¹ KPMG Global Sustainability Services, KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005, at 4 & 11 (2005), available at http://www.kpmg.nl/Docs/Corporate_Site/Publicaties/International_Survey_Corporate_Responsibility_2005.pdf. The average was brought down by United States corporations. One hundred of the Global 250 corporations are based in the United States, but only 35 percent of those companies published a social report. Id. at 11.

² See Dhooge, Lucien J., Beyond Voluntarism: Social Disclosure and France’s Nouvelle Regulations Economiques, 21 Arizona, J. of Int’l & Comparative L. 441 (2004)Google Scholar.

³ Hendrik, Garz & Claudia, Volk, GRI Reporting: Aiming to Uncover the Truth, at 7 (Sept. 2007), available at http://www.siran.org/pdfs/WestLB_GRI_reporting.pdf (stating that social reporting is “on the way to becoming the norm, rather than the exception” among large, public corporations”).Google Scholar

⁴ For recent arguments that corporations’ claims of social responsibility divert attention from potentially more effective means of attaining truly socially responsible behavior by corporations, see Robert, B. Reich, Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (2007)Google Scholar; Aaron, Chatterji & Siona, Listokin, Corporate Social Irresponsibility, Democracy, Winter 2007, at 52.Google Scholar

⁵ See William, S. Laufer, Social Accountability and Corporate Greenwashing, 43 J. Bus Ethics 253 (2003)Google Scholar.

⁶ John, M. Conley & Cynthia, A. Williams, Engage, Embed, Embellish: Theory Versus Practice in the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement, 31 31 J. Corp. L. 1, 5 (2005)Google Scholar.

⁷ Id. at 5.

⁸ Wade-Benzoni, et al., Barriers to Resolution in Ideologically Based Negotiations: The Role of Values and Institutions, 27 ACAD. Mgmt Rev. 41, 48 (2002).Google Scholar

⁹ The GRI refers to reports issued under their guidelines as “sustainability reports” and states the goal of these reports as furthering “sustainable development.” Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 3 (2006), available at http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54-4DE1-BFF2-5F735235CA44/0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdfGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Stuart, L. Hart and Mark, B. Milstein, Creating Sustainable Value, 17 ACAD. Mgmt. Exec. 56, 56 (2003)Google Scholar.

¹¹ World Council for Economic Development, our Common Future 43 (1987).

¹² World Council for Economic Development, supra note 11, at 40; Robert, W. Kates et al., What is Sustainable Development?, Environment, April 2005, at 8, 11.Google Scholar

¹³ For general reviews of these criticisms, see David, Hess, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Law, in Corporate Social Responsibility (José, Allouche, ed.) 154, 158–63 (2006)Google Scholar; Christine Parker, The Open Corporation: Effective Self-Regulation and Democracy 8–12 (2002).

¹⁴ Lester, M. Salamon, The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction, 28 Fordham Urb. L. J. 1611, 1635 (2001).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bradley, C. Karkkainen, “New Governance” in Legal Thought and in the World: Some Splitting as Antidote to Overzealous Lumping, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 471, 471 (2004–2005).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Orly, Lobel, The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought, 89 MINN. L. Rev. 342, 442–43 (2004)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Karkkainen, , supra note 15, at 472–74.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Lobel, supra note 16, at 343–45.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Id. at 357–58.

²⁰ Id. at 443.

²¹ Karkkainen, , supra note 15, at 478Google Scholar (stating that “in its sheer novelty, the recent profusion of New Governance scholarship has not yet settled upon a common nomenclature, leaving even the most dedicated reader with the daunting task of sorting through and translating a bewildering babel of unfamiliar, competing, and possibly incompatible terminology, which may or may not describe similar phenomena in different terms, or different phenomena in similar terms.”)

²² Michael, C. Dorf & Charles, F. Sabel, A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 267 (1998).Google Scholar

²³ Lobel, supra note 16.

²⁴ Katherine, R. Kruse, Instituting Innocence Reform: Wisconsin’s New Governance Experiment, 2006 WIS. L. Rev. 645, 677–79 (2006)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Id. at 679–80.

²⁶ Dorf and Sabel, supra note 22, at 350–51.

²⁷ Id.

²⁸ Id. at 382–85.

²⁹ Freeman, , Collaborative Governance in the Administrative State, 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1, 55 (1997).Google Scholar

³⁰ Id. at 55–56.

³¹ Id. at 77–81.

³² Dorf, and Sabel, , supra note 22, at 383–88Google Scholar.

³³ Id.

³⁴ Jennifer, S. Lerner & Philip, E. Tetlock, Accounting for the Effects of Accountability, 125 Psych. Bulletin 255, 255 (1999)Google Scholar. Those that provide “compelling justifications” may enjoy positive consequences. Id. See also Rubin, supra note 40, at 2119 (“As used in ordinary language, accountability refers to the ability of one actor to demand an explanation or justification of another actor for its actions and to reward or punish that second actor on the basis of its performance or its explanation.”).

³⁵ Kruse, , supra note 24, at 680Google Scholar.

³⁶ Dorf, and Sabel, , supra note 22, at 383–84.Google Scholar

³⁷ The TRI is part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in the United States. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, §§ 301–30, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001–50 (1994).

³⁸ See Dorf, and Sabel, , supra note 22, at 379–81 (discussing the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA)).Google Scholar

³⁹ Id. at 380.

⁴⁰ Edward, Rubin, The Myth of Accountability and the Anti-administrative Impulse, 103 MICHIGAN L. Rev., 2073, 2108–09(2005).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id. at 2109.

⁴² U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §8B2.1(a)(2) (2006).

⁴³ See generally Susan, Sturm, Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach, 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Id. at 465–69.

⁴⁵ Id. at 522.

⁴⁶ Id at 523.

⁴⁷ Id. at 523–24.

⁴⁸ Id. at 523–37; see also Lobel, supra note 16, at 422–23.

⁴⁹ Sturm, supra note 43, at 548–53 (discussing current problems related to transparency and providing suggestions for solutions).

⁵⁰ David, Hess, Regulating Corporate Social Performance: A New Look at Corporate Social Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting, 11 Bus. Ethics Q. 307, 308 (2001).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Archie, B. Carroll and George, W. BeilerLandmarks in the Evolution of the Social Audit, 18 ACAD. Mgmt. J. 589, 590 (1975)Google Scholar. Although they recognize Kreps as originator of the term in this context, they acknowledge that the term may have a prior history. Id.

⁵² Id. at 591–93.

⁵³ Id.

⁵⁴ Id. at 593–94.

⁵⁵ Id.

⁵⁶ Id. at 596.

⁵⁷ Some of the major works of the 1970s included Clark, C. ABT, The Social Audit for Management (1977)Google Scholar; Raymond, Bauer & Dan, H. Fenn, The Corporate Social Audit (1972)Google Scholar; David, Blake, William, Frederick & Mildred, Myers, Social Auditing (1976)Google Scholar; and Ralph, Estes, Corporate Social Accounting (1976)Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ See Raymond, A. Bauer, The Corporate Social Audit: Getting on the Learning Curve, 16 CAL. MGMT. Rev. 5, 7–8 (1973)Google Scholar; see also Simon, Zadek, Peter, Pruzan, & Richard, Evans, Building Corporate Accountability 17 (1997) (identifying the tensions between social auditing as a “management tool” or an “accountability mechanism”)Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Hess, , supra note 50, at 311.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Bernard, L. Butcher, The Program Management Approach to the Corporate Social Audit, 16 CAL. Mgmt. Rev. 11, 13 (1973).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Hess, , supra note 50, at 311.Google Scholar

⁶² Meinolf, Dierkes, Whither Corporate Social Reporting: Is it Time to Legislate?, 28 CAL. Mgmt. Rev. 106, 107 (1986).Google Scholar

⁶³ Hess, , supra note 50, at 311; Zadek et al., supra note 58, at 18.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Id. at 312.

⁶⁵ Id. at 311–12.

⁶⁶ Zadek, et al., supra note 58, at 18.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Global Reporting Initiative, Our History, available at http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatWeDo/OurHistory/.

⁶⁸ Id.

⁶⁹ Id.

⁷⁰ Global Reporting Initiative, Press Release, Heading into the 1000+ reporters, April 26, 2007, available at http://www.globalreporting.org/NewsEventsPress/LatestNews/2007/NewsApril07NewReporters.htm.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (2006), available at http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54–4DE1-BFF2–5F735235CA44/0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdfGoogle Scholar

⁷² Id. at 3.

⁷³ Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 1 (2002).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Global Reporting Initiative, supra note 71, at 6–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Id. at 7. In addition, there are additional core indicators for members of certain sectors (e.g., apparel and footwear, electric utilities, financial services) that are published in separate supplements.

⁷⁶ Id. at 8.

⁷⁷ Id. at 7.

⁷⁸ Id. at 10.

⁷⁹ Id. at 11–13.

⁸⁰ Id. at 13–17.

⁸¹ Id. at 16.

⁸² Id.

⁸³ Id. at 17–24.

⁸⁴ Id. at 24.

⁸⁵ Id. at 25–36.

⁸⁶ Id. at 5.

⁸⁷ Id.

⁸⁸ The SBN Bank used the term “Ethical Accounting Statement” rather than “social report.” Peter, Pruzan, The Ethical Dimensions of Banking: Sbn Bank, Denmark, in Building Corporate Accountability 63, 67 (Simon, Zadek et al. eds., 1997)Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Id. at 68.

⁹⁰ See id. at 69 (describing the minimum requirements of an ethical accounting statement).

⁹¹ Don, Tapscott & David, Ticoll, The Naked Corporation: How the Age of Transparency will Revolutionize Business (2003)Google Scholar.

⁹² David, Weil et al., The Effectiveness of Regulatory Disclosure Policies, 25 J. Policy Analysis & Mgmt. 155, 156 (2006)Google Scholar.

⁹³ Id. at 157.

⁹⁴ See Id. at 158.

⁹⁵ The TRI is part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in the United States. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, §§ 301–30, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001–50 (1994).

⁹⁶ Lobel, supra note 16, at 376–77.

⁹⁷ Id. at 377.

⁹⁸ Freeman, , supra note 29, at 18–22; Lobel, supra note 16, at 377.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Id. at 22.

¹⁰⁰ Id. at 23.

¹⁰¹ Id. at 27.

¹⁰² Brendan, O’Dwyer, Stakeholder Democracy: Challenges and Contributionsfrom Social Accounting, 14 Business Ethics: A European Review 28, 29–30 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Archon, Fung, Deliberative Democracy and International Labor Standards, 16 Governance 51, 52 (2003).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Id. at 55.

¹⁰⁵ Pruzan, , supra note 88, at 69.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Titus, Fossgard-Moser, Social Performance: Key Lessons from Recent Experiences within Shell, 5 Corp. Gov.: Int’L J. Bus. Soc. 105, 112 (2005)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Id.

¹⁰⁸ See The Shell Report 2004 24 available at http://www.shell.com/static/envirosoc-en/downloads/sustainability_reports/shell_report_2004.pdf (indicating the importance of stakeholder engagement to determine the key performance indicators included in the report).

¹⁰⁹ Fossgard-Moser, , supra note 106, at 112.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Id. at 113.

¹¹¹ Hess, , supra note 50; Eric W. Orts, A Reflexive Model of Environmental Regulation, 5 Bus. Ethics Q. 779 (1995).Google Scholar

¹¹² Michael Power, Constructing the Responsible Organization: Accounting and Environmental Representation, in Environmental Law and Ecological Responsibility: The Concept and Practice of Ecological Self-Organization 369. (G. Teubner et al., eds, 1994)

¹¹³ Rubin, , supra note 40, at 2107–08Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Id. at 2108.

¹¹⁵ See Edward Freeman, R. & Daniel, R. Gilbert Jr., Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics 104 (1988)Google Scholar. The authors argue against the idea of corporate social responsibility simply meaning responsive to social pressures by stating that it “perverts the connection between ethics and strategy. In doing so, it represents a paradigm case of how not to do ethical reasoning. It is simple and easy, and wrongheaded.” Id.

¹¹⁶ Christopher, D. Stone, Where the Law Ends: The Social Control of Corporate Behavior 121 (1976).Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Id. at 201.

¹¹⁸ Id. at 202.

¹¹⁹ Environmental Protection Agency (Office of Environmental Information, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division), How Are the Toxic Release Inventory Data Used?: Government, Business, Academic, and Citizen Uses, EPA-260-R-002–004, May 2003, at 9, available at http://www.epa.gov/triinter/guide_docs/pdf/2003/2003_datausepaper.pdf.

¹²⁰ Irene, M. Herremans & Sandy, Herschovis, Sustainability Reporting: Creating and Internal Self-Driving Mechanism, Envtl. Quality Mgmt., Spring 2006, at 19.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Id. at 23.

¹²² Id. at 23–24.

¹²³ Id.

¹²⁴ Id. at 28.

¹²⁵ David, Hess, Social Reporting: A Reflexive Law Approach to Corporate Social Responsiveness, 25 J. Corp. L. 41, 67–68 (1999).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See Josh, Dowse, Making CR Measurement Meaningful to the Rest of Business, Corp. Responsibility Mgmt., June/July 2005, at 14.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Id. at 17.

¹²⁸ Id. at 21.

¹²⁹ See generally, Christine, Oliver, Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, 16 ACAD. Mgmt. Rev. 145 (1991)Google Scholar.

¹³⁰ See Neil, Gunningham et al., Shades of Green: Business, Regulation and Environment 95–134 (2003).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Bauer, 1973, supra note 58, at 7.Google Scholar

¹³² For reviews of the empirical literature supporting these conclusions, see Sylvie, Berthelot et al., Environmental Disclosure Research: Review and Synthesis, 22 J. Accounting Lit. 1 (2003)Google Scholar; David, Hess & Thomas, W. Dunfee, The Kasky-Nike Threat to Corporate Social Reporting: Implementing a Standard of Optimal Truthful Disclosure as a Solution, 17 Bus. Ethics Q. 5 (2007)Google Scholar.

¹³³ Hess, and Dunfee, , supra note 132, at 8–10.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Lori, Holder-Webb et al., The Supply of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures Among US Firms 38 (November 30, 2007), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=970330.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ See supra note 6 and accompanying text.

¹³⁶ Hess, and Dunfee, , supra note 132, at 8–10.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Bansal, P. & Clelland, I.Talking Trash: Legitimacy, Impression Management, and Unsystematic Risk in the Context of the Natural Environment, 47 ACAD. Mgmt. J. 93 (2004)Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Kimberly, D. Elsbach, Managing Organizational Legitimacy in the California Cattle Industry: The Construction and Effectiveness of Verbal Accounts, 39 ADMIN. SCI. Q. 57 (1994).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ James, D. Westphal & Edward, J. Zajac, Decoupling Policy from Practice: The Case of Stock Repurchase Programs, 46 Admin. Sci. Q. 202 (2001)Google Scholar; The Symbolic Management of Stockholders: Corporate Governance Reforms and Shareholder Reactions, 43 Admin. Sci. Q. 127 (1998); Substance and Symbolism in CEOs’ Long-term Incentive Plans, 39 Admin. Sci. Q. 367 (1994); Edward J. Zajac & James D. Westphal, Accounting for the Explanations of CEO Compensation: Substance and Symbolism, 40 Admin. Sci. Q. 283 (1994); The Social Construction of Market Value: Institutionalization and Learning Perspectives on Stock Market Reactions, 69 AMER. Sociological Rev. 433 (2004).

¹⁴⁰ Garz, & Volk, , supra note 3, at 61, 141 & 147.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Id. at 64.

¹⁴² Id. at 146.

¹⁴³ Hess, and Dunfee, , supra note 132, at 23.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Thomas, P. Lyon & John, W. Maxwell, Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure under Threat of Audit (2005), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=938988.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Id. at 32.

¹⁴⁶ Id.

¹⁴⁷ For a review of the empirical studies, see Berthelot, et al., supra note 132.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ KPMG, supra note 43, at 21.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ David, L. Owen et al., The New Social Audits: Accountability, Managerial Capture or the Agenda of Social Champions?, 9 European Accounting Rev. 81, 87 (2000).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ KPMG, supra note 43, at 21.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Parker, , supra note 13, at 157.Google Scholar

¹⁵² See Shamir, R.Minding the Gap: The Commodification of Corporate Social Responsibility, 28 Symbolic Interaction 229 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Neu, D. et al., Managing Public Impressions: Environmental Disclosures in Annual Reports, 23 Accounting, Organizations and Society 265 (1998).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ See Owen et al., supra note 149.

¹⁵⁵ Conley, and Williams, , supra note 6, at 6.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ O’Dwyer, , supra note 102, at 31.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Conley, and Williams, , supra note 6, at 6.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Owen, et al, supra note 149, at 85.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ For a review, see O’Dwyer, supra note 102.

¹⁶⁰ Laufer, supra note 5; Power, supra note 112

¹⁶¹ Gweneth, Norris & John, Innes, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Case Study Guide for Management Accountants (2005)Google Scholar.

¹⁶² Markus, Palenberg et al., Trends in Non-Financial Reporting, 15 (2006), available at www.gppi.net.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Ann, Hironaka & Evan, Schofer. 2002. Decoupling in the Environmental Arena: The Case of Environmental Impact AssessmentsGoogle Scholar, in Organizations, Policy, and The Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives 214 (A. J. Hoffman & M. J. Ventresca, eds., 2002).

¹⁶⁴ Bradley, C. Karkkainen, Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government’s Environmental Performance, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 903, 906 (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Robert, W. Hahn et al., Assessing Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Failure of Agencies to Comply With Executive Order 12,866, 23 Harvard, J. L. & Public Policy 859 (2000).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ See Linda, C. Forbes & John, M. JermierThe Institutionalization of Voluntary Organizational Greening and the Ideals of Environmentalism: Lessons About Official Culture from Symbolic Organization Theory, in Organizations, Policy, and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives 194 (Hoffman, A. J. & Ventresca, M. J., eds., 2002).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ See Laufer supra note 5.

¹⁶⁸ See Laufer supra note 5; Shamir, supra note 152.

¹⁶⁹ Zajac and Westphal (2004), supra note 139.

¹⁷⁰ Conley, and Williams, , supra note 6, at 6.Google Scholar.

¹⁷¹ Sustainability, Risk & Opportunity: Best Practice in Non-Financial Reporting (2004), available online at http://www.sustainability.com/insight/research-article.asp?id=128.

¹⁷² Guido, Palazzo & Ulf, Richter, CSR Business as Usual? The Case of the Tobacco Industry, 61 J. Bus. Ethics 361, 392 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Moerman, L. C. & Van Der Lan, S. L., Social Reporting in the Tobacco Industry: All Smoke and Mirrors?, 18 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability J. 374 (2005)Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Fung, , supra note 103, at 66Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁵ Hess, and Dunfee, , supra note 132, at 21–23.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Garz, & Volk, , supra note 3, at 147.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Ronald, E.Berenbeim and Sophia Muirhead, Business Conduct Codes: Why Corporations Hesitate, Conference Board, Executive Action, January 2002, at 4.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Palenberg, et al., supra note 162, at 30.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ KPMG, supra note 1, at 10Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁰ KPMG, International Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2002, at 14 (June 24, 2002).Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Garz, & Volk, , supra note 3, at 21Google Scholar.

¹⁸² David, Hess, Social Reporting and New Governance Regulation: The Prospects of Achieving Corporate Accountability through Transparency, 17 Bus. Ethics Q. 455, 461 (2007)Google Scholar.

¹⁸³ Palenberg, et al., supra note 162, at 21Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁴ Id. at 21–22.

¹⁸⁵ Id. at 23–24.

¹⁸⁶ Garz, & Volk, , supra note 3, at 8.Google Scholar This study goes on to state that they cannot reject the null hypothesis that “for the financial analyst CR/Sustainability reports are useless.” Id. at 148. The authors reached this conclusion even though they had an admitted bias toward supporting the use of sustainability reports. See id. at 3 (stating “The hope of this report is to support and encourage the relatively nascent field of sustainability reporting.”)

¹⁸⁷ Hess, , supra note 182, at 467–68.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Fung, , supra note 103, at 62Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁹ Id. at 56.

¹⁹⁰ See Susan, Fox-Wolfgramm et al., Organizational Adaptation to Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-order Change in Prospector and Defender Banks, 43 Admin. Sci. Q. 43, 87 (1998)Google Scholar.

¹⁹¹ See Jane, E. Dutton & Janet, M. Dukerich, Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in Organizational Adaptation, 34 ACAD. Mgmt. J. 517 (1991).Google Scholar

¹⁹² Scott, Sonenshein, Business Ethics and Internal Social Criticism, 15 Bus. Ethics Q. 475 (2005)Google Scholar

¹⁹³ For a review of the literature stating these concerns, see Brendan, O’Dwyer & David, Owen, Seeking Stakeholder Centric Sustainability Assurance, 25 J. Corp. Citizenship 77, 79 (2007)Google Scholar. For a complete review of auditing concerns, including an analysis of the GRI’s second guidelines, see Carol, A. Adams & Richard, Evans, Accountability, Completeness, Credibility and the Audit Expectations Gap, 14 J. Corp. Citizenship 97 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ O’Dwyer, and Owen, , supra note 193, at 87–89.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ KPMG, supra note 43, at 30.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Id. at 31. In the United Kingdom, by contrast, 38 out 71 companies reporting use of assurance. Id.

¹⁹⁷ AccountAbility, Accountability Rating 2006: Summary Report of Results 2 (2006)Google Scholar. This was a study of the 50 largest global corporations and 14 other large corporations that were used to ensure the researchers had at least ten companies in certain key industries. Id. at 3.

¹⁹⁸ Palenberg, et al., supra note 162, at 15.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Id. at 15.

²⁰⁰ International Chamber of Commerce, Commission on Business and Society, ICC views on economic, environmental and social reporting (March 4, 2005), available at: http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/society/id599/index.htmlGoogle Scholar.

²⁰¹ The exact number would depend on the criteria selected for the mandatory requirement, such as mandating disclosure only for corporations of a certain size.

²⁰² See Owen, et al, supra note 149.Google Scholar