Search results

This paper aims to examine sites of dissonance or consensus between global investor responses to the draft standards, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 (IFRS) (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

A thematic content analysis was used to capture investor views expressed in their comment letters submitted in the consultation period (March to July 2022) in comparison to the ex ante position (issue of draft standards, March 2022) and ex post summary feedback (ISSB staff papers, September 2022) of the ISSB.

There was investor consensus in support of the ISSB and the development of the draft standards. However, there were sites of dissonance between investors and the ISSB, notably regarding the basis and focus of reporting (double or single/financial materiality and enterprise value); definitional clarity; emissions reporting; and assurance. Incrementally, the research further highlights that investors display heterogeneity of opinion.

The ISSB standards will provide a framework for future sustainability reporting. This research highlights the significance of such reporting to investors through their responses to the draft standards. The findings reveal sites of dissonance in the development and alignment of draft standards to user needs. The views of investors, as primary users, should help inform the development of sustainability-related standards by a global standard-setting body apposite to current policy and future reporting requirements, and their usefulness to users in practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the comment letter literature, hitherto focused on financial reporting with a relative lack of investor engagement. Using thematic analysis, sites of dissonance are examined between the views of investors and the ISSB on their development of sustainability reporting standards.

Integrated reporting enhances the meaningfulness of non-financial information, but whether this enhancement is progressive or regressive from a sustainability perspective is unknown. This study aims to examine the influence of the Integrated Reporting (<IR>) Framework on the disclosure of financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information in integrated reports.

Using a disclosure index constructed from the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 Guidelines and UN Sustainable Development Goals, the authors content analysed integrated reports of 40 companies from the International Integrated Reporting Council’s Pilot Programme Business Network published between 2015 and 2017. The content analysis distinguished between financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information.

The extent of sustainability-related disclosures in integrated reports remained more or less constant over the study period. Impact-material disclosures were more prominent than financial material ones. Impact-material disclosures mainly related to environmental aspects, while labour practices-related disclosures were predominantly financially material. The balance between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures varied based on factors such as industry environmental sensitivity and country-specific characteristics, such as the country’s legal system and development status.

The paper presents a unique disclosure index to distinguish between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures. Researchers can use this disclosure index to critically examine the nature of sustainability-related disclosure in corporate reports.

This study offers an in-depth understanding of the influence of non-financial reporting frameworks, such as the <IR> Framework that uses a financial materiality perspective, on sustainability reporting. The findings reveal that the practical implementation of the <IR> Framework resulted in sustainability reporting outcomes that deviated from theoretical expectations. Exploring the materiality concept that underscores sustainability-related disclosures by companies using the <IR> Framework is useful for predicting the effects of adopting the Sustainability Disclosure Standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, which also emphasises financial materiality.

Despite an emphasis on financial materiality in the <IR> Framework, companies continue to offer substantial impact-material information, implying the potential for companies to balance both financial and broader societal concerns in their reporting.

While prior research has delved into the practices of regulated integrated reporting, especially in the unique context of South Africa, this study focuses on voluntary adoption, attributing observed practices to intrinsic company motivations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study to explicitly explore the nature of materiality in sustainability-related disclosure. The research also introduces a nuanced understanding of contextual factors influencing sustainability reporting.

This paper aims to critically examine the conceptualisation of the principle of materiality, which is one of the most divisive concepts in current regulatory work on standard setting for sustainability reporting. This paper pays particular attention to the current agenda for standard setting for sustainability reporting and the related discourse, including the International Sustainability Standard Board (ISSB) Exposure Draft IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. A new conceptualisation of materiality is proposed based on the critique.

The academic and grey literature relating to current regulatory work on sustainability reporting, responses to the ISSB General Requirement Exposure Draft and sustainability reporting frameworks and standards are reviewed. This review also includes the papers in this journal’s special issue on standard setting for sustainability reporting. This review is used to develop original views on how materiality could be conceptualised and interpreted for sustainability reporting. This paper’s viewpoint is built on the criticisms of various definitions of materiality found in the literature and the author’s original critique of the materiality definitions provided in various reports and standards/frameworks on sustainability reporting.

Both financial materiality and double materiality approaches have drawbacks. A single materiality approach underpinned by accountability for financial and non-financial capitals instead of decision usefulness for any stakeholder is proposed. The proposed conceptualisation is also underpinned by the need to recognise dependencies between the environment, society and organisations when creating long-term enterprise value. The proposed approach is expected to trigger real changes in organisational practices to pursue a purpose beyond profit.

The proposed approach to defining materiality for sustainability reporting bridges the divide between financial materiality and social and environmental materiality concepts underpinning different standards and regulations.

The approach to materiality proposed in this paper is aimed at enabling organisations to pursue United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to make the planet and societies more sustainable.

This paper proposes a new conceptualisation of and approach to materiality determination for sustainability reporting.

This paper aims to provide empirical evidence on formal stakeholder participation (or “lobbying”) in the early phase of the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB’s) standard-setting.

Drawing on a rational-choice framework, this paper conducts a content analysis of comment letters (CLs) submitted to the ISSB in response to its first two exposure drafts (published in 2022) to investigate stakeholder participation across different groups and jurisdictional origins. The analyses examine participation in terms of frequency (measured using the number of participating stakeholders) and intensity (measured using the length of CLs).

Preparers and users of sustainability reports emerge as the largest participating stakeholder groups, while the accounting/sustainability profession participates with high average intensity. Surprisingly, preparers do not outweigh users in terms of participation frequency and intensity; and large preparers outweigh smaller ones in terms of participation intensity but not participation frequency. Internationally, stakeholders from countries with a private financial accounting standard-setting system participate more frequently and intensively than others. In addition, country-level economic wealth and sustainability performance are positively associated with more participating stakeholders.

This study is of interest for organizations and stakeholders involved in or affected by standard-setting in the field of sustainability reporting. The finding of limited participation by investors and from developing countries suggests the ISSB take actions to enhance the voice of those stakeholders.

The imbalances in stakeholder participation that were found pose potential threats to an important aspect of the input legitimacy of the ISSB’s standard-setting process.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to explore stakeholder participation by means of CLs with the ISSB in terms of frequency and intensity.

Motivated by the growing and urgent demands for a unified set of internationally accepted, and high-quality environmental, social and governance (hereafter ESG) disclosure standards, this exploratory study aims to propose a roadmap for setting out the proper technical groundwork for global ESG disclosure standards.

An exploratory study is conducted to gain initial understanding and insights into establishing a worldwide set of standards for reporting on sustainability, as this topic has not been extensively studied. This study examines the viewpoints of various stakeholders, including sustainability practitioners, academics and organizations focused on ESG issues, to generate knowledge that is more solid than knowledge produced when one group of stakeholders work alone.

The results revealed that there is an ongoing and incompatible debate regarding several conceptual and practical challenges for setting a unified set of ESG disclosure standards.

The study results provide multidimensional insights for regulatory parties and standard-setters to develop a high-quality package of global ESG reporting standards. This, in turn, enables different groups of stakeholders to understand the firm’s impact on the environment, society and economy.

Research into this timely and relevant global issue is considered an appealing area of study and deserves significant attention. Thereby, working on this topic merits remarkable attention. Furthermore, this exploratory article provides valuable and informative suggestions for creating a unified and high-quality set of internationally accepted sustainability reporting standards.

This paper aims to reflect on the future of sustainability reporting standards by examining the current practical initiatives and the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) position in the arena of non-financial and sustainability reporting and identifies avenues for future research.

A critical reflection and analysis of research on the GRI’s achievements and the influence of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation’s initiative to develop global sustainability reporting standards.

The GRI has a dominant position in sustainability reporting standard-setting related to the provision of information about the influence of reporting organisations on society and the natural environment. The IFRS Foundation’s initiative to enter the sustainability reporting standard-setting arena, although from the perspective of providing information to investors regarding the influence of society and the environment on the reporting organisation, is an attempt to solidify its own position as the reporting standard setter of choice, not only for financial reporting but for all reporting standards. However, despite its aim to differentiate its role from the GRI by leveraging the financial-oriented ideological side of double materiality, we argue that the IFRS is unlikely to harm the GRI’s global position in producing multi-stakeholder standards for sustainability reporting and accountability. This differentiated position is facilitated by the different sources of legitimacy the GRI and IFRS rely on.

The paper identifies future research opportunities.

Due to the recent initiatives for creating new sustainability reporting standard-setters, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper offers one of the first critical reflections on the past and the likely future of the GRI and its sustainability reporting standards. The paper also identifies several new avenues for future research.

This paper aims to critically reflect on the formation of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), its current agenda and likely future direction. The authors consider the relationships between the ISSB and other standard setters, regulators, practitioners and stakeholders, and develop a comprehensive research agenda.

The authors review and critically analyse academic and practitioner publications alongside the ISSB’s workplans to identify the themes impacting the future of the ISSB and to develop a research agenda.

Three key themes emerge from the authors’ analysis that are likely to influence the future of the ISSB: the jurisdiction and scope of the ISSB – how far its influence is likely to extend, both geographically and conceptually; the ongoing legitimacy challenge the ISSB is facing in terms of setting an agenda for sustainability reporting; and the “capture” of sustainability reporting by influential stakeholders including capital providers.

The formation of the ISSB is critical to the future of sustainability reporting. The authors provide a comprehensive and topical overview of the past, present and potential future of the ISSB, highlighting the need for further research and providing a research agenda that addresses outstanding questions in the field.

This study aims to examine the association between board characteristics (namely, diligence, independence, gender diversity, size and expertise) and sustainability-related disclosures (SRD) in Malaysia.

A robust SRD index of 409 items is used to derive SRD scores for 56 Malaysian listed companies from 2018 to 2020, yielding 168 observations. Pooled ordinary least squares is applied to test the research hypotheses and model.

The authors find that board members in audit committees and female board members show a significant relationship with SRD, casting doubt on the widely held belief that other board characteristics (such as size, diligence, independence and expertise) independently impact SRD. However, the authors find that market influence (firm value) and firm size are associated with SRD.

SRD is at its nascent stage, and companies are cherry-picking on what to report, as evidenced in the SRD scores. Regulators and policymakers must recognize the complex interplay between various factors impacting SRD for the timely issuance of comprehensive rules for firms to comply. The regulators’ drive for more female board representation can be a boost to enhance the sustainability agenda for Malaysian listed companies. The SRD scoring template can be used on post-2020 data to investigate the sustainability maturity of Malaysian listed companies.

The authors evidence that SRD practice is in the early stages of maturity using the comprehensive SRD scoring template. Although the findings contradict prior studies, the authors believe this is driven by the robust SRD measure based on the latest Global Reporting Initiative and Bursa rules.

This study aims to examine the influence and behaviour of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG)/European Commission, and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation/International Sustainability Standards Board in the standardisation of sustainability reporting arena and their implications for the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) current position.

This paper draws on the arena concept, particularly the work of Renn (1992) and Georgakopoulous and Thomson (2008), to explore the EFRAG and the IFRS Foundation’s behaviour towards the standardisation of the sustainability reporting arena and their implications for the GRI’s current position. Further, the documents and public releases pertinent to the activities and output of the GRI, the EFRAG/European Commission and the IFRS Foundation are used. The documents are screened and analysed based on the key elements of arena concept that emerged, which includes “agenda, claims, network of bodies and group engaged, interaction and behaviour with arena issues (audience, materiality, scope and core priorities, purpose of reporting and relevance to sustainable development)”.

This study reveals the source of motivation and influence of the new standard setters in the sustainability reporting arena and documents the relevance of their behaviour as an actionable strategy to change the arena rule. Particularly, this paper demonstrates the perceived fall away from driving business behaviour towards the pursuit of sustainable development if the GRI and its standards cease to exist.

The pathway to achieve sustainable development and improve sustainability impact disclosure remains a debatable issue among policymakers and users of sustainability reporting standards. This study reconstructs the awareness of different dynamics at play inhibiting the harmonisation of sustainability reporting standardisation and the importance of the GRI in pursuing global sustainable development.

The pattern of behaviour and agenda of sustainability institutions and influential standard setters harnessed in this paper are aimed at enabling the existence of the rules that can uphold the primary focus of the sustainability reporting arena, particularly in achieving global sustainable development.

This paper furthers the understanding of the importance of the GRI in upholding the key tenets and traditional agenda of sustainability reporting and sustainable development.

This paper aims to contribute to the development of the European Union (EU) regulatory environment for sustainability reporting by analyzing how materiality is defined in the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and by examining the added value and challenges of legalizing reporting and materiality requirements from both regulatory and practical company perspectives. It provides insights on whether this is reflected by EU pharmaceutical companies and to what extent companies report information on their materiality analysis process.

Doctrinal analysis was used to examine regulatory instruments. Qualitative document analysis was used to analyze companies’ reports. The added value and challenges were examined using a governance approach. It focused on legalizing reporting and materiality requirements, with a brief extension to corporate management and organization studies.

Materiality has evolved from a vague concept in the NFRD toward double materiality in the CSRD. This was reflected by the industry, but reports revealed inconsistencies in materiality definitions and reported information. Challenges include lack of self-reflection and company-centric perceptions of materiality. Companies should explain how they identify relevant stakeholders and how input is considered in decision-making.

Managers must consider how they conduct materiality assessments to meet society’s expectations. The underlying processes should be explained to increase the credibility of reports. Sustainability reporting should be seen as a corporate governance tool.

This work contributes to the literature on materiality in sustainability reporting and to the debate on the need for a holistic, society-centric approach to enhance the sustainability of companies.