<![CDATA[Background: Sustainability reports are now expected to say more than whether an organization has met its own targets. They are also expected to explain important effects on people, the environment, and the communities around business operations. In practice, however, reporting can still be one-directional: community concerns are recorded and summarized, yet it is not always clear whether those concerns influence decisions, commitments, or the way resources are allocated. Aims: This article develops a reciprocity-based view of sustainability reporting. The central idea is that reporting should form part of an ongoing exchange in which organizations disclose impacts, communities express concerns and expectations, management explains its response, and later reports show what happened to previous commitments. Research Method: The paper uses an integrative conceptual review. It brings together literature on stakeholder theory, legitimacy, stakeholder engagement, materiality, reporting quality, and community accountability. No survey, interview, experiment, or statistical dataset is presented. Results and Conclusion: The review points to four closely connected mechanisms: impact-centered materiality, disclosure that communities can actually use, two-way dialogue, and a documented organizational response. Reporting is more likely to strengthen trust and accountability when stakeholders can see how their input entered the decision process and when later disclosures explain what changed, what remained unresolved, and why. The value of reporting is weaker when disclosure is selective, symbolic, or detached from grievance handling and operational follow-up. Contribution: The article offers a reciprocity cycle, six propositions for later empirical testing, a practical community- reporting scorecard, and a staged pathway that organizations can use to connect sustainability disclosure with longer-term community-business relations.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
