Reporting What Matters, or Reporting What Looks Good? Materiality and Balance in Post–Rana Plaza Apparel Sustainability Disclosure

Abstract

Sustainability reports (SRs) are widely criticized for vague disclosures and selective emphasis on positive outcomes, yet systematic research on two core SR challenges remains limited: materiality (whether disclosed content is relevant) and balance (whether both achievements and challenges are reported). Drawing on legitimacy and signaling theory, this study examines 322 reports from 69 apparel companies over 7 years following the Rana Plaza disaster, including a 101-report firm-level subsample affiliated with the Bangladesh Accord and Alliance. We apply a novel pipeline combining SBERT-based thematic alignment against SASB material topic benchmarks with VADER sentiment analysis. Among the firms most directly implicated in the disaster, we find a striking prioritization of environmental issues over labor concerns—an unexpected pattern most consistent with a legitimacy management strategy of emphasizing less politically contested terrain. Across all topics and both analytical levels, reporting tone is significantly and increasingly optimistic, a problematic pattern we interpret as sector-wide rhetorical optimism rather than proof of deliberate misrepresentation. These findings advance the SR literature methodologically and theoretically, and offer a replicable framework for policymakers, assurance providers, and standard setters seeking to monitor SR quality and target verification efforts.