Controversial sectors in banks’ sustainability reporting

ABSTRACT

Albeit indirectly, through its lending and investing, the financial sector can contribute substantially to achieve sustainable development. One of such practices concerns investment on or financing of entities that deal with environmentally or socially sensitive transactions (gambling, tobacco, alcohol, arms, etc.). Although there is a wealth of literature on banks’ CSR and its reporting, one can count on the fingers of one hand the studies mentioning explicitly these issue. What is more, this CSR practice gets treated only cursorily in these few studies. This study focuses on the communication of information on investment and financing of firms from controversial sectors in banks’ sustainability reports. We begin by examining whether financial institutions in our sample report having such policies or not. Then, we investigate what kind of policies are reported. In addition, this study seeks to capture the influence of national culture and firm-specific characteristics (type of property, listing status and multinationality) on the reporting of such issues. Ordinal regression analysis is used to analyse the relation of these factors with such reporting. Our findings suggest that the disclosure of information on policies regarding investment on and financing of firms from controversial sectors is not widespread, and the organizations reporting policies of total exclusion of some sectors or projects on ethical grounds are few. This study may encourage more detailed analyses of the type of CSR policies examined and of their impacts. It also may be of utility to banks by raising awareness about the need to consider these issues.

KEYWORDS:

• Controversial sectors
• cultural dimensions
• financial sector
• Hofstede
• legitimacy theory
• public visibility
• sustainability reporting

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Given that our final sample includes only three SMEs, we have not conducted any empirical analysis to examine whether these SMEs adopted distinct reporting practices when compared to companies and MNEs.

2. Gujarati and Porter (2004, p. 359) suggest, as a rule-of-thumb, to consider multicollinearity as harmful when it exceeds 0.8.