Dominika P. Gałkiewicz – University of Applied Sciences Kufstein Tirol, Finance, Accounting & Auditing, Andreas Hofer-Str. 7, 6330 Kufstein, Austria

Bernd Wollmann – University of Applied Sciences Kufstein Tirol, Marketing & Customer Experience, Andreas Hofer-Str. 7, 6330 Kufstein, Austria




In recent years, Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) re­lated rules such as the Taxonomy Regulation of the European Union (EU) have had a lasting impact on the real estate industry and other market participants, and this trend is expected to continue. This study compares European regulation with common sustainability reporting practices in the Real Estate (RE) Sector in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (DACH re­gion). The aim is to investigate what type of information related to em­ployees and other social and governance issues is being provided and by how many of the largest RE firms are in the years 2020 and 2021. Our find­ings show that 20 out of 35 sustainability measures are more often report­ed in 2021 than in 2020. Although the trend is positive, there is still a lot of room for improving reporting quality. Small reporting frequencies are ob­servable in the case of the following ESG measures: violations of the code of conduct (mentioned 1 time in 2020 and 2 times in 2021), safety inspec­tions of buildings (mentioned 5 times in 2020 and 8 times in 2021), the to­tal number of suppliers (mentioned 4 times in 2020 and 6 times in 2021), the share of expenses for local suppliers in % (mentioned 2 times in 2020 and 3 times in 2021), and obtained well-being certificates (reported by 5 firms in 2020 and 4 ones in 2021). Only 5 in 2021 (2 in 2020) firms planned to tie the board compensation to sustainability measures. These findings are important for individuals, companies, institutions and policymakers introducing new sustainability reporting rules in Europe as not only the real estate industry needs to prepare for the uniform EU taxonomy report­ing requirements besides CSRD in the future.

Download file

LIMEN Conference

8th International Scientific-Business Conference – LIMEN 2022 – Leadership, Innovation, Management and Economics: Integrated Politics of Research – SELECTED PAPERS, Hybrid (EXE Budapest Center, Budapest, Hungary), December 1, 2022,

LIMEN Selected papers published by the Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade, Serbia

LIMEN Conference 2022 Selected papers: ISBN 978-86-80194-67-7, ISSN 2683-6149, 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., & Wollmann, B. (2022). Reporting of Social and Governance Measures in 2020 and 2021 by Real Estate Companies Stemming from German-Speaking Countries. In V. Bevanda (Ed.), International Scientific-Business Conference – LIMEN 2022: Vol 8. Selected papers (pp. 59-70). 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. wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Die-Umsetzung-der-EU-CSR-Richtlinie-und-ihre-Bedeutung- fuer-die-Schweiz.pdf

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

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, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 19(1), 96–114.

Caradonna, J. L. (2014). Sustainability: A History, Oxford University Press.

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. https://doi. org/10.1108/07363760110410263

Contrafatto, M. (2014). The institutionalization of social and environmental reporting: An Italian narrative. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 414-432. aos.2014.01.002

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

European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Par- liament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee  and  the  Com- mittee of the Regions: A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Respon- sibility. Retrieved May 6, 2021, from PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0681&from=EN

European Commission. (2017a). Communication from the Commission. Guidelines on non-financial reporting (methodology for reporting non-financial information). Re- trieved January 10, 2022, from PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC0705(01)&from=EN

European Commission. (2017b). EMAS User’s Guide. Retrieved January 15, 2022, from

European  Commission.  (2021).  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European Parliament  and of  the  Council  amending  Directive  2013/34/EU,   Directive   2004/109/EC,   Direc- tive 2006/43/EC and Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as regards corporate sustainability reporting.  Retrieved  January  10,  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 undertakings and groups. Retrieved January 10, 2022, from https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095&from=EN

Flach, B. (2022). Auswirkungen der neuen CSR-Richtlinie für die Schweiz, 2from https://

Hauff, V. (Ed.). (1987). Unsere gemeinsame Zukunft. Der Brundtland-Bericht der Weltkom- mission für Umwelt und Entwicklung, Eggenkamp, from https://www.nachhaltigkeit. info/artikel/brundtland_report_563.htm

Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The Supply of Corporate Social Responsibility 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 Expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435-451. https://

Khan, A., Muttakin, M. B., & Siddiqui, J. (2013). Corporate Governance and Corporate So- cial Responsibility Disclosures: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Busi- ness 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.

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

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.

Swiss Confederation. (2020). Obligationenrecht: Indirekter Gegenvorschlag zur Volksini- tiative «Für verantwortungsvolle Unternehmen – zum Schutz von Mensch und Um- welt»). Retrieved January 10, 2022, from ria/2016/20160077/Schlussabstimmungstext%5C%202%5C%20NS%5C%20D.pdf

Thaler, A. (2021). Sustainability Standards in Business: An Integrated Perspective for Com- panies in the DACH Region [Master’s thesis, University of Applied Sciences Kufstein Tirol].

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sus- tainable Development. Retrieved January 15, 2022, from view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from our-common-future.pdf

United Nations. (1992). AGENDA 21: United Nations Conference on Environment & Develop- ment Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. Retrieved December 19, 2021, from https://

Vogel, D. J. (2005). Is There a Market for Virtue? The Business Case for Corporate Social Re- sponsibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19-45. WEF. (2020). The Global Risks Report 2020 (15). Retrieved January 10, 2022, from

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

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

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