Dominika P. Gałkiewicz – University of Applied Sciences Kufstein, Andreas Hofer-Str. 7, Kufstein, Austria



Abstract: In the last twenty years, sustainability became a strong move­ment leading to regulatory initiatives around the world. In this study, the Eu­ropean regulation is compared with common sustainability reporting prac­tices in the Real Estate Sector in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The goal of the study is to show what type of information related to employees, and other social and governance issues are being provided and by how many firms in the year 2020. The findings show that more than half of the analyz­ed firms report the total number of employees, the share of women and the number of permanent full-time contracts. Furthermore, supervisory board members are listed by 37 out of 53 companies. More than a third of the 53 companies confirmed to have anti-corruption processes implemented and 25 firms state to have UN SDGs included in their reports. However, details on diversity and employee-related information are often, more than 50% of the time, missing (e.g. salary ratio of woman to man, average sick days/year, total number of trainees, executive pay ratio, total accidents, average age, proportion of female executives, % of woman on the board of directors, staff turnover rate, newly hired employees, employee-satisfaction, full-time em­ployees and part-time employees). Moreover, the involvement of firms, cus­tomers, suppliers and employees in following human rights guidelines, ESG and Code of Conduct rules is low. Less than a third of companies stated to follow the human rights guidelines obtained a sustainability certificate or employee well-being certificate and provided ESG-specific employee train­ing. Performing Code of Conduct training for employees, customer surveys, and implementing business partner Code of Conduct/Supplier Code of Con­duct besides mentioning the cases of corruption and incidents of discrimi­nation are reported by less than one-third of firms. These results are impor­tant for individuals, companies and politicians implementing new rules re­lated to sustainability reporting in Europe

6th International Scientific Conference on Recent Advances in Information Technology, Tourism, Economics, Management and Agriculture – ITEMA 2022 – Selected Papers, Hybrid (University of Maribor, Slovenia), October 27, 2022

ITEMA Selected Papers published by: Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans – Belgrade, Serbia

ITEMA conference partners: Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Slovenia; Faculty of Organization and Informatics, University of Zagreb, Varaždin; Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, Serbia; Institute of Marketing, Poznan University of Economics and Business, Poland; Faculty of Agriculture, Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine ”King Michael I of Romania”, Romania

ITEMA Conference 2022 Selected Papers: ISBN 978-86-80194-64-6, ISSN 2683-5991, DOI:

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 License ( which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission. 

Suggested citation

Gałkiewicz, D. P. (2022). Sustainability Reporting Practices of Real Estate Companies from Germany, Austria and Switzerland – First Insights from 2020. In V. Bevanda (Ed.), International Scientific Conference ITEMA 2022: Vol 6. Selected Papers (pp. 81-90). Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans.


Asay, H. S., Hoopes, J. L., Thornock, J. R., & Wilde, J. H. (2022). Tax boycotts. Working Paper. Baumüller, J., Mühlenberg-Schmitz, D., & Zöbeli, D. (2018). Die Umsetzung der CSR-Richtlin-ie und ihre Bedeutung für die Schweiz: Zu den Folgen der EUweiten Gesetzesreformen im deutschsprachigen Raum, Expert Focus 92(12), 981–986. Retrived from https://www.swis-

Behnam, M., & MacLean, T. L. (2011). Where Is the Accountability in International Accountabili- ty Standards?: A Decoupling Perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 45-72.

Bernhard, B., & Riedlberger, N. (2021). Nichtfinanzielle Berichterstattung österreichischer nicht-  finanzieller Unternehmen im Jahr 2019. Statistiken – Daten & Analysen Q1/21, 18(1), 39–47.

Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2008). Factors Influencing Social Responsibility Disclosure by Portuguese Companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 685-701.

Campbell, D., Moore, G., & Shrives, P. (2006). Cross-sectional effects in community disclosure, Ac-  counting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 19(1), 96–114.


Carrigan, M., & Attalla,  A.  (2001).  The  myth  of  the  ethical  consumer  –  do  ethics  mat- ter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560-578.

Contrafatto, M. (2014). The institutionalization of social and environmental reporting: An Italian narrative. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 414-432.

Edmans, A. (2019). The purpose of profit. London Business School Review, 30(2-3), 18-21.

Edmans, A. (2021). Grow the Pie: How Great Companies Deliver Both Purpose and Profit, 2nd edi-  tion, Cambridge University Press.

European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved 06/05/2021, from

European Commission. (2017a). Communication from the Commission. Guidelines on non-financial reporting (methodology for reporting non-financial information). Retrieved 10/01/2022, from   

European Commission.(2021a). Proposalfora Directive ofthe European Parliamentandofthe Council amending Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. Retrieved 10/01/2022, from

European Commission. (2021b). European Commission. (2017b). EMAS User’s Guide. Retrieved 15/01/2022 from  

European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2014). Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertak- ings and groups. Retrieved 10/01/2022, from  PDF/uri=CELEX:32014L0095&from=EN

Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The Supply of Corporate Social Re- sponsibility Disclosures Among U.S. Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 497-527.

Huang, C.-L., & Kung, F.-H. (2010). Drivers of Environmental Disclosure and Stakeholder Expecta- tion: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435-451.

Khan, A., Muttakin, M. B., & Siddiqui, J. (2013). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Re- sponsibility Disclosures: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 207-223.

Kleibold, T., & Veser, M. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility: Aktuelle Entwicklungen in der Schweiz, Zeitschrift für Internationale Rechnungslegung IRZ, 325-329.

Morsing, M., & Roepstorff, A. (2015). CSR as Corporate Political Activity: Observations on IKEA’s CSR Identity-Image Dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), 395-409.

O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2016). Fostering rigour in accounting for social sustainability. Ac-  counting, Organizations and Society, 49, 32-40.

Rajgopal, S. (2021). Does Philip Morris International (PMI) Provide The Managerial Playbook for Western Oil Majors, published in Forbes 19.12.2021, Retrieved 21/01/2022, from https://www.

Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351-366.

Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft. (2020). Obligationenrecht: Indirekter Gegenvorschlag zur Volk- sinitiative «Für verantwortungsvolle Unternehmen – zum Schutz von Mensch und Umwelt»). Retrieved 10/01/2022, from

Shirodkar, V., Beddewela, E., & Richter, U. H. (2018). Firm-Level Determinants of Political CSR in Emerging Economies: Evidence from India. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 673-688.

Thaler, A. (2021). Sustainability Standards in Business: An Integrated Perspective for Companies in the DACH Region [Master Thesis, University of Applied Sciences Kufstein Tirol].

United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrieved 19/12/2021, from

United Nations. (1992). AGENDA 21: United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Retrieved 19/12/2021, from

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sus- tainable Development. Retrieved 15/01/2022, from

Vogel, D. J. (2005). Is There a Market for Virtue? The Business Case for Corporate Social Respon-  sibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19-45.

Weyzig, F. (2009). Political and Economic Arguments for Corporate Social Responsibility: Analy- sis and a Proposition Regarding the CSR Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 417-428.

World Economic Forum. (2020). The Global Risks Report 2020 (15). Retrieved 10/01/2022, from

Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach, 5th Edition, Mason OH: South Western Cengage Learning.

Zhao, M. (2012). CSR-Based Political Legitimacy Strategy: Managing the State by Doing Good in China and Russia. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 439-460. s10551-012-1209-6


Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans – UdEkoM Balkan
179 Ustanicka St, 11000 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

ITEMA conference publications are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.