How do state-owned enterprises (SOEs) prioritise and disclose the sustainable development goals (SDGs): evidence from South Africa

State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are government entities that allocate public funds to deliver services with significant impacts on societal well-being and economic growth (Boros and Fogarassy, 2019; Fourie, 2014). (In emerging economies such as South Africa, SOEs provide essential services, including employment, water, sanitation, energy, transportation, and infrastructure development (Bruton et al., 2015; Kikeri, 2018). SOEs are central to generating sustained value through active participation in key economic sectors (Balbuena, 2014). Consequently, these enterprises are recognized as significant contributors to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Chigudu, 2020; NPC, 2011). Despite their importance in the South African economy, SOEs have been criticized for corrupt practices, structural and operational inefficiencies, recurring modified audit opinions, financial mismanagement, reliance on government bailouts, and involvement in alleged state capture (Dávid-Barrett, 2023). These issues have increased scrutiny of SOEs' legitimacy as vehicles for sustainable development, prompting stakeholders to demand greater transparency and accountability in addressing economic, social, and environmental needs while ensuring intergenerational equity (Madumi, 2018; Kikeri, 2018).

There is a progressive shift from stakeholders from solely focusing on the financial performance of SOEs to broader sustainability performance that reflects a commitment to the environment and social advancement for current and future generations (Sun, 2024). Social and environmental reporting has emerged as a significant and evolving construct to which SOEs, like other corporations, must adapt (Farneti et al., 2019; Zhao and Patten, 2016). This construct is unavoidable, as it reflects SOEs' commitment to serving the best interests of communities and creates pressure to report on the SDGs as part of a broader social contract, especially under increased public scrutiny (Adebayo and Ackers, 2024). Legitimacy theory offers a framework for understanding the quality of SDG disclosures by SOEs, positing that social and environmental information is disclosed in response to public demand (Deegan, 2019). It is important to assess whether SOEs have provided stakeholders with relevant and substantive information or have relied on generic and symbolic reporting, which is indicative of poor-quality disclosure (Elrazaz et al., 2024). High-quality information is widely recognized as a hallmark of socially-responsible organizations and serves as a key indicator of sustainability for stakeholders (Farneti et al., 2019). SDG disclosure emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement as the blueprint for effective accountability on the SOEs' sustainable agenda. This study responds to earlier calls by (Abhayawansa et al., 2021) for an evaluation of accountability systems contributing to SDG attainment in jurisdictions with diverse cultures and political systems. South Africa, an emerging economy, is a particularly relevant context, as it has a young democracy and a diverse population with a history of discriminatory resource distribution that has hindered social and economic development (Han and Han, 2025). This context frames the current study, which evaluates reporting quality through the lens of legitimacy and stakeholder theory, grounded in the accountability principle central to SOEs. The management of legitimacy, as with other cultural processes, fundamentally relies on effective communication between organizations and stakeholders (Allen and Caillouet, 1994; Suchman, 1995).

SOEs primarily communicate their sustainability activities and performance related to sustainable development through integrated or annual reports, which are key information sources for stakeholders. In South Africa, SDG activity reporting is not mandatory for SOEs (Chigudu, 2020). However, the National Treasury Annual Report Guide encourages the inclusion of the National Development Plan (NDP), which aligns with the United Nations SDGs, in annual reports to promote transparency and accountability (National Treasury, 2022). Sustainable development is especially critical in emerging economies, which face numerous challenges, including poverty, limited economic growth, disease, inadequate access to clean water, hunger, social inequality, and poor educational outcomes. Stakeholders require reliable information on SOEs' contributions to the SDGs, underscoring the need for research that evaluates the quality of these disclosures in annual reports (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022). Given SOEs' societal roles and the growing demand for transparency and accountability in sustainability reporting (Ackers and Adebayo, 2022; Argento et al., 2019). Academic studies should move beyond assessing the presence or absence of SDG-related information to critically examine the quality of these disclosures, which is central to debates on transparency and accountability (Kaur and Lodhia, 2019). Although some research has addressed the quality of sustainability reporting in SOEs, focused evaluations of SDG information quality remain limited (Ackers, 2022; Ligorio et al., 2025).

There is a growing expectation that SOEs engage with the SDG agenda, as their mandates are rooted in social advancement (Garde-Sanchez et al., 2018). Stakeholder expectations place pressure on SOEs to contribute meaningfully to the SDGs, and failure to meet these expectations undermines their legitimacy, especially amid ongoing governance challenges (Ligorio et al., 2025). Legitimacy and stakeholder theories offer valuable frameworks for understanding SDG reporting quality and the relationship between reporting practices and stakeholder perceptions (Manes-Rossi et al., 2021). While previous research has explored the connection between sustainability reporting and stakeholder theory, these studies have not specifically addressed SOEs or the SDGs, which this study aims to address (Casciello et al., 2025; Elrazaz et al., 2024; Esposito et al., 2025). By focusing on these gaps, the present study seeks to improve understanding of SDG reporting practices and identify areas where stakeholders should increase scrutiny of SOEs. Stakeholder theory is particularly relevant because it emphasizes the importance of considering social and environmental contexts in advancing organizational economic objectives (Esposito et al., 2025).

The United Nations SDGs were widely endorsed, with 193 nations committing to the 2030 agenda. However, this initial support has not translated into substantial progress, as many governments have not established governance mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability in SDG implementation (Manes-Rossi et al., 2021). There is a notable lack of sanctions, progress reports, and benchmarking by governments regarding national SDG performance (Erin et al., 2022b). This is particularly concerning given that a primary criticism of the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs' predecessor, was the absence of national-level frameworks and performance evaluations (Ligorio et al., 2025). Policymakers and scholars have acknowledged that a universal approach is insufficient for achieving the MDGs, as national contexts must be considered. Despite the adoption of the 2030 UN SDGs, many countries, including South Africa, still lack national governance frameworks to guide and promote SDG accountability (Donald and Way, 2016). Consequently, government agencies such as SOEs operate without national principles for risk management, data collection, system development, and reporting on SDGs (Leavesley et al., 2022).These governance deficiencies in SDG implementation motivate this study, which examines the quality of SDG disclosures by SOEs in South Africa, given the established link between effective governance and SDG reporting (Casciello et al., 2025).

Research shows that SDG disclosures in government organizations are often incidental, unstructured, and lack substantive detail, particularly in countries without robust national governance frameworks for SDG implementation and reporting (Abhayawansa et al., 2021; Kuswantoro et al., 2022). This raises concerns about the overall quality of SDG disclosures. In South Africa, policy makers acknowledge challenges in the implementation of policies designed to support SDGs, citing lack of resources and political will; evaluating the quality of the SDG content that brings about this conclusion is a crucial area of evaluation to add to policymakers' understanding. Additionally, the extent to which reported SDG information demonstrates SOEs' accountability remains unclear (Manes-Rossi et al., 2021). The findings of this research are expected to inform countries without national SDG governance frameworks by clarifying accountability challenges associated with deficiencies in SDG disclosure quality.

Although this research focuses on SOEs' annual and integrated reports – which do not directly address internal corporate management – the way organizations disclose their sustainability initiatives, including SDG contributions, offers valuable insights into their strategic objectives and intentions (Silva, 2021). The quality of SDG-related information serves as a key indicator of the extent to which SOEs integrate economic, governance, social, and environmental considerations into management practices and stakeholder engagement (Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015). Evaluating this indicator is essential, as evidence suggests that SOEs enhance SDG reporting to legitimize activities and maintain stakeholder trust (Kuswantoro et al., 2022).

This study responds to the need identified by Casciello et al. (2025) for a comprehensive evaluation of SDG reporting quality in the public sector, taking into account national-specific context to enhance transparency and accountability. The analysis examines SDG disclosures by South African SOEs, applying legitimacy and stakeholder theories to provide a nuanced understanding of the sustainability activities reported. The findings aim to inform stakeholders' decision-making by providing principles for analyzing disclosure and enabling more informed assessments of SDG information quality. Furthermore, the study offers policymakers and governance bodies’ recommendations on key areas for improving SDG reporting practices in SOEs, thereby equipping them with tools to strengthen accountability for sustainable development. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the alignment of SDG reporting with corporate governance and accountability; Section 3 presents the methodological approach; Section 4 details the results and concludes with a summary and suggestions for future research.

Achieving the SDGs requires enhanced corporate governance and robust accountability mechanisms (Saeed et al., 2025). Research on the SDGs is considered relevant and transformative when it accounts for the nationally specific context that shapes their implementation and the prioritization of certain goals over others (Abhayawansa et al., 2021). Emerging economies with scarce economic resources are expected to adopt the UN SDGs as a governance framework; however, little is known about the national contexts reflected in prioritized SDGs. There is a need for more studies to identify nationally specific sustainability development areas prioritized for quality, as this will inform stakeholders about the areas being focused on by those charged with governance of SOEs, thereby providing a tool for accountability (Abhayawansa et al., 2021). It is key because those charged with governance have been found to be important drivers of SDG and their conduct and p = adopted practices are positively associated with the quality of SDG information disclosed to stakeholders (Casciello et al., 2025). This topic is made more important because key stakeholders are increasingly paying more attention to sustainability factors when making financial decisions. SOEs that disclose quality SDG information, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions and forecast the SOE's future sustainability, stand a good chance of attracting investment to support their sustainable development goals, based on observed good governance. South African SOEs remain heavily indebted and reliant on government bailouts to sustain core functions, a situation driven by poor governance practices. An investigation into the quality of SDG disclosure is an important area that can shed light on the relevance of SDGs disclosures for accountability (Manes-Rossi et al., 2020).

The voluntary approach and insufficient guidance within the United Nations SDG framework for South African SOEs facilitate impression management in SDG reporting. In the absence of specific indicators or sanctions for unmet self-regulated objectives, both impression management and stakeholder accountability are compromised (Frutos-Bencze et al., 2024; García-Sánchez et al., 2020a, b). SOEs are often compelled to strategically adopt impression management tactics to influence positive external perceptions among stakeholders. Organizations engaging in sustainable practices are typically viewed favorably, prompting SOEs to employ impression management strategies to regain stakeholder support during periods of heightened public scrutiny (Crossley et al., 2021).

Strengthening stakeholder relations is essential to achieving the SDGs, as most of them address societal impacts (Nonet et al., 2022). In South Africa the National Treasury has implemented a fiscal policy to discontinue bailouts for SOEs due to concerns about financial mismanagement and non-compliance (Fourie and Blom, 2022). This policy shift reinforces the perception that key SOE stakeholders are dissatisfied with current sustainability efforts, underscoring the need for effective communication strategies to restore the organization’s reputation (Farneti et al., 2019). SOEs must demonstrate their commitment to sustainability through transparent public communication, which is vital for shaping perceptions of their dedication to sustainability issues. Annual reports remain a primary tool for SOEs to construct a desired image and inform stakeholders about governance and sustainability approaches (Manes-Rossi et al., 2021; Zhao and Patten, 2016).

The United Nations SDGs are designed to improve global livelihoods. South Africa, along with 192 other countries, has pledged to eradicate poverty, safeguard the environment, and foster peace by 2030 (UN, 2015). However, the absence of comprehensive governance frameworks and accountability mechanisms impedes progress toward these goals. Civil society organizations caution against self-regulation of SDGs, noting that the lack of national governance frameworks leads to significant accountability challenges (Bowen et al., 2017; Leavesley et al., 2022). SOEs have a diverse set of accountability forums to which they must account, including cabinet ministers, parliament committees, the national assembly, local and international capital providers, civil society groups, courts, and the auditor general (Bovens, 2007). This creates complex, sometimes conflicting obligations for those charged with governance of SOEs to explain and justify their actions to cater to diverse needs (Abhayawansa et al., 2021).

Research on the SDGs has identified governance challenges that hinder their achievement, including the failure to foster inclusive decision-making and stakeholder-inclusive planning (Farneti et al., 2019). Treating SDG activities as a collective responsibility, shared and endorsed by key stakeholders, is essential (Piazza, 2021). It is important for those charged with the governance of SOEs to give an honest account of their actions that have given rise to the SDG challenges being experienced, as accountability is an important pillar of effective governance (Bovens, 2007). The accountability form must scrutinize strategies and action plans for addressing financial and operational challenges that undermine the sustainability agenda and enforce consequences. Those charged with governance, as agents of the accountability forum, have a formal obligation to report on the attainment of the SDGs in their annual reports, as mandated by the National Treasury, in a manner that justifies the continued license to operate (Abhayawansa et al., 2021). It is envisioned that the outcomes of this report will be used by financial providers to assess return on investment, and that the auditor general will use it to enhance public accountability and oversight through auditing, ensuring fair and honest representation. Parliament committees use it to scrutinize those charged with governance on performance and service delivery to assess whether outcomes justify the public resources committed (Aucoin, 2012). This makes the annual report an important instrument that serves a range of accountability forum principals by informing them on sustainability conduct, as reflected in strategies, tasks performed, outcomes, and plans. The evaluation of the quality of SDG information disclosed in annual reports is important, as it serves as a tool for demanding answers from those charged with governance and enables accountability forum principals to pass judgment on the conduct towards the attainment of SDGs (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022).

The absence of a stakeholder-inclusive approach complicates the development of trade-offs that ensure fair and equitable outcomes in advancing the sustainable development agenda (Bowen et al., 2017). As a result, sustainability strategies may not resonate with stakeholders, reducing the effectiveness of planned programs (Lee, 2020). Management may struggle to account for sustainability programs that were not endorsed from inception, leading to operational decisions disconnected from the social actors the organizations are intended to serve. Establishing a link between stakeholders' social needs and organizational activities requires regular engagement to facilitate effective accountability (Ervits, 2023). Most SDGs require collaboration among diverse stakeholders, each contributing in different ways and often holding conflicting interests. Stakeholder engagement is therefore critical for building common understanding and alignment.

The lack of political will among organizations to invest in thoroughly researching opportunities and limitations for integrating sustainable development strategies often results in uninformed policies and disconnected sustainability initiatives that fail to reflect progress toward the SDG agenda (Caiado et al., 2018). This highlights that operational and reporting systems are not being redesigned to accommodate the SDGs, creating difficulties in tracking, collecting, validating, and reporting sustainability development data to stakeholders (Fonseca et al., 2023). These challenges hinder stakeholders' ability to make informed assessments of sustainability programs and activities, which is essential for accountability. To address these inefficiencies, management may report on sustainability performance targets and indicators that are not readily visible (Rusu et al., 2024). When targets are not well defined, it becomes easy to create the impression of achievement without actual progress (Adams, 2013). Such opportunities to report unreliable outcomes undermine the importance of the SDGs and facilitate the use of SDG reporting for impression management.

Organizations operate under specific mandates and limited resources, which necessitate trade-offs and co-benefits when developing SDG strategies and targets (Adams et al., 2014). The 17 SDGs are broad and far-reaching, resulting in inevitable tensions among them. Scholars noted that organizations that ignore these limitations in their reporting may convey to stakeholders that their sustainable development strategies lack honesty and intentionality. Transparent reporting on how such choices are made is essential. This study evaluates reporting quality using the performance indicator, emphasizing the need for organizations to explain and report on targets as a key aspect of accountability. When sustainable development targets are not prioritised, there are no clear consequences for non-achievement, leading to a lack of remedial actions. Accountability requires that stakeholders have access to information that can be benchmarked against stated targets, enabling trend and comparative analyses (Rusu et al., 2024). Such analyses are not possible if reporting fails to connect strategy, targets, activities, and outcomes. The focus on SDG disclosure provides stakeholders with a holistic understanding of the SOE's financial and non-financial governance, thereby enhancing accountability. Quality SDG disclosure reinforces stakeholder trust in the governance practices and in those responsible for directing SOEs. SDG disclosure can also be used by those charged with governance to reassure stakeholders of SOEs' sustainable path; it reflects attention to key priorities and to stakeholders' information needs. SDG disclosure quality is indicative of strategies, opportunities, and risks that help stakeholders make an objective assessment of the interplay between the SDGs, governance, and accountability. This gap is addressed by the current study, which assesses the quality of SDG disclosure in South African SOEs and will help stakeholders identify specific focus areas for SOEs towards the sustainability agenda.

These challenges indicate that achieving SDG accountability necessitates the development of national governance frameworks tailored to specific contexts, ensuring that governments are answerable for both actions and inactions (Abhayawansa et al., 2021). Effective systems should establish clear strategies, processes, monitoring, and reporting mechanisms, including sanctions for unmet objectives (Donald and Way, 2016). In the absence of a formal governance framework, SOEs lack direction, which impedes their capacity to report on SDG responsibilities, despite the centrality of SDGs to accountability (Ligorio et al., 2025).

Stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory are frequently applied in SOE sustainability reporting literature (Ackers and Adebayo, 2022; Argento et al., 2019; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020). Stakeholder theory posits that management is accountable to various stakeholder groups with interests in organizational performance (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2018). Transparency and accountability are central to this relationship, with information disclosure playing a critical role. SOEs are key drivers of sustainable development, and there is heightened expectation of transparency and accountability (Ackers and Adebayo, 2022; Argento et al., 2019). Accordingly, SOE disclosures should extend beyond compliance with global SDG reporting calls and provide substantive information that enables stakeholders to assess how changes in corporate strategy affect current and future performance (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022). A substantive approach to organizational reporting relies on high-quality disclosures that provide stakeholders with insight into strategy, internal processes, and practices that address sustainable development challenges.

Stakeholder theory suggests that managers are responsible for meeting stakeholders' needs, demands, and expectations while managing conflicting interests (Erin et al., 2022a, b; Fernando and Lawrence, 2014). Schedule 2 and 3B SOEs under the Public Finance Management Act of 1999 (PFMA, 1999) pursue both economic and public service objectives, resulting in a diverse stakeholder base with potentially conflicting goals (Kikeri, 2018) To address these conflicts and enhance stakeholder engagement, SOEs may be motivated to incorporate SDG information into their integrated or annual reports, as the SDGs are intended to address the interests of all organizational stakeholders (Erin et al., 2022a, b; UN, 2015). This practice can improve SOE transparency and accountability and reinforce their commitment to sustainable development (Dabbicco et al., 2025). Beyond stakeholder engagement, such disclosures can also enhance organizational legitimacy (Prencipe, 2025). However, SDG reporting may also be used to present an overly optimistic image of sustainable development that is disconnected from actual practices, serving as a tool for impression management and potentially misrepresenting the organization’s sustainability reality.

Legitimacy theory, in alignment with stakeholder theory, emphasises the significance of stakeholders' perceptions and the relationship between social expectations and organizational behavior for organisational viability and survival (Suchman, 1995). For SOEs, legitimacy is critical due to the social contract between these entities and citizens (Deegan et al., 2002). To legitimize their actions, facilitate stakeholder engagement, and address external pressures, SOEs can disclose SDG information in their annual or integrated reports (Adebayo, 2025). Such disclosures can also enable stakeholders to participate in sustainability decision-making, align services with stakeholder needs, and improve the quality of corporate decisions (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022; Farneti et al., 2019).

Achieving the SDGs requires a multi-stakeholder approach that involves government, civil society, business, communities, and capital providers, each offering distinct perspectives (Manes-Rossi et al., 2021). When governments formulate policies without broad consultation, the principle of stakeholder-inclusive governance is compromised, which can impede SDG progress. It is crucial to recognize the interconnectedness of the SDGs, as the framework is designed to produce mutually beneficial outcomes. However, advancing one goal may sometimes undermine another, creating tensions (Abhayawansa et al., 2021) Consequently, SDG governance frameworks should explicitly address these interconnections and manage trade-offs to prevent any single goal from being prioritised to the detriment of others.

The governance challenges associated with these SDGs must be addressed, especially for SOEs, given their mandated role in society. In South Africa, SOEs are subject to regulations under guidelines such as the Public Finance Management Act of 1999 (PFMA, 1999). They are viewed as a means to promote the socioeconomic progress of the nation (Chigudu, 2020; Fourie, 2014). Several SOEs, including ACSA, Broadband, and Telkom, were established with a developmental mandate in specific sectors to enhance service delivery effectiveness and efficiency to counter the effects of the international sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid era. Additionally, pre-apartheid, SOEs like Eskom, DBSA, and Armscor, were created to achieve economic independence during World War II (Fourie, 2001). SOEs play a crucial role in stimulating South Africa's gross domestic product (GDP) (Madumi, 2018).

South African SOEs report on SDGs primarily through integrated and sustainability reports, guided by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework and the United Nations SDG guidelines. The absence of a national-level framework for SDG reporting has resulted in a lack of clarity regarding progress, challenges, and specific targets (Ligorio et al., 2025). As a result, these reports often lack the substance necessary for stakeholders to effectively engage in decision-making processes that influence SDG commitments and, ultimately, their livelihoods. South African SOEs have been subject to public scrutiny for poor governance and business practices, raising concerns about their value-creation strategies and legitimacy (Kikeri, 2018; Madumi, 2018; Matsiliza and Block, 2017). Given that sustainability reporting remains largely voluntary (Hummel and Schlick, 2016; Tsalis et al., 2022), there is a risk that SOEs may use impression management strategies to shape stakeholder perceptions, potentially leading stakeholders to overestimate the organization’s commitment to societal norms (Michelon et al., 2015). Although this study does not directly examine impression management techniques, the quality of sustainability reporting may provide insights into their use.

The demand for sustainability reporting has grown in recent years, driven by increased public awareness of social and environmental concerns (Argento et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2014). Organisations increasingly acknowledge the significance of disclosing economic, environmental, and social impacts in annual or integrated reports, as such disclosures function as mechanisms for transparency and accountability (Widiarto Sutantoputra, 2009).

For SOEs, annual reports function as key communication tools with stakeholders, providing information on financial performance, service delivery achievements relative to strategic objectives, and future outlook (National Treasury, 2022; PFMA, 1999). These disclosures directly communicate the utilization of public resources for socioeconomic development. SOEs are expected to lead in managing and reporting sustainability issues, which is fundamental for building public confidence and trust (Argento et al., 2019; Kaur and Lodhia, 2019; Sawani et al., 2023b). SDG disclosures offer an opportunity to improve sustainability reporting by providing a widely recognised framework for sustainable development (Bebbington et al., 2017; Lau and Wong, 2022). In emerging economies, prioritising SDGs within the developmental agenda is essential for progress, making transparency and accountability imperative (Lau and Wong, 2022). SDG disclosure quality is an effective monitoring tool of the state of governance in SOEs; it reflects the effective use of scarce public resources to advance sustainable development. Consequently, its absence alerts stakeholders to governance failures with a lasting negative impact. South African SOEs have a well-documented history of financial mismanagement and corruption, rooted in poor governance practices, making it timely to assess SDG disclosure quality, as this will offer a lens into the ineffective use of public funds to advance sustainable goals. Governance is an important factor associated with the quality of SDG disclosure, as it reflects the commitment of those charged with governance to long-term sustainability, which safely guides value creation in the short, medium, and long term for key stakeholders. Governing bodies of SOEs with poor sustainability disclosures risk losing stakeholder favor due to their inability to govern sustainably. SDG disclosure quality is emerging as an essential tool for monitoring sustainability performance, necessitating studies examining its quality.

Many public organizations exhibit a lack of commitment to quality, sustainability, and comprehensive information disclosure, as demonstrated by the following reporting practices:

1. Deliberate emphasis on the extent of the disclosure at the expense of substantive and verifiable information

2. Deliberate selective emphasis of only positive actions while concealing negatives

3. Exaggerating disclosure on future commitments to address current or emerging sustainability challenges.

Organizations frequently use these strategies to create a misleading image that influences stakeholders' perceptions of their commitment to sustainable development, even when substantive actions are lacking. South African SOEs have been publicly criticized for not fulfilling their mandates and for poor financial performance (Matsiliza and Block, 2017). These issues highlight conflicts of interest and the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability, while also fostering an environment in which strategic SDG reporting is used to restore legitimacy (Matsiliza and Block, 2017). The current state of SOEs demonstrates that disclosure alone is insufficient to enhance transparency and accountability (Ackers, 2022). There is a need to prioritize high-quality reporting that delivers meaningful insights to stakeholders and effectively communicates SDG-related information (GRI 1, 2021; Michelon et al., 2015). The quality of SDG disclosures reflects the extent to which SOEs incorporate economic, governance, social, and environmental considerations into their operations and stakeholder engagement (Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015). High-quality SDG information is substantive rather than symbolic. In this study, substantive SDG disclosures are defined as concise, measurable, results-driven, action-oriented, understandable, balanced, and capable of enabling users to assess progress in SOE sustainability performance, in line with the quality framework outlined below (Adams et al., 2020; GRI 1, 2021; Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015). This perspective treats disclosure as a result of implementing comprehensive social and environmental management accounting systems (Michelon et al., 2015). Consequently, disclosures become informative, allowing users to evaluate both the social and environmental dimensions of corporate activities and the organization’s commitment to the SDGs (Michelon et al., 2015).

High-quality SDG information can increase stakeholder trust and credibility by reducing information asymmetry and exemplifying the highest standards of transparency and accountability, thereby demonstrating a genuine commitment to sustainable development (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Fernando and Lawrence, 2014; Silva, 2021; Tsalis et al., 2022). In contrast, symbolic SDG information is defined in this study as lacking substantive content, frequently comprising boilerplate, unbalanced, inaccessible, and mainly qualitative disclosures that do not offer meaningful insights into corporate sustainability progress. These generic disclosures are often designed to placate stakeholders while deflecting accountability for insufficient sustainability performance and avoiding commitments that could impact financial profitability (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015; O'Donovan, 2002).

In line with the view of Michelon et al. (2015), this study argues that the quality of disclosure relies on both the quantity of information revealed and the depth provided by supplementary details. The depth of SDG information can be considered as the degree to which the information aids stakeholders in understanding the social and environmental impact of corporate activities and deducing the management approach to sustainability Michelon et al. (2015). In essence, it emphasises not only the quantity but also the nature of the disclosed information and how it is presented (Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Michelon et al., 2015; Silva, 2021; Tsalis et al., 2022). This study therefore makes use of frameworks by Malola and Maroun (2019) and Michelon et al. (2015) for integrated reporting and corporate social responsibility disclosure respectively, to SDG disclosure. In line with their work, this framework involves a multi-dimensional examination of disclosure quality, making SDG information quality dependent on:

The objective of this indicator is to gauge the emphasis placed on SDG information relative to the total information presented to stakeholders in SOEs' integrated or annual reports (Malola and Maroun, 2019). This indicator highlights the value of non-financial information, which includes SDG information, in providing context to financial performance (Malola and Maroun, 2019; National Treasury, 2022). There is an inherent expectation that a significant portion of information in the integrated or annual report constitutes SDG information which can enhance SDG information quality (Adams et al., 2020).

However, while the volume of the disclosure can symbolise the importance (Chan et al., 2014); GRI 1 (2021) and Adams et al. (2020) recommend that for a report to provide clarity, it should be concise and not contain unnecessary and excessive detail that would obscure relevant information. Additionally, Malola and Maroun (2019) highlight that certain integrated or sustainability reports have faced criticism for their excessive length and repetitive content, which ultimately hinders the clarity of essential information and makes the reports challenging to comprehend. Taking this into consideration, the density indicator was developed based primarily on Malola and Maroun (2019) and Michelon et al. (2015) and is measured as the ratio of the number of sentences that deal with SDG content, controlled for repeated SDG sentences, to the total number of sentences in the integrated or annual report:

where: $DIi$ is the density indicator, $Ni$ is total number of SDG-related sentences in the report of SOE i, and $Ki$ is the total number of sentences in the report. The closer the DI score is to 1, the more SDG information is provided per unit of the report and the higher the apparent level of SDG information quality (Malola and Maroun, 2019). The density indicator penalizes reports that exhibit excessive elaboration by eliminating redundant disclosures, leading to a decreased DI score (Malola and Maroun, 2019). To achieve this objective, if multiple disclosures addressed the same SDG within the same context, they were considered only once in the calculation of the DI score ^[1] (Malola and Maroun, 2019).

The presumption is that users of sustainability reports have a preference for quantitative or monetary disclosures, considering them to be more comparable, less subjective, and easier to integrate into the mathematical models traditionally employed to express value (Malola and Maroun, 2019; Wiseman, 1982). Although qualitative disclosures offer stakeholders a comprehensive understanding of an organisation's value creation process, lacking quantification makes it challenging to demonstrate the effectiveness of the organisation in addressing key matters and to establish a relative scale for assessing the firm's performance in comparison to other industry members (Hummel and Schlick, 2016; Malola and Maroun, 2019).

By reporting monetary and quantitative SDG information, SOEs can provide concrete and objective data on their performance in relation to sustainability, thereby enhancing accountability and transparency to stakeholders (Ionaşcu et al., 2020; Nikolaou and Tsalis, 2013; Tsalis et al., 2022). Thus, disclosures that involve quantifiable or monetary values are perceived as having superior quality compared to disclosures that lack quantification (Malola and Maroun, 2019; Wiseman, 1982). Therefore, based on the approach used by Malola and Maroun (2019), Michelon et al. (2015) and Wiseman (1982), each sentence was coded as qualitative, quantitative or monetary as it was analysed. The MI was then computed for each SOE as the “ratio of the sum of the weighted value of all sentences that contain SDG information over the total number of SDG sentences contained in the report” (Michelon et al., 2015, p. 67).

where: $MIi$ is the measurement indicator; $Ni$ is the total number of SDG sentences in SOE i's report; $ni$ is a sentence with SDG disclosures; w = 3 for a sentence which is expressed in financial or monetary terms, 2 if non-monetary quantitative measures are used and 1 if qualitative measures are used. A higher MI score (ranging from 0 to 1) points toward a greater use of monetary or quantitative SDG disclosures and suggests higher quality SDG information (Malola and Maroun, 2019).

Firms ought to report not only their intentions but also the concrete actions taken to mitigate adverse environmental or social impacts and the outcomes of those actions (Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015; Rosati and Faria, 2019; Van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020). However, disclosure often leans more toward detailing strategies, plans, and intentions rather than emphasizing actual results (Michelon et al., 2015).

Sustainability disclosures can either convey standardized and generic statements about broad future expectations or existing policies and programs in place that are not supported by the results of those initiatives (boilerplate approach) (Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015). Contrastingly, disclosures can provide stakeholders with the company's objectives and goals accompanied by a report on the outcomes and results from actions taken to address stakeholders' needs. The latter form of SDG disclosures suggests that a company is providing readers with insights into the company's fundamental commitment to sustainability (a committed approach) (Michelon et al., 2015). Examples include the results of engagements with stakeholders, disclosures of steps already taken to reduce water consumption and the results of those steps (past information) or steps the company plans to take in future; in other words, specific goals or objectives to reduce CO₂ emissions (future information).

“Committed” SDG disclosures should be distinguished from those that merely touch upon an organisation's mission statement or exclusively address company policies without being substantiated by actual actions taken and their outcomes (Malola and Maroun, 2019). These boilerplate SDG disclosures encompass sustainable initiatives, involving specific agendas, philanthropic activities, or green strategies, even though they do not signify any consistent or tangible change in the firm's business strategies (Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020). These actions are more conspicuous and overt measures taken to gain legitimacy, such as involvement in voluntary environmental initiatives, awareness campaigns, or the creation of an environmental board committee (Michelon et al., 2015).

Table 1 is used to distinguish between boilerplate and committed SDG disclosures. The categorizations align with those employed by Malola and Maroun (2019) and Michelon et al. (2015). They assess whether or not a company is disclosing information about measures taken to ensure long-term sustainability in the reporting period, evaluating the outcomes, or a well-justified explanation of intended future actions (Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015). Therefore, the focus is on whether or not a company furnishes readers with insights into the organisation's fundamental commitment to sustainability (Michelon et al., 2015).

As the integrated or annual reports were analysed, each SDG sentence was assessed and categorized as boilerplate (expectations/desires or policies/strategies/program) or committed (objectives/goals or results/outcomes). As “committed” information is more useful to stakeholders than boilerplate disclosures, they are assigned a value of 1 and boilerplate information is scored 0 (Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015). Following Malola and Maroun (2019) and Michelon et al. (2015), the RI measures the ratio of the sum of all the “committed” SDG disclosures to the total number of SDG sentences in the report:

where: $RIi$ is the relevance indicator; $Ni$ is the total number of SDG sentences in SOE i's report; $ni$ is a sentence dealing with the SDG disclosures. $Sub$ is 1 if the sentence contains “committed” information and 0 if this is not the case. A score closer to 1 implies that most of the SDG disclosures represent a committed approach to sustainability and that SDG information quality is high. A score tending to 0 suggests lower-quality SDG information.

Michelon et al. (2015) note that for companies to fulfill their accountability, it is essential not only to report their intentions but also to disclose their results and subsequent performance. Quantifying indicators for sustainability performance or providing actionable SDG disclosures offers valuable insights to stakeholders, yet what proves even more valuable and useful is comparing these against well-defined targets or performance from previous years (Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015; Nikolaou and Tsalis, 2013; Tsalis et al., 2022). This is a notable indicator of higher quality sustainability reporting as it allows stakeholders to examine firms' sustainability performance and progress (Tsalis et al., 2022).

This indicator is particularly relevant for South African SOEs. They are required by the PFMA and Public Audit Act to incorporate a dedicated section, known as the Performance Report, in their annual or integrated reports (IRBA, 2011; National Treasury, 2022). The Performance Report is unique to SOEs, encompassing key performance measures and indicators to evaluate the entity's delivery of the desired objectives and outcomes (National Treasury, 2022). It also includes the entity's actual performance in comparison to the strategic objectives and outcomes (National Treasury, 2022). Performance information plays a crucial role in directing public and oversight bodies' attention towards evaluating whether SOEs are effectively delivering public services (National Treasury, 2007). This is achieved by comparing their performance against planned targets and budgets (KPMG, 2016; National Treasury, 2022).

As a result, adapted from Michelon et al. (2015), the disclosures of SDG results (see Table 1, “past information”) were further coded if they were compared to a benchmark in terms of space, time, or a specific goal/target in the report. Compared results receive a score of 1, and 0 if otherwise. The PI measures the ratio of all SDG sentences that contain compared results to all SDG sentences that contain results, that is, with or without comparisons:

where: $PIi$ is the performance indicator; $Ri$ is the total number of SDG sentences that disclose results in SOE i's report; $ri$ is an SDG sentence dealing with results. $Comp$ is 1 if the sentence contains comparable information and 0 if otherwise. The closer the PI score is to 1, from 0, the more disclosures are provided on SOEs' progress toward the SDGs, signaling higher disclosure quality.

A hallmark of a high-quality annual report, as noted by the National Treasury (2022) and GRI 1 (2021), is its presentation of both positive and negative information. This entails balanced reporting, highlighting successes while addressing shortcomings (National Treasury, 2022). Adams et al. (2020), in their SDG Disclosure Recommendations, express concerns that companies tend to emphasize positive impacts on the SDGs over negative ones. This tendency might also apply to South African SOEs, given their public scrutiny. In an effort to boost stakeholder confidence and legitimacy, these SOEs could potentially avoid disclosing negative outcomes and overly emphasize positive impacts in their reports (Boiral, 2016; Deegan et al., 2002; Melloni et al., 2016; Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2011; O'donovan, 2002; Schleicher and Walker, 2010).

From a stakeholder perspective, reporting both negative and positive impacts on sustainability factors helps build trust and credibility and SOEs can demonstrate transparency and accountability through this approach (Adams et al., 2020). This approach allows stakeholders to have a comprehensive and reasoned assessment of the organisation's overall sustainability performance and its commitment towards sustainable practices (Freundlieb et al., 2014).

With this in mind, and following Michelon et al. (2015), the disclosures of SDG results (see Table 1) were further coded as either negative, neutral or positive. The BI measures the ratio of SDG sentences that disclose negative results to SDG sentences that disclose positive results:

where: $BIi$ is the balance indicator, $Negri$ is the number of negative SDG sentences dealing with results or outcomes in the report of SOE i and $Posri$ is the number of positive SDG result sentences. The closer the score is to 1 the more balanced the SDG results are and the higher the apparent quality level of SDG information. In cases where a company disclosed more negative SDG results than positive, the ratio was inverted to $BIi=Posri/Negri$ in order to maintain the score range of 0–1. For example, if SOE A disclosed 75 positive SDG results and 125 negative SDG results, the score will be calculated as: $75(posri)/125(negri)=0.6$⁠.

To determine the quality of SDG disclosures, a quantitative content analysis approach was followed to capture qualitative SDG information from the integrated or annual reports of the SOEs (see Table 2). This method has been used extensively in analyzing SDG disclosure, e.g. (Ali et al., 2018; Buniamin et al., 2020; Calabrese et al., 2021; Erin et al., 2022a; Haywood and Boihang, 2021; Hummel and Szekely, 2022; Ionaşcu et al., 2020; Kuswantoro et al., 2022; Pizzi et al., 2021; Sawani et al., 2023a; Tsalis et al., 2020; Van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020).

The content analysis approach of this study involved the segmentation of text into meaningful units and coding and scoring them according to a set of criteria or well-established rules (Guthrie et al., 2004; Leedy and Ormrod, 2010). In quantitative content analysis, information extracted from the text is presented by expressing the frequencies in the form of percentages or actual numbers for key categories (Bengtsson, 2016; Krippendorff, 2004).

The population for this study represents the SOEs listed in the PFMA, since the PFMA makes it mandatory for all SOEs to submit an annual report (Ackers, 2022; PFMA, 1999). Public entities of the PFMA are classified into one of the three schedules based on their nature and level of autonomy (National Treasury, 2022). The sample of this study is confined to the SOEs classified as Major Public Entities in Schedule 2 and National Government Business Enterprises in Schedule 3B of the PFMA ( Appendix 1). Schedule 2 and 3B SOEs have the same characteristics in that they both operate under general business principles and are profit-driven, except that Schedule 2 SOEs possess extensive borrowing powers and have more autonomy as they operate in a competitive marketplace (National Treasury, 2022). The schedules selected comprise 21 companies each, however four of the Major Public Entities and three of the National Government Business Enterprises have not published 2022 annual or integrated reports ( Appendix 1) thereby reducing the sample size to 35 SOEs. Table 3 displays the number of annual or integrated reports that are included for the scope of this study.

The 2022 integrated or annual report for each SOE was analysed for this study as these were the most recently available reports. The reports were downloaded in PDF form from the SOEs' official online websites. The entire report and each SDG sentence was analysed in detail resulting in a time-consuming data collection process. Therefore, a smaller sample size was chosen to ensure sufficient time was given to each report allowing for more accurate results (Boddy, 2016; Dattalo, 2008; Mansoor and Maroun, 2016; Merkl-Davies et al., 2011). Further, the small sample size aligns with the exploratory study's aim, which is not to extrapolate results but to assess the quality of SDG information in the integrated or annual reports of South African SOEs (Malola and Maroun, 2019; Mansoor and Maroun, 2016; Merkl-Davies et al., 2011). The sampling strategy focused on SOEs that prepared annual reports in line with GRI and SDG frameworks; extending the sample to SOEs that fall outside this range would have undermined the quality of the data and the analysis.

Similar to the approach used by Michelon et al. (2015) and Malola and Maroun (2019), the researcher structured the process of gathering data into three stages. Given the flexibility offered by the content analysis method in constructing the analysis process, the stages of the analysis were developed to enable the identification of answers to the research questions (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Ionaşcu et al., 2020).

Following the content analysis approach, the unit of analysis was defined as individual sentences because they are generally considered more reliable than words, pages or paragraphs (Chan et al., 2014; Michelon et al., 2015). Furthermore, individual words were not selected, as they lack significance without a sentence to offer contextual understanding (Chan et al., 2014; Malola and Maroun, 2019).The information presented in a table was not ignored considering it can provide effective and relevant information (GRI 1, 2021). As a result, each line in a table was counted as one sentence (unless there were separate sentences within the table line, then those were counted individually). Pictures were not considered due to the inherent subjectivity of their nature, making it difficult to combine them with sentences (Chan et al., 2014).

One prerequisite for content analysis involves repeatedly reading the documents to gain a deeper understanding of the data (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Ionaşcu et al., 2020). Accordingly, during this phase, each SOE report was read in its entirety to create an overview of the documents and to pinpoint sections that were not related to the SDGs. Pages relating to the financial statements and the notes, table of contents, list of abbreviations and the external auditor's report were then deleted (see section 3.6 for more details on limitations and delimitations).

The coding procedure to capture the disclosure of SDG information was conducted on ATLAS.ti, a computer software that assists in qualitative analysis of large bodies of texts and graphics (ATLAS.ti, 2023). In the second phase, a list of codes was created on ATLAS.ti that contained the 17 SDGs and quality indicator definitions. In total, the list comprised 18 SDG and 12 quality codes. An additional SDG code was created because this study split the SDG 8 code into two separate ones, namely Decent Work and Economic Growth. Sentences that related to SDG 8: Decent Work were coded separately to those relating to SDG 8: Economic Growth. The idea is that it is more valuable to analyze this goal in further detail considering a critical mandate of SOEs in South Africa is to provide for employment as well as to stimulate economic growth (Chigudu, 2020; Fourie, 2014; Madumi, 2018).

In the third stage, the integrated or annual reports were uploaded onto ATLAS.ti and analysed individually ^[2]. It is important to emphasize that ATLAS.ti does not perform the coding work automatically; the researcher is still responsible for interpreting the texts (Hwang, 2008). Accordingly, for each report, the researcher analysed and manually applied the relevant codes to each individual sentence on the software. Figure 1 below provides a visual representation of how each sentence identified in the reports was coded. The blocks in blue represent the actual codes given to each sentence, and the purple blocks represent the code category.

For each report, when a sentence contained information about a specific SDG, it was coded as such. The same sentence was simultaneously coded according to the Measurement Indicator (qualitative, quantitative, or monetary), the Relevance Indicator (expectations/desires, policies/strategies/programs, objectives/goals, or results/outcomes) ^[3], the Performance Indicator (comparison) and the Balance Indicator (positive, neutral, or negative). These code definitions were drawn from the studies of Malola and Maroun (2019) and Michelon et al. (2015), as explained in  Appendix 2.

When coding for the SDGs, it was recognised that they are interconnected in various ways, meaning the accomplishment of one goal can contribute to the achievement of another (StatsSA, 2019). Therefore, if one sentence related to multiple SDGs, the number of applied SDG codes was limited to three SDGs per sentence, i.e. the top three SDGs that were most impacted by each case. This prevented having to determine the underlying SDGs that were indirectly affected by each sentence, thereby minimizing the subjectivity inherent in the data collection process (Malola and Maroun, 2019). There were some cases where a sentence directly referred to more than three SDGs; however this did not impact researcher subjectivity as these sentences were coded according to all the SDGs directly mentioned. Moreover, only SDG sentences that related directly to the company and its contribution were coded. For example, if a company stated “South Africa faces high levels of poverty” in its report, this was not considered to be an SDG-related sentence.

When coding for the Measurement Indicator, if a sentence included both monetary and quantitative information, it was coded as monetary (Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015). This approach circumvented the need to differentiate between the emphasis placed on monetary versus non-monetary quantitative matters in each recording unit, thereby reducing the subjectivity inherent in the data collection process (Malola and Maroun, 2019).

When coding for the Balance Indicator, this study only coded negative or positive results where a growth or decline was noted. Keywords such as “improvement”; “decline”; “positive”; “negative”; “increase” and “decrease” were used when evaluating the sign of the result disclosed. The coding process focused on information that was explicitly presented and readily apparent in the text without delving into deeper interpretations or underlying sentiments. This same logic was applied when coding for the other quality indicators. Assessing the tone or implied emotions was not the aim of this study as it could introduce complexity and subjectivity to the analysis (Cho and Lee, 2014). Furthermore, results disclosed in a table were regarded as “matter of fact” disclosures and were coded as neutral results for consistency purposes. A more comprehensive list of rules for coding the quality indicators can be found under  Appendix 2.

To collect data for Ease of Interpretation Indicator, a different approach was employed. To calculate the surface area of the reports as well as the infographics, an application called Notability was used. Notability is a versatile note-taking app that permits users to take handwritten or typed notes, annotate PDFs, and record audio (Tool Finder, 2023).

First, the integrated or annual reports were uploaded onto the app. To calculate the surface area of the report pages, Notability allows for the standardization of a page by providing paper size options (Notability, 2023). This study used the A4 size option as the standard paper size for each report. This allowed for consistency and removed potential measurement errors, making the data more reliable for analysis. The surface area of each report was thus calculated as the standardized page size multiplied by the number of pages in the report that were not deleted in phase 1. To calculate the surface areas of the infographics in each report, the Notability app has an embedded ruler that allows for the measurement of precise lines (Notability, 2023). Using this ruler, the length and breadth of each infographic was calculated.

While the researcher manually conducted the coding process within the software, ATLAS.ti served as a research assistant, helping to save time, particularly when dealing with extensive datasets (Hwang, 2008). This study analysed individual sentences from 35 reports, and ATLAS.ti made it more manageable to handle such a large number of units. Each time a sentence was coded, ATLAS.ti automatically processed that code into code frequencies (ATLAS.ti, 2023). Code frequencies refer to the number of times a specific code is applied throughout a report (ATLAS.ti, 2023). Furthermore, ATLAS.ti has a data analysis tool called Code Co-occurrence, which can be used to identify the number of instances where different codes have been applied together in a report (ATLAS.ti, 2023). The objective is to establish connections between codes that have been applied to the same sentences (ATLAS.ti, 2023). This analysis tool was used for identifying the frequency of quality codes that occurred for each SDG code, providing data for the analysis of reporting quality at the individual SDG level.

Once the data capturing was complete in phase 3, for each report the code frequencies from ATLAS.ti were recorded in Excel in a frequency table. A frequency table was also created for each SDG. ATLAS.ti also enables the export of the raw data to Excel, i.e. each individual sentence and the codes assigned to it (examples can be provided on request). In the frequency table – for each report, as well as for each SDG – the total number of sentences, as well as the number of repeated, qualitative, quantitative, monetary, boilerplate, committed, comparison, positive, neutral, and negative SDG disclosures were recorded. The total surface area of each report as well as the infographics were also recorded. To achieve validity the coding process was first piloted with six companies before the entire sample was analysed and three experienced researchers, who are part of the research and innovation committee at the university, reviewed the coding process and raised comments that were then factored into the entire sample. To guide against inter-coder problems, the second most experienced researcher coded the entire data, and one experienced researcher reviewed and provided guidance throughout the process. Where differences were noted, these were examined and resolved by the lead researcher who had more experienced in the methodological approach.

The data from the frequency tables was used to calculate each quality element score and the total quality score (SDGQ) for each SOE, at the specific SDG level (except for the EII). In order to prevent the influence of scale effects, the quality scores spanned from 0 to 1 (Malola and Maroun, 2019).

On average, five goals were prioritised under this indicator: SDGs 16, 9, 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and 17. SDG 16, with an average Density Indicator (DI) score of 0.42, was the most frequently disclosed in the annual reports. Table 4 demonstrates that SDG 16 was disclosed substantially more than all other SDGs, with a 62% increase compared to SDG 9 (DI = 0.26), the second most disclosed SDG. Persistent allegations of corruption have significantly undermined South African SOEs. Following the state capture report, which implicated SOEs in the deterioration of state institutions, there has been an increase in corruption-related disclosures aimed at restoring public trust and demonstrating accountability. Accountability demands that the agent be answerable to a principal, thus the focus on SDG 16 is part of the quest to provide explanations, display acceptable actions being taken to remedy corruption, and justify the license to operate to stakeholders using the SDG reporting framework. The prevalence of SDG 16 disclosures is partly attributable to the inclusion of dedicated corporate governance sections in all reports (Susilowati et al., 2022). Reports emphasize the competence of executives and board members, as deficiencies in leadership and ethical conduct have been identified as primary causes of weak SOE governance. Accountability is a fundamental pillar of good governance, which has been eroded in South African SOEs. Public trust and confidence in the leadership of SOEs has diminished, which demands more active and aggressive approaches in the form of disclosure to renew confidence by those charged with governance. The broad range of stakeholders associated with SOEs necessitates transparent disclosure of stakeholder relationships.

These results align with the strained relationships between SOEs and stakeholders resulting from institutional failures and unmet public expectations that pressure management to engage impression management techniques, such as defending their competence and policies (Roper and Schoenberger-Orgad, 2011). To rebuild trust and rehabilitate their image, SOEs emphasize disclosures related to stakeholder relations, (Roper and Schoenberger-Orgad, 2011, Madumi, 2018). Frequent disclosures regarding company culture and business ethics are warranted, given the history of corruption, financial mismanagement, and state capture investigations affecting the perceived poor tone of governance set at the top by the board of directors and management SOEs (Ackers, 2022) SOEs are also implementing quality management controls to address past inefficiencies and improve customer satisfaction, resulting in increased SDG 16 disclosures (see  Appendix 2 for details on SDG 16 disclosure types). A comparison of the average DI score (0.42) to the DI, excluding repeat disclosures (0.44) indicates that 5% of SDG 16 disclosures are repeated.

SDG 9 was the second most disclosed in the annual reports. The average DI of 0.26 and the ranking indicate that, on average, SOEs include a substantial amount of information related to SDG 9 compared to other SDGs. This is expected, as the majority of the sample SOEs are infrastructure-focused entities. A comparison of the DI score of 0.26 to the DI score excluding repeat disclosures (0.28) shows that 7% of SDG 9 disclosures are repeated. This repetition may reflect efforts to legitimise SOEs in the eyes of stakeholders by emphasizing actions taken to address the current state of public infrastructure, amid recent public outcry over its impact. The country's infrastructure is ageing, and there is a substantial backlog in maintenance and upgrades due to difficulties in securing capital for investment projects. Additional structural challenges, particularly in transport and freight, have arisen from inadequate management at Transnet, theft, and sabotage, which constrain export capacity (Havenga et al., 2023). The construction industry is projected to continue declining due to the energy crisis, supply chain disruptions, inflation, and a decrease in approved building plans. South Africa also lags in adopting new technologies and innovation, as reflected in its lower ranking on the Global Innovation Index compared to other countries in the region (Dobrzanski et al., 2021)/. These factors suggest a disconnect between the volume of disclosure and actual progress, indicating that disclosure may be used to create the impression of action despite limited tangible results.

SDG 8: Economic Growth, with an average DI score of 0.26, was the third most disclosed SDG in the annual reports. Similar to SDG 9, SOEs provide substantial information on Economic Growth relative to other SDGs. This emphasis aligns with the primary mandate of SOEs to address market failures and promote economic growth, for example, by supporting small, medium, and micro enterprises (SMMEs) (Madumi, 2018; NPC, 2011). Schedule 2 and 3B SOEs operate with a profit motive, and stakeholders are particularly interested in their financial performance, which contributes to the prominence of Economic Growth disclosures (Balbuena, 2014). (Additionally, issues such as wasteful expenditure, misappropriation of funds, and reliance on government support further justify the frequent disclosure of Economic Growth information (Ackers, 2022; Madumi, 2018; Matsiliza and Block, 2017) (see  Appendix 2). An overwhelming majority of SOEs are facing significant financial challenges, including declining profits, liquidity issues, misappropriation of funds, and reliance on government support (Vorster and Konstantinopoulos, 2020). Given these well-documented economic challenges, SOEs currently lack clear evidence of commitment to communicating the strategies and actions being taken to address them. Instead, economic information is highly dense with policy-level and historical details that are already public knowledge, undermining accountability. The absence of stakeholder involvement in shaping sustainability agendas undermines the achievement of sustainability economic objectives, as evidenced by the limited information on stakeholder engagement in economic matters.

Overall, the DI scores reflect a reasonable level of disclosure effort by SOEs. Achieving uniform disclosure across all SDGs is not feasible; therefore, prioritization based on relevance is appropriate. However, there is a need to improve disclosures related to SDGs 1 and 10, given their critical importance in the South African context that is with unprecedented 40% of the population living below the poverty line coupled with holding the unwanted status as the most unequal country in the world (Kerr, 2025).

Table 5 demonstrates that the scores do not vary significantly between the SDGs, as confirmed by the low standard deviation of 0.07. On average, nine SDGs were prioritised under this indicator: SDGs 5, 10, 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 1, 4, 3, 9, and 11.

SDG 5 was the only goal that achieved an MI score above the midpoint (0.50), with an average score of 0.54. In the annual reports, SOEs are making efforts to show quantifiable SDG 5 information compared to all other SDGs quantitative, disclosures relating to the number of males and females at each level of employment, monetary spending on training employees by gender, financial contributions to women-owned businesses, and the number of women-owned businesses supported were often found in the reports, contributing to heightened quantitative SDG 5 disclosures.

This ranking is interesting because other SDGs, such as SDG 8 and 9, are economic SDGs and are more likely to relate to quantitative details when compared to SDG 5, a social SDG (StatsSA, 2019). The findings paint a picture that economic information is highly dense with qualitative information (see Table 5), as it has higher levels of impression management because it affords management an opportunity to make excuses and justify performance. In a social SDG like SDG 5, it is evident that management see very little need to justify or make excuses for the gender inequalities because StatsSA has cited the gender inequality issues as a common South African challenge across sectors and industries (StatsSA, 2019). Narrative SDG information is typically voluntary in nature, and the information included in the narrative section of the annual report is not subject to the same strict auditing regulations as the financial section, which has to be audited mandatorily (Williams and Lodhia, 2021). This leads to other possible issues, such as the type and extent of disclosure, which is determined by management, and the qualitative information makes it difficult to verify, thereby allowing management to include information that they deem appropriate (Hassanein and Hussainey, 2015), thus making qualitative disclosures more susceptible to impression management (Leung et al., 2015). For example, for SDG 8: Economic Growth, it cannot be ignored that South African SOEs have been publicly criticized for displaying subpar financial performance, leading to challenges in meeting their growth mandates (Matsiliza and Block, 2017). Therefore, the SOEs' weak financial performance may be obscured through narrative justifications, highlighting the potential use of impression management by the SOEs (Leung et al., 2015). With SOEs opting for a qualitative reporting approach on Economic Growth, there is a possibility that the concrete and potentially material information regarding the challenges in economic growth could be downplayed or understated (García-Sánchez et al., 2020a, b).

SDG 10 ranked 2nd under this indicator. The MI score (0.50) is equal to the midpoint, and similarly to SDG 5; SOEs are making efforts to show quantifiable SDG 10 information compared to most other SDGs. This score makes more sense as SDG 10 is broader than SDG 5, incorporating other aspects of equality other than gender. For example, extensive quantitative disclosures were found relating to the average ages at each level of employment; the number of White, African, and Indian employees at each level of employment, monetary spending on external bursaries provided to the youth – particularly those vulnerable; monetary spending on training employees by gender, race, and disability, financial contributions to black- and women-owned businesses, and the number of black-owned businesses supported.

Overall, with the exception of SDGs 5 and 10, the average MI scores indicate that while SOEs provide some measurable details about their initiatives, most disclosures remain qualitative. These findings underscore the need to enhance the quantification of disclosures for each of the 17 SDGs to improve accountability and transparency to stakeholders (Nikolaou and Tsalis, 2013; Tsalis et al., 2022; Wiseman, 1982). Furthermore, the results demonstrate that disclosure quantity (DQ) does not necessarily reflect disclosure quality, and other quality dimensions should be considered (Malola and Maroun, 2019). For example, although SDG 5 ranked low under the DI score, SOEs provide more measurable details for this SDG than for others: Demonstrating commitment to the SDGs requires SOEs to disclose quantifiable indicators that enable stakeholders to evaluate the effectiveness of implemented strategies. Such information should provide a transparent roadmap for progress toward achieving the SDGs.

On average, there is no SDG that is prioritized in terms of relevance, as none achieved a score above the midpoint this indicates that most SDG disclosures consist of generic policies, programs, and mission statements rather than specific objectives and results, which suggests a lack of substantive disclosure and a possible attempt to build legitimacy through coverage (see Table 6).11 SDGs had a minimum score of 0, indicating that some SOEs are not disclosing any justified goals or actions taken to mitigate adverse effects on the SDGs or the results of those actions. Even SDGs with maximum RI scores are not well prioritised under this indicator. Legitimacy theory posits that symbolic actions are undertaken by organizations that demonstrate ceremonial compliance without genuine sustainability targets or activities, resulting in a lack of substantive information. This is evident in SOEs' reporting of non-substantive, non-quantifiable outcomes. Although reporting on SDG information is not mandatory in South Africa, all SOEs voluntarily report on the SDGs and include SDG-specific information in their annual reports. However, only a few SOE reports provide specific, substantive SDG objectives, targets, and progress indicators. Public expectations require SOEs to contribute to the sustainable development agenda, given their mandates to advance social and economic development, particularly for the most vulnerable. Consequently, SOEs may use SDG disclosure as a legitimacy tool through symbolic reporting, as indicated by the findings. Accountability requires SOEs to account for their actions, yet there is a significant underreporting of relevant actions, which undermines accountability.

Corporations often fail to link their sustainable development activities to their strategies, as evidenced in integrated or sustainability reports. They do not use the 17 SDGs to set sustainability objectives that inform their reporting systems, resulting in unclear activity tracking and inconsistent measurement against those objectives. SDG reporting is not guided by an intentional process; rather, information is compiled from various sources without coordinated systems in place from the strategy development stage. Reporting on sustainability targets and objectives is a key indicator of reporting quality, as it demonstrates a high level of stakeholder engagement. Overall, the findings indicate that SOEs focus more on disclosing philanthropic strategies, plans, and intentions regarding their contributions to the SDGs than on demonstrating consistent or tangible changes in business strategies (Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Michelon et al., 2015; Van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020). This pattern suggests that SOEs' actions are primarily aimed at gaining legitimacy, rather than reflecting genuine commitment to the SDGs (Michelon et al., 2015). There is a need to improve the disclosure of specific plans to address the SDGs and the outcomes of past efforts. A substantive approach to disclosure requires that stakeholders be provided with insights to assess the impact of strategy on current and future performance, which is currently lacking.

SDG 16 ranked last under this indicator, with a low average RI score of 0.10. In their annual reports, SOEs make less effort to demonstrate their commitment to achieving SDG 16 than to other SDGs. In their SDG 16 disclosures, SOEs provided information on their stakeholder relationships, but there was limited disclosure of the concrete actions taken to engage with these stakeholders. This finding suggests questionable quality of the SOEs' stakeholder engagement processes. Poor stakeholder engagement indicates a lack of an inclusive approach to the SDG agenda, thereby undermining accountability. When stakeholders are not engaged in SDG programs, management and those responsible for governance become the sole drivers of the development agenda. This means the information they account for is self-serving, as it was self-determined without meaningful stakeholder engagement. Public accountability relies on ensuring clarity about to whom accountability is owed. This is evident in the case of information on sustainable development, but the underlying stakeholders are not consulted, thereby undermining accountability. Moreover, the prevalence of unethical activities, such as the misappropriation of public funds through state capture, compelled SOEs to disclose the ethical policies they had implemented to address the loss of transparency and accountability within their organizations, which contributed to the increase in SDG 16 policy disclosures (Kikeri, 2018; Matsiliza and Block, 2017). Another notable instance related to 'objectives disclosed’ that certain SOEs would declare their intention to investigate matters involving unethical conduct but fail to disclose the steps taken to ensure a thorough investigation in the future, such as specifying who will be conducting the investigation, and so forth. The boards of directors and management of SOEs are failing to uphold good governance principles by not providing information on disciplinary hearings and investigation outcomes, while insisting that they are working to address corruption and sanctioning those responsible for transgressions. Equally, political leadership, in the form of ministers and parliamentary committees, lacks accountability to the public through annual reports, resulting in feedback not being provided to key stakeholders and in corrective measures and progress towards combating corruption remaining unseen.

On average, 5 SDGs were prioritised under this indicator, achieving PI scores above the midpoint (SDG 5 = 0.75; SDG 10 = 0.68; SDG 8: Decent Work = 0.60; SDG 8: Economic Growth = 0.59; SDG 1 = 0.53), indicating that the majority of results disclosed in relation to those SDGs were accompanied by comparisons with either a benchmark, prior year's performance, or a target (see Table 7). This is a positive reflection of SOEs' accountability practices, as benchmarked information enables stakeholders to conduct trend analysis and track the achievement of performance targets over time. This also suggests that SOEs take these 5 SDGs seriously, as evidenced by their willingness to be judged against comparative information.

SDG 5 ranked 1st under this indicator. The average PI score of 0.75 suggests a high level of performance reporting. On average, SOEs provide a high level of comparison of results related to Gender Equality in their reports. Examples of disclosures include the representation of women relative to men in leadership positions, percentages of women at all levels of employment relative to established targets, and training expenditures for women employees over time. The PI scores for SDG 5 range from 0 (minimum) to 1 (maximum); 12 (34%) SOEs achieved the maximum (1), which shows promising performance in relation to SDG 5 information quality (a detailed representation of all the SOE scores under each indicator for each SDG is available on request). SOEs perform well on this indicator for SDG 5. They should continue to emphasize the inclusion of performance-related SDG 5 information in their reports, ensuring that results are compared over time or against targets or benchmarks.

SDG 10 ranked 2nd under this indicator. The average PI score of 0.68 suggests that SOEs tend to provide a moderate-to-high level of comparisons with results related to Reduced Inequalities in their reports. Examples of disclosures include representation of White, African, and Indian women compared to men in leadership positions, percentages of disabled individuals at all levels of employment in relation to set targets, and training spend on employees by age, disability, race, and gender over time. SOEs perform relatively well on this indicator for SDG 10, thereby increasing the overall SDGQ. They should continue to emphasize the inclusion of performance-related SDG 10 information in their reports, ensuring that results are compared over time or against targets or benchmarks.

As noted above, SDG 5 and 10 disclosures were highly quantitative, which explains why they were easily comparable over time. It is evident that when data are readily available in quantitative form, such as employee statistics, SOEs are comfortable disclosing them to stakeholders. However, when the data require greater investment in modifying systems to support a comparative narrative, SOEs avoid it; this is a clear indication that reporting systems have not been adjusted to track SDG information quantitatively over time. This further suggests that decision-making on the SDGs is not scientifically driven, which paints a concerning picture of SOEs' overall sustainable development strategies and programs.

SDG 8 decent work ranked 3rd under this indicator. The average PI score of 0.60 suggests a moderate-to-high level of performance reporting. On average, SOEs tend to provide a moderate-to-high level of comparisons with results related to decent Work in their reports. Examples of disclosures include employee turnover over time (including the number of appointments and terminations), employee costs over time, salary increases or decreases, and employee diversity relative to established targets. SDG 8: economic growth ranked 4th under this indicator. The average PI score of 0.59 suggests that SOEs tend to provide a moderate level of comparison with results on Economic Growth in their reports. This is likely because Economic Growth result disclosures include SOEs' contribution to GDP, financial performance ratios, revenue or profit generated, operating costs incurred, and the number of SMMEs supported, which are commonly compared with prior-year performance or targets, thereby increasing the PI score. As discussed previously, the sampled SOEs have a profit motive, and stakeholders, particularly investors, the minister, and the government, are interested in knowing SOEs' financial performance and contribution to the country over time (Argento et al., 2019; Balbuena, 2014). The current performance of SOEs is placing pressure on elected parliamentarians during election campaigns. This phenomenon results in politicians being invested in meddling with strategic performance strategies and plans; those charged with the governance of SOEs must then prioritize positive qualitative disclosures, made at the expense of the public, to satisfy political leadership expectations, thereby diminishing accountability and the quality of SDG reporting. SOEs should thus continue to include performance-related economic growth information in their reports, ensuring that results are compared over time or against targets or benchmarks.

Providing performance-related information, especially comparisons of results, is crucial for stakeholders to assess the effectiveness of management's legitimate strategies, decisions, and actions (GRI 1, 2021; Michelon et al., 2015; Tsalis et al., 2022). A substantive approach to sustainability reporting provides stakeholders with information that enables reflection on development strategies, targets, and outcomes, facilitating assessment of progress toward the sustainability agenda. Such reporting should avoid superficiality, misrepresentation, and the omission of current or emerging challenges, as evidenced by reporting on South African SOEs. The analysis shows that SOEs are not disclosing the substantive actions they have taken to achieve SDG targets. SDG reporting remains largely a social construct aimed at stakeholders and often lacks evidence of substantive action. Socially and environmentally responsible behavior should be demonstrated by providing stakeholders with clear information on development targets, activities, and outcomes. When disclosure fails to achieve this, stakeholders cannot make informed judgments about SOE sustainability, which undermines accountability. Avoiding disclosure of results or current performance detaches reporting from measurable actions, making it superficial and symbolic. SOE operational activities and structures currently do not integrate SDG objectives and strategies, as shown by disconnected reporting and density scores (Adams et al., 2014). Claims about the SDGs must align with actual performance to prevent greenwashing, as evidenced by the limited emphasis on substantive performance outcomes.

There is little evidence of SDG integration into operational models. The SDGs are mentioned in annual reports, but SOEs do not integrate SDG activities and targets into their performance reporting, which limits their ability to make comparative performance disclosures against budgets and targets. This indicates a lack of substantive commitment to the SDGs. As Bovens (2007) Explains that accountability is essential for improving public confidence in governance arrangements; therefore, the lack of commitment to performance benchmarking may diminish stakeholder trust in governance strategies intended to address poor performance.

Only SDG 8: Economic Growth reflected balanced disclosure with a score above the midpoint (0.55). Overall, SOEs disclosed more positive than negative SDG results (see Table 8). For image-building and restoration purposes, management is more inclined to report “good news” and downplay or omit “bad news”. South African SOEs are under scrutiny for failing to fulfill their mandates, creating a conflict of interest between management and stakeholders: the latter require a transparent, balanced reflection of the status and future responses, while the former seek to portray an ideal corporate image. As the legitimacy of SOEs is under scrutiny, management presents more favorable information to regain favor, as observed in this study through the overwhelming imbalance in reporting. The SDGs cover economic, social, and environmental aspects, as do SOEs, which must serve not only economic but also social and environmental objectives. The results suggest that social and environmental elements are less balanced as more positive assertions are made, in the hope that stakeholders will recognize SOEs' efforts towards them and be sympathetic, which is a form of impression management. Merkl-Davies and Brennan (2011) observe that firms facing significant legitimacy threats often engage in unbalanced reporting that focuses heavily on positive aspects to restore legitimacy.

Furthermore, the lack of action plans impedes effective progress monitoring, and national governance policies that do not establish clear targets can weaken SDG accountability. Given that SOEs are currently under scrutiny and their performance is often viewed negatively, there are opportunities for impression management through the overemphasis of positive outcomes and the concealment of negative aspects to present the entity and its actions in the most favorable light, thereby maintaining stakeholder support. SOEs are mandated to justify their legitimacy as they are accountable for public goods and services (Kikeri, 2018; Matsiliza and Block, 2017).

On average, SOEs report a higher level of negative economic growth outcomes than other SDGs. This appears justified, given that many SOEs are experiencing revenue declines, escalating costs, and challenges such as cash constraints and limited financing (Balbuena, 2014; Madumi, 2018; Vorster and Konstantinopoulos, 2020). These factors collectively have a negative impact on their performance. These results indicate a high level of accountability in economic matters; however, this is not observed across the SDGs, which pertain to social and environmental dimensions. Reporting often emphasises successes while neglecting to disclose challenges. There is clear evidence that social and environmental issues have not been integrated into SOEs' strategies; yet their mandates are geared toward social advancement, and their plans and programs are submitted to capital providers and motivated by social advancement. It is therefore reflective of the poor SDG disclosure quality of social advancement initiatives that SOEs are not accounting to stakeholders objectively, suggesting that annual reports are used as a means to an end rather than as accountability tools as intended. Management is required to balance conflicting economic and social advancement objectives; it is concerning that this balance is not reflected in most SDG disclosures.

Overall, these results highlight the need for a more balanced account of progress toward the SDGs in annual reports, particularly for the least prioritised goals. Increasing the level of balanced disclosures could enhance credibility (Adams et al., 2020). To improve the quality of SDG information, SOEs should provide a comprehensive overview of their efforts, including successes, challenges, and areas for improvement. This approach would contribute to a more transparent and credible narrative (GRI 1, 2021; National Treasury, 2022). The analysis shows that SOEs primarily communicate favorable messages about their SDG initiatives and practices, indicating a reliance on self-promotion and impression management. Such practice indicates that the needs of communities are not at the center of SOEs developmental agenda, given that areas that have a direct impact on the citizens' lives in South Africa, such as poverty, hunger, and decent employment, are taking a back seat in the message reported by those charged with governance. This approach may not help SOEs gain legitimacy and influence stakeholder perceptions; true accountability requires comprehensive disclosure of all activities, not only those that enhance organisational image. Credibility is established by reporting the full range of sustainability activities, objectives, and outcomes rather than depending on impression management. Accurate and transparent reporting allows stakeholders to understand current limitations, leading to more balanced and informed assessments. Honest reporting is essential for establishing legitimacy, while deliberate concealment erodes stakeholder trust and intensifies existing challenges.

The mean score of 0.45 suggests that, on average, most of the SDG disclosures are symbolic rather than substantive, as they lack focus on comparable, balanced quantitative sustainability information (Emma and Jennifer, 2021; Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015; Silva, 2021; Van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020) (see Table 9). Typically, generic disclosure is presented to satisfy stakeholders while deflecting accountability for inadequate sustainability performance and evading any commitment to change the business model to incorporate sustainable development strategies and actions (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990; Malola and Maroun, 2019; Michelon et al., 2015; O'donovan, 2002).

No SOE achieved a score above the midpoint score (0.5) and well below the maximum possible score (see Table 9). The overall low quality suggests that accountability is not being achieved. Central to this fact is that it remains unclear, primarily, what information must be disclosed, which leads to the phenomenon of unnecessary information being disclosed, in effect, to deflect and legitimise the institution's efforts. The annual report is used to justify sustainable development actions without regard for stakeholder social needs; there is an overemphasis on economic growth and infrastructure, and areas such as hunger and poverty, which continue to negatively impact South Africans, are not prioritised in quality terms. This finding suggests that SOEs continue to place excessive reliance on economic information at the expense of accountability regarding social and environmental matters. This may be related to the lack of consequences for SOEs that fail to meet social advancement targets, and to financial capital consequences for failing to meet financial performance targets. Political oversight bodies, such as parliamentary committees and the auditor general, should place greater emphasis on social advancement outcomes so that SOE governing bodies can provide honest, detailed accounts of social advancement programs and cease using them for window dressing. And it is through government political structures guided by political ideologies that South Africa's SOEs get government guarantees and bailouts, putting political leadership at the center of ensuring that not only economic outcomes are prioritized but also social and environmental. The results suggest that politicians are not prioritizing oversight of social advancement promises by SOEs in their oversight duties, thereby contributing to the lack of SOEs' reporting on these commitments. There is a need for a clear governance framework to guide management in identifying the key areas to focus on when communicating sustainability information to their stakeholders. There appears to be an emphasis on ensuring coverage of all areas, with little regard for the quality of information required by key stakeholders. This diminishes accountability and the overall value of annual reports as instruments for communicating information on sustainable development.

The low standard deviation of 0.05 indicates a relatively consistent low level of quality across the sampled SOEs. The relatively consistent SDG information quality across entities, as indicated by the low standard deviation, implies a degree of uniformity in poor reporting practices among the sampled SOEs (National Treasury, 2022). Ultimately, the majority of SOEs disclose sustainable development information that is symbolic and lacks substance, resulting in undermining the expected use of annual reports to account to stakeholders. However, the evidence suggests that annual reports are used to mislead stakeholders into believing that work is being done on the Sustainable Development Goals, when in fact this is not the case, thereby undermining the reliability of SDG information in their integrated or annual reports. This reinforces the call for policymakers to issue specific national guidance on reporting sustainable development information.

Given that SOEs play a crucial role in promoting sustainable development, it becomes essential to assess and acknowledge their contributions to this endeavor carefully (Chigudu, 2020; Sawani et al., 2023a). Effectively integrating SDG-related information into reporting cycles forms part of this contribution (UN, 2015). In terms of disclosure quality (SDGQ), SDG 8: economic growth received the highest priority, while SDG 14: life below water received the least. This suggests a clear trade-off that prioritizes economic growth disclosure quality, with other SDGs related to social and environmental advancement sacrificed. SOEs need to acknowledge the interconnections among SDGs and adopt a fair and balanced approach to their reporting practices. There is a need for future studies to evaluate the rationale for a strong bias toward some indicators at the expense of others. On average, SDG 16: peace, justice, and strong institutions dominates the density of SDG information, with SDG 2: zero hunger being the least mentioned. SDG 5: gender equality featured the most quantitative disclosures, whereas SDG 14: Life Below Water had the highest proportion of qualitative disclosures. Regarding relevance, SOEs appeared most dedicated to SDG 8: Economic Growth, followed closely by SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 5: Gender Equality, whereas SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions contained the most irrelevant and unsubstantiated disclosures. SDG 8: Economic Growth presented the most balanced mix of positive and negative disclosures, whereas SDG 2: Zero Hunger placed the least emphasis on negative disclosures. Lastly, in terms of performance reporting, SOEs most prominently showcased their progress on SDG 5: gender equality and least on SDG 15: life on land. The Relevance Indicator emerged as the most subpar indicator for each SDG, indicating that SOEs often provide stakeholders with information that is not relevant to their mandates, making it difficult for stakeholders to assess performance in relevant areas.

The prioritization of goals suggests that SOEs may not fully consider the needs of all relevant stakeholders, particularly social and environmental ones. It may instead focus only on financial providers who emphasize economic information that they perceive as holding greater importance (Fernando and Lawrence, 2014; Garde-Sanchez et al., 2018; Nicolò et al., 2020). The oversight structures, such as parliament committees, audit committees, and ministers, who are the primary users of annual reports for oversight purposes, are found not be demanding quality reporting on social advancement, which explains the poor disclosure in this regard. Given South Africa's current social situation, it is fair that stakeholders should demand higher-quality information on social SDGs, especially since SOEs' mandates and strategies are underpinned by social advancement. Those charged with governance of SOEs must recognize the significant impact of their conduct on social and environmental sustainability, and this must be reflected in the quality of disclosures made (Lau and Wong, 2022; NPC, 2011). By doing so, stakeholders can objectively assess the information provided without being burdened by irrelevant material, thereby improving accountability. The study's results indicate that, as a collective unit, SOEs could benefit from a stakeholder-focused approach to reporting that defines key sustainable development areas in consultation with stakeholders and focuses on the quality communication of this information. By so doing, the SOEs will present information that is not perceived to be for legitimizing their economic state and building, but that responds to the social advancement needs of stakeholders, which the results suggest have been largely neglected in terms of quality, and by extension, suggests a low level of accountability by SOEs on social matters. When SOEs are subject to increased scrutiny, annual reports must reflect a greater regard for stakeholders to achieve improved accountability outcomes.

The study contributes to the growing body of research on SDG reporting in the public sector. At an empirical level, this study is among the first to define and evaluate the quality of SDG information reported by South African SOEs in the public sector. The suggested quality framework serves as a valuable tool for both scholars and professionals interested in assessing and appraising specific components of report quality (Malola and Maroun, 2019). From a practical perspective, the results indicate that the SDG information disclosed by SOEs is largely symbolic, consisting of boilerplate, unbalanced, and inaccessible content, and is primarily qualitative, providing little insight into the progress of corporate sustainability performance, particularly on social initiatives. This indicates low levels of accountability, as specific and measurable outcomes do not support the disclosure of SDG targets, and there are no sanctions. The findings of this study are relevant to policymakers in developing national-level guidelines for SDG reporting and in applying sanctions to SOEs that deviate from these guidelines. The political leadership must use these findings to demand accountability for plans and outcomes aligned with the social mandate of SOEs. While acknowledging the inherent trade-offs among SDGs, their rationale must be explained to stakeholders to enhance accountability. Economic and social sustainability performance must carry equal weight, and this can be enforced by capital providers, parliamentary committees, and ministers. Simply stating that the SOE reports on SDG information, without providing measurable social and environmental data, suggests that symbolic information is being used to support assertions aimed at gaining social legitimacy by highlighting economic outcomes.

This study recommends that tools be developed and that sustainability strategies be disclosed to stakeholders through clear targets, progress reports, and reliable information on social, economic, and environmental factors aligned with the SOEs' mandate.

This study finds that the relatively low-quality scores across South African SOEs, despite references to the SDGs in their reports, indicate there is no genuine commitment to the SDG 2030 agenda beyond the obligation to appear compliant. The results point to SDG-washing practices, with no evidence of the integration of SDG activities or of changes in SOE strategies. Symbolic assertions are made without substantive actions or results. The study has limitations, as it examined only one year and a single jurisdiction; future research should collect comparative data across multiple years to determine whether these practices persist over time. Comparative studies across different jurisdictions are also needed.

The study recommends that South African policymakers encourage SOEs to provide substantive information in their SDG reporting. This may include issuing guidance notes that specify requirements for disclosing sustainability strategies, modifying operational systems, and integrating sustainability activities. Balanced and comprehensive information should be prioritised to address current deficiencies. Practitioners should enhance stakeholder engagement in developing sustainable development strategies and targets, and report periodically on progress toward shared objectives. Stakeholders are encouraged to demand greater relevance, performance, balance, and measurability in SDG information.

This points to the influence of policymakers (in this case, the National Treasury) for prescribed standard reporting guides and how the guides encourage symbolic reporting. The findings of this study call for improved reporting guidelines from policymakers and standard-setters. To tackle this issue, further investigation is needed to identify barriers to high-quality SDG reporting and offer practical suggestions for preparers. Standard-setters and academics may also have to concentrate on creating additional guidance, such as procedures for collecting, analyzing, and reporting various data types, to encourage the incorporation of more quantified and comparable data to achieve substantive disclosures in integrated or annual reports (Malola and Maroun, 2019). An alternative perspective suggests that the low disclosure quality may reflect the well-known challenges faced by South African SOEs and thus not indicate a trend toward achieving the SDGs through corporate reporting.