens,
e.g. stakeholder or information asymmetry theory, or method, e.g.
explorative, can provide further insights. The practice of selecting
material SDGs, sometimes criticized as cherry-picking, warrants
further research. In particular, whether a focus on SDGs with ma-
terial links to the core business leads to higher contributions to the
SDGs or whether the neglected SDGs are those with negative im-
pacts, should be investigated. Lastly, practice can use the developed
framework to reflect which legitimization strategy companies are
S. Silva
applying. Management can use this to reflect critically upon their
current legitimization strategy and potentially change their
approach, while external stakeholders can constructively provide
ideas for future adaptation and be more specific in their demands.
The resulting changes are likely to increase contributions to the
SDGs.
Credit author statement
The manuscript, including the different stages regarding design
of the work, data collection, analysis and discussion, was developed
by a single author.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Stefan Schaltegger, Jacob Ho€risch and my col-
leagues at Leuphana University for their valuable comments during
the development of this research. I would like to thank the Leu-
phana ProScience program for their funding.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125962.
References
Adams, C.A., 2008. A commentary on: corporate social responsibility reporting and
reputation risk management. Account Audit. & Account. J. 21, 365e370. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09513570810863950.
Adams, C.A., Frost, G.R., 2008. Integrating sustainability reporting into management
practices. Account. Forum 32, 288e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.accfor.2008.05.002.
Adams, C.A., Larrinaga, C., 2019. Progress: engaging with organisations in pursuit of
improved sustainability accounting and performance. Account Audit. Account. J.
32, 2367e2394. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2018-3399.
Adams, C.A., Hill, W.-Y., Roberts, C.B., 1998. Corporate social reporting practices in
Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour? Br. Account. Rev. 30, 1e21.
https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.1997.0060.
Adams, C.A., Druckman, P., Picot, R.C., 2020. Sustainable Development Goals
Disclosure (SDGD) recommendations. http://www.ifac.org/system/files/
publications/files/Adams_Druckman_Picot_2020_Final_SDGD_
Recommendations.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2020.
Akerlof, G., 1970. The market for "lemons": quality uncertainty and the market
mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 83, 488e500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431.
Amran, A., Lee, S.P., Devi, S.S., 2014. The influence of governance structure and
strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality.
Bus. Strat. Environ. 23, 217e235. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1767.
Anglo American, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.angloamerican.com/
~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group/PLC/investors/annual-reporting/2019/
aa-sustainability-report-2018.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Antofagasta, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.antofagasta.co.uk/media/
3557/2018-antofagasta-sustainability-report-english.pdf. Accessed October 30,
2019.
Ashforth, B.E., Gibbs, B.W., 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation.
Organ. Sci. 1, 177e194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177.
Avellan, T., Caucci, S., 2018. Sustainable development goals: call for papers. Sustain.
Manag. Forum. https://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1631520/
application/pdf/SMFþCfP-SDG.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2020.
Aviva, 2018. Corporate Responsibility Summary. https://www.aviva.com/content/
dam/aviva-corporate/documents/investors/pdfs/reports/2018/corporate-
responsibility-summary-2018.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Avrampou, A., Skouloudis, A., Iliopoulos, G., Khan, N., 2019. Advancing the Sus-
tainable Development Goals: Evidence from leading European banks. Sustain.
Dev. 27, 743e757. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1938.
BAE Systems, 2018. Corporate Responsibility Summary. https://www.baesystems.
com/en/download-en/20190530125237/1434632799371.pdf. Accessed October
30, 2019.
Barclays, 2018. Environmental social governance report. https://home.barclays/
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
content/dam/home-barclays/documents/citizenship/ESG/Barclays-ESG-2018.
pdf. Accessed 30 October 2019.
Beattie, V., McInnes, B., Fearnley, S., 2004. A methodology for analysing and eval-
uating narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile and
metrics for disclosure quality attributes. Account. Forum. 28, 205e236. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.07.001.
Bebbington, J., Unerman, J., 2018. Achieving the united Nations sustainable devel-
opment goals. Accounting. Account Audit. & Account. J. 31, 2e24. https://
doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929.
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.
Beretta, S., Bozzolan, S., 2008. Quality versus quantity: the case of forward-looking
disclosure. J. Account. Audit Finance. 23, 333e376. https://doi.org/10.1177/
F0148558X0802300304.
BHP Group, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.bhp.com/-/media/documents/
investors/annual-reports/2018/bhps.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
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.
Boiral, O., 2013. Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and Aþ
GRI reports. Account Audit. Account. J. 26, 1036e1071. https://doi.org/10.1108/
AAAJ-04-2012-00998.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., 2020. Sustainability reporting assurance: creating
stakeholder accountability through hyperreality? J. Clean. Prod. 243 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118596.
Boyatzis, 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code
Development. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
BP, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-
sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/sustainability/group-reports/bp-sustainability-
report-2018.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.
3, 77e101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., Terry, G., 2019. Thematic analysis. In:
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/
Digitalimpactandsustainability/Ourreport/Downloads/2019/BT_Digital_Impact_
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.
Castello , I., Lozano, J.M., 2011. Searching for new forms of legitimacy through
corporate responsibility rhetoric. J. Bus. Ethics. 100, 11e29. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-011-0770-8.
CDP, 2019. Ferguson plc. https://www.cdp.net/en/responses/20712?back_to=https%
3A%2F%2Fwww.cdp.net%2Fen%2Fresponses%3Fpage%3D4357%26per_page%
3D20%26queries%255Bname%255D%3D%26sort_by%3Dproject_year%26sort_dir
%3Ddesc&queries%5Bname%5D=. Accessed August 7, 2019.
Ching, H.Y., Gerab, F., 2017. Sustainability reports in Brazil through the lens of
signaling, legitimacy and stakeholder theories. Soc. Responsib. J. 13, 95e110.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-10-2015-0147.
Ching, H.Y., Gerab, F., Toste, T., 2013. Analysis of sustainability reports and quality of
information disclosed of top Brazilian companies. Int. Bus. Res. 6, 62e77.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v6n10p62.
Ching, H.Y., Gerab, F., Toste, T., 2014. Scoring sustainability reports using GRI in-
dicators: a study based on ISE and FTSE4Good price indexes. J. Manag. Res. 6,
27e48. https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v6i3.5333.
Cho, C.H., Laine, M., Roberts, R.W., Rodrigue, M., 2015. Organized hypocrite, orga-
nizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Account. Org. Soc. 40, 78e94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003.
Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M., Thyssen, O., 2013. CSR as aspirational talk. Organi-
zation. 20, 372e393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310.
Christensen, L.T., Morsing, M., Thyssen, O., 2019. Talkeaction dynamics: Modalities
of aspirational talk. Organ. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619896267.
Connelly, B.L., Certo, S.T., Ireland, R.D., Reutzel, C.R., 2011. Signaling theory: a review
and assessment. J. Manag. 37, 39e67. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206310388419.
Croda International plc, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.croda.com/en-gb/
sustainability/sustainability-reports#. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Dahlmann, F., Stubbs, W., Griggs, D., Morrell, K., 2019. Corporate actors, the UN
Sustainable Development Goals and earth system governance: a research
agenda. Anthrop. Rev. 6, 167e176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619848217.
Deegan, C., 2002. Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental
disclosuresea theoretical foundation. Account Audit. Account. J. 15, 282e311.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852.
Deegan, C.M., 2019. Legitimacy theory: Despite its enduring popularity and
contribution, time is right for a necessary makeover. Account Audit. & Account.
J. 32, 2307e2329. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2018-3638.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., Tobin, J., 2002. An examination of the corporate social and
environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory.
Account Audit. & Account. J. 15, 312e343. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09513570210435861.
Diageo, 2018a. Annual Report. https://www.diageo.com/PR1346/aws/media/6212/
b0000391_diageo_ar-2018_interactive.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Diageo, 2018b. Sustainability and Responsibility Addendum. https://www.diageo.
S. Silva
com/PR1346/aws/media/6427/diageo_sustainability-responsibility_
perfaddendum_2018_final.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomor-
phism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Socio. Rev. 48,
147e160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
DS Smith, 2019. Sustainability Report. https://www.dssmith.com/contentassets/
c187988864b9404bb959135d7b92b92c/ds-smith-sustainability-report-2019.
pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Dumay, J., Villiers, C. de, Guthrie, J., Hsiao, P.-C., 2018. Thirty years of accounting,
auditing and accountability journal. Account Audit. & Account. J. 31, 1510e1541.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2017-2915.
Earley, K., 2016. More than half of all businesses ignore UN's sustainable develop-
ment goals. The Guardian, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/2016/sep/30/businesses-ignore-un-sustainable-development-goals-
survey. Accessed 2 September 2019.
Eccles, R.G., Karbassi, L., 2018. The right way to support the sustainable develop-
ment goals. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-
right-way-to-support-the-uns-sustainable-development-goals/. Accessed
February 28, 2020.
Evraz, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://sr2018.evraz.com/download/full-reports/
csr_en_annual-report_pages.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E., 2016. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.
Int. J. Qual. Methods. 5, 80e92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107.
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., 2014. Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on
transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. J. Bus. Ethics.
122, 53e63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5.
Fifka, M.S., 2013. Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in
comparative perspective - a review of the empirical literature and a meta-
analysis. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22, 1e35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.729.
Freeland, G., 2019. Being A Good Corporate Citizen Is Good for Your Bottom Line.
Forbes, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/grantfreeland/2019/08/05/being-a-
good-corporate-citizen-is-good-for-your-bottom-line/#28a5bfa87af6. Accessed
2 September 2019.
García-Sa nchez, I.-M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Aibar-Guzma n, B., Aibar-Guzma n, C.,
2020. Do institutional investors drive corporate transparency regarding busi-
ness contribution to the sustainable development goals? Bus. Strat. Environ. 29,
2019e2036. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2485.
German Federal Government, 2019. Germany’s National Sustainable Development
Strategy. https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/sustainability/
germany-s-national-sustainable-development-strategy-354566. Accessed
September 2, 2019.
Gerstlberger, W., Praest Knudsen, M., Stampe, I., 2014. Sustainable development
strategies for product innovation and energy efficiency. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23,
131e144. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1777.
GlaxoSmithKline, 2018. Progress Report. https://www.gsk.com/media/5341/2018-
progress-summary.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Global Reporting Initiative, 2019. Business reporting on the SDGs: An analysis of the
goals and targets. https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI_UNGC_
Business-Reporting-on-SDGs_Analysis-of-Goals-and-Targets.pdf. Accessed June
25, 2019.
Global Reporting Initiative, UN Global Compact, 2019. Integrating the SDGs into
corporate reporting: A practical guide. https://www.globalreporting.org/
resourcelibrary/GRI_UNGC_Reporting-on-SDGs_Practical_Guide.pdf. Accessed
July 3, 2019.
Gold Standard, 2019. About us: Vision and mission. https://www.goldstandard.org/
about-us/vision-and-mission. Accessed October 16, 2019.
Guandalini, I., Sun, W., Zhou, L., 2019. Assessing the implementation of sustainable
development goals through switching cost. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 1430e1441.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.033.
Guenther, E., Guenther, T., Schiemann, F., Weber, G., 2016. Stakeholder relevance for
reporting: explanatory factors of carbon disclosure. Bus. Soc. 55, 361e397.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315575119.
Hackenberg, J., 2019. The UN's sustainable development goals aren't just doing
good, they're good business. Forbes, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
jonquilhackenberg/2019/08/29/the-uns-sustainable-development-goals-arent-
just-doing-good-theyre-good-business/#5971cf5553d9. Accessed 2 September
2019.
Hacking, T., 2019. The SDGs and the sustainability assessment of private-sector
projects: theoretical conceptualisation and comparison with current practice
using the case study of the Asian Development Bank. Impact Assess. Proj.
Apprais. 37, 2e16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1477469.
Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of
results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research.
J. Clean. Prod. 59, 5e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005.
Hahn, R., Lülfs, R., 2014. Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability
reporting: a qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. J. Bus. Ethics.
123, 401e420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1801-4.
Hahn, R., Reimsbach, D., Schiemann, F., 2015. Organizations, climate change, and
transparency: reviewing the literature on carbon disclosure. Organ. Environ. 28,
80e102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575542.
€m, J.,
Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K., Bakker, P., Berkhout, F., Boer, Y. de, Rockstro
Ludwig, K., Kok, M., 2015. Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the
transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability.
7, 1651e1660. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7021651.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
Hak, T., Janouskova, S., Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: a need for
relevant indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 60, 565e573. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolind.2015.08.003.
Hall, J., Wagner, M., 2012. Integrating sustainability into firms’ processes: perfor-
mance effects and the moderating role of business models and innovation. Bus.
Strat. Environ. 21, 183e196. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.728.
Hall, M., Millo, Y., Barman, E., 2015. Who and what really counts? Stakeholder
prioritization and accounting for social value. J. Manag. Stud. 52, 907e934.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12146.
Ho€ risch, J., Freeman, R.E., Schaltegger, S., 2014. Applying stakeholder theory in
sustainability management links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual
framework. Organ. Environ. 27, 328e346. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1086026614535786.
HSBC, 2019. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) Update. https://www.
hsbc.com/-/files/hsbc/our-approach/measuring-our-impact/pdfs/190408-esg-
update-april-2019-eng.pdf?download¼1. Accessed October 30, 2019.
IAG, 2018. Annual Report. https://www.iairgroup.com/~/media/Files/I/IAG/
documents/annual-report-and-accounts-2018-interactive.pdf. Accessed
October 30, 2019.
Informa, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://informa.com/Documents/
sustainability/Informa%20Sustainability%20Report%202018%20-%20The%
20Role%20We%20Play%20-%20FINAL%20Low%20Res%5b96%5d.pdf. Accessed
October 30, 2019.
InterContinental Hotels, 2018. Responsible Business Report. https://www.ihgplc.
com/-/media/ihg/files/responsible-business/2018-responsible-business/
downloads/2018/ihg_rbr_2018_digital.pdf?
la=en&hash=0AD6E5F9E3D5E1DD390F5C2CA519FB48. Accessed October 30,
2019.
Intertek, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://intertek-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/
www-intertek-com/media/investors/2019/Intertek-2018-Sustainability-Report.
pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Ivanaj, S., Ivanaj, V., McIntyre, J., Guimara ~es Da Costa, N., Lozano, R., 2017. Multi-
national Enterprises’ strategic dynamics and climate change: drivers, barriers
and impacts of necessary organisational change. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1521e1524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.071.
Ivanaj, S., McIntyre, J., Ivanaj, V., Guimara ~es Da Costa, N., 2020. The role of multi-
national enterprises and the sustainable development goals: call for papers.
J. Clean. Prod. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-cleaner-
production/call-for-papers/the-role-of-multinational-enterprises-in-
supporting-the-sdgs Accessed 20 February 2019.
Jiang, R.J., Bansal, P., 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001. J. Manag. Stud. 40,
1047e1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00370.
Joffe, H., 2012. Thematic analysis. In: Harper, D. (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods
in Mental Health and Psychotherapy. A Guide for Students and Practitioners.
Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, pp. 209e223.
Joffe, H., Yardley, L., 2004. Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks, D., Yardley, L.
(Eds.), Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. SAGE, London,
pp. 56e68.
Johnson Matthey, 2019. Annual Report and Accounts. https://matthey.com/-/media/
files/annual-report-2019/annual-report-2019-secured.pdf. Accessed October
30, 2019.
Kannenberg, L., Schreck, P., 2019. Integrated reporting: boon or bane? A review of
empirical research on its determinants and implications. J. Bus. Econ. 89,
515e567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-018-0922-8.
King, N., 2012. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell, C.,
Symon, G. (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational
Research. SAGE, London, pp. 256e270.
Kolk, A., 2003. Trends in sustainability reporting by the fortune global 250. Bus.
Strat. Environ. 12, 279e291. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.370.
Kolk, A., 2008. Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring
multinationals’ reporting practices. Bus. Strat. Environ. 17, 1e15. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.511.
Kolk, A., Kourula, A., Pisani, N., 2017. Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable
Development Goals: what do we know and how to proceed? Transnatl. Corp.
24, 9e32. https://ssrn.com/abstract¼2988607.
Kühnen, M., Silva, S., Beckmann, J., Eberle, U., Hahn, R., Hermann, C., Schaltegger, S.,
Schmid, M., 2019. Contributions to the sustainable development goals in life
cycle sustainability assessment: insights from the Handprint research project.
Nachhaltigkeits Manag. Forum | Sustain. Manag. Forum 27, 65e82. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00550-019-00484-y.
Kuruppu, S.C., Milne, M.J., Tilt, C.A., 2019. Gaining, maintaining and repairing
organisational legitimacy: when to report and when not to report. Account
Audit. Account. J. 32, 2062e2087. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1282.
Lloyds Banking Group, 2018. Responsible Business Update. https://www.
lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/documents/our-group/responsibility/
hbpp-2019/2002-update/lbg_rbupdate_artwork_190507.pdf. Accessed October
30, 2019.
Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., Crutzen, N., 2016. Integrating corporate sustainability
assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 136,
237e248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.008.
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., Ricceri, F., 2015. CSR reporting practices and the quality of
disclosure: an empirical analysis. Crit. Perspect. Account. 33, 59e78. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003.
Nadin, S., Cassell, C., 2012. Using data matrices. In: Cassell, C., Symon, G. (Eds.),
Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. SAGE,
S. Silva
London, pp. 271e287.
Narayanan, V., Adams, C.A., 2017. Transformative change towards sustainability: the
interaction between organisational discourses and organisational practices.
Account. Bus. Res. 47, 344e368. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00014788.2016.1257930.
National Grid, 2019. Non-financial performance report 2018/2019. https://www.
nationalgrid.com/group/responsibility-and-sustainability/our-progress/our-
performance. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Nieuwenkamp, R., 2020. Ever heard of SDG washing? The urgency of SDG due
diligence. https://oecd-development-matters.org/2017/09/25/ever-heard-of-
sdg-washing-the-urgency-of-sdg-due-diligence/. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Nonet, G.A.-H., Goessling, T., van Tulder, R., Bryson, J.M., 2020. Multistakeholder
engagement for the sustainable development goals: ethical and organisational
challenges. Call for papers: special issue. J. Bus. Ethics. https://www.springer.
com/journal/10551/updates/17210558. Accessed 20 February 2019.
Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., Moules, N.J., 2017. Thematic analysis: striving
to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int. J. Qual. Methods. 16 https://doi.org/
10.1177/1609406917733847, 160940691773384.
Patten, D.M., 1992. Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the
Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory. Account. Org. Soc. 17, 471e475.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90042-Q.
Perez-Batres, L.A., Doh, J.P., van Miller, V., Pisani, M.J., 2012. Stakeholder pressures as
determinants of CSR strategic choice: why do firms choose symbolic versus
substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct? J. Bus. Ethics. 110, 157e172.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1419-y.
Pizzi, S., Rosati, F., Venturelli, A., 2020. The determinants of business contribution to
the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score. Bus. Strat. Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2628.
Pratt, M.G., 2009. From the editors: for the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up
(and reviewing) qualitative research. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 856e862. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44632557.
Prno, J., Slocombe, D.S., 2014. A systems-based conceptual framework for assessing
the determinants of a social license to operate in the mining industry. Environ.
Manag. 53, 672e689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0221-7.
Pucheta-Martínez, M.C., Bel-Oms, I., Nekhili, M., 2019. The contribution of financial
entities to the sustainable development through the reporting of corporate
social responsibility information. Sustain. Dev. 27, 388e400. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sd.1911.
PWC, 2015. Making it Your Business: Engaging with the Sustainable Development
Goals. PWC, London. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/SDG/SDG%
20Research_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 11 November 2019.
Qian, W., Tilt, C., Dissanayake, D., Kuruppu, S., 2020. Motivations and impacts of
sustainability reporting in the Indo-Pacific region: normative and instrumental
stakeholder approaches. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27, 3370e3384. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.2577.
RELX, 2018. Corporate Responsibility Report. https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/
R/RELX-Group/documents/responsibility/download-center/2018-cr-report.pdf.
Accessed October 30, 2019.
Reckitt Benckiser, 2018. Sustainability Insights 2018. https://www.rb.com/
sustainability/policies-and-reports/. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Rentokil, 2018. Responsible Business Report. https://staticcontents.investis.com/
html/r/rentokil/ri-2018-responsible-business-report/index.html. Accessed
October 30, 2019.
Rio Tinto, 2018. Sustainable Development Report. https://www.riotinto.com/
documents/RT_2018_Sustainable_development_report.pdf. Accessed October
30, 2019.
Rosati, F., Faria, L.G.D., 2019a. Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: the
relationship with institutional factors. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 1312e1326. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.107.
Rosati, F., Faria, L.G.D., 2019b. Business contribution to the Sustainable Development
Agenda: organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corp.
Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 26, 588e597. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1705.
Sassen, R., Azizi, L., 2018. Voluntary disclosure of sustainability reports by Canadian
universities. J. Bus. Econ. 88, 97e137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0869-
1.
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., 2018. Business cases and corporate engagement with
sustainability: differentiating ethical motivations. J. Bus. Ethics. 147, 241e259.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2938-0.
Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2006. Integrative management of sustainability per-
formance, measurement and reporting. Int. J. Account. Audit. Perform. Eval. 3,
1e19. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAAPE.2006.010098.
Schaltegger, S., Freund, F.L., Hansen, E.G., 2012. Business cases for sustainability. The
role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innovat.
Sustain. Dev. 6, 95e119. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2012.046944.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2016. Business models for sus-
tainability: a co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, inno-
vation, and transformation. Organ. Environ. 29, 264e289. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1086026616633272.
Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., Hockerts, K., 2018. Collaborative entrepreneurship
for sustainability. Creating solutions in light of the UN sustainable development
goals. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Ventur. 10, 131e152. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJEV.2018.092709.
Schaltegger, S., Ho €risch, J., Freeman, R.E., 2019. Business cases for sustainability: a
stakeholder theory perspective. Organ. Environ. 32, 191e212. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1086026617722882.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 292 (2021) 125962
Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., Hughes, E., 2016. The private sector and the SDGs: the need
to move beyond ‘Business as Usual’. Sustain. Dev. 24, 371e382. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sd.1623.
Shabana, K.M., Ravlin, E.C., 2016. Corporate social responsibility reporting as sub-
stantive and symbolic behavior: a multilevel theoretical analysis. Bus. Soc. Rev.
121, 297e327. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12089.
Shrivastava, P., Ivanaj, S., Persson, S., 2013. Transdisciplinary study of sustainable
enterprise. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22, 230e244. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1773.
Silva, S., Nuzum, A.-K., Schaltegger, S., 2019. Stakeholder expectations on sustain-
ability performance measurement and assessment. A systematic literature re-
view. J. Clean. Prod. 217, 204e215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.203.
Smurfit, Kappa, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.smurfitkappa.com/-/
media/files/smurfit-digital-marketing-platform/publications—global/
sustainability-reports/smurfit_kappa_sustainability_report_2018.pdf. Accessed
October 7, 2020.
SSE, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://sse.com/media/522476/SSE-plc-
Sustainability-Report-2018.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2019.
St. James’s Place, 2018. Corporate Responsibility Report. http://www.annualreports.
co.uk/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/s/LSE_SJP_2018.pdf. Accessed
December 3, 2020.
Standard Life Aberdeen, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.
standardlifeaberdeen.com/_resources/links/corporate-stewardship-and-
sustainability/read-our-2018-sustainability-report. Accessed October 30, 2019.
Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”.
Organ. Environ. 21, 103e127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608318042.
Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 571e610. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331.
Sullivan, K., Thomas, S., Rosano, M., 2018. Using industrial ecology and strategic
management concepts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Clean.
Prod. 174, 237e246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.201.
Taylor, Wimpey, 2018. Sustainability Report. https://www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/-/
media/Head%20Office/IR%20Comms%20images/2019/SR%202018/Taylor%
20Wimpey%20Sustainability%20Report%202018%20WR.pdf. Accessed October
30, 2019.
UN General Assembly, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sus-
tainable Development. A/RES/70/1. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.
asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed December 17, 2016.
Unilever, 2018. Sustainable Living Progress Report. https://www.unilever.com/
Images/uslp-performance-summary-2018_tcm244-536032_en.pdf. Accessed
October 30, 2019.
United Kingdom Cabinet Office, 2019. Implementing the Sustainable Development
Goals. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-the-
sustainable-development-goals/implementing-the-sustainable-development-
goals. Accessed September 2, 2019.
United Utilities Group, 2019. Annual Report. http://unitedutilities.
annualreport2019.com/site-essentials/downloads/annual-report-2019.
Accessed October 30, 2019.
van der Waal, J., Thijssens, T., 2020. Corporate involvement in sustainable devel-
opment goals: exploring the territory. J. Clean. Prod. 252 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119625.
van Zanten, J.A., van Tulder, R., 2018. Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable
Development Goals: an institutional approach to corporate engagement. J. Int.
Bus. Pol. 1, 208e233. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-018-0008-x.
Velte, P., Stawinoga, M., 2017. Integrated reporting: the current state of empirical
research, limitations and future research implications. J. Manag. Contr. 28,
275e320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-016-0235-4.
Verles, M., Vellacott, T., 2018. Business and the sustainable development goals: Best
practices to seize opportunity and maximise credibility. https://www.
goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/sdg_report_optimized.pdf.
Accessed October 16, 2019.
Vourvachis, P., Woodward, T., 2015. Content analysis in social and environmental
reporting research: trends and challenges. J. Appl. Account. Res. 16, 166e195.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2013-0027.
Watson, B., 2015. How can companies integrate sustainable development goals?
2015. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/oct/12/united-
nations-sdg-un-global-compact-sustainability-world-business-council.
Accessed September 2, 2019.
WBCSD, 2018. Business and the SDGs: A survey of WBCSD members and Global
Network partners. https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/5173/69178.
Accessed June 11, 2019.
Whitehead, J., 2017. Prioritizing sustainability indicators: using materiality analysis
to guide sustainability assessment and strategy. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26,
399e412. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1928.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., Perego, P., 2013. Planetary boundaries. Ecological foun-
dations for corporate sustainability. J. Manag. Stud. 50, 307e336. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x.
Williams, A., Whiteman, G., Parker, J.N., 2019. Backstage interorganizational
collaboration: corporate endorsement of the sustainable development goals.
Acad. Manag. Discov. 5, 367e395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0154.
Wiseman, J., 1982. An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate
annual reports. Account. Org. Soc. 7, 53e63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-
3682(82)90025-3.
Witte, C., Dilyard, J., 2017. Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue: the
contribution of multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development
Goals. Transnatl. Corp. 24, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.18356/799ae8b0-en.
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