Search results

Although the association between sustainability assurance (SA) quality and firm value has been examined in previous studies, the moderating relationship is novel in this study and highlights the effect of corporate environmental sustainability performance (CESP) on the relationship between SA quality and firm value. This study aims to examine whether such an effect is strengthened or weakened by eco-efficiency, as measured by ISO 14001 certification, aggregate CESP score and each individual dimension of CESP (emission reduction [ER], resource reduction [RR] and product innovation [PI]).

The sample includes 40 companies in Euronext Paris with the largest market capitalisations (the Cotation Assistée en Continu 40 [CAC 40] index) from 2010 to 2020. The authors apply the feasible generalised least squares regression technique to estimate all the regression models. Because observed associations may be biased by reverse causation or self-selection, the authors use the instrumental variable approach and Heckman two-stage estimation.

The results show that SA quality had a positive and significant effect on firm value. Second, the authors demonstrate that CESP, as assessed by ISO 14001 certification, has a stronger interaction with assurance quality and acting as a moderator variable. Using the ASSET4 scores, an alternative proxy for CESP, the authors find inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of CESP attributes. The CESP and ER scores are homogeneous and have a positive effect on firm value. However, the PI and RR CESP attributes are not homogenous and do not have the same interactive effect on firm value. The results are robust to the use of an instrumental variable approach and the Heckman two-stage estimation procedure.

Policy implications: Regulators may be interested in the findings when considering current and future assurance requirements for sustainability reporting, and shareholders when considering SA as an investment choice criterion. The insights into and enhanced understanding of the incentives for obtaining high SA quality can help policymakers develop effective policies and initiatives for SA. Considering the possible improvements in sustainability performance when obtaining a high level of sustainability verification, governments need to consider mandating SA.

Firms receive clear confirmation of the importance of investing in SA quality. Financial markets do not evaluate SA dichotomously but reward companies with higher SA quality because of the greater credibility it provides. Firms should allocate a significant percentage of their annual budgets and other relevant resources to environmental training and development programmes to improve and maintain environmental performance. If they care about environmental issues, they must announce this by issuing sustainability reports and seeking assurance of the information disclosed. High-quality assurance not only has a significant effect on investors’ investment reliability judgements but also the perceived credibility of environmental performance fully moderates the effect of assurance on these judgements.

This study has social implications; the authors find that the French market rewards firms that provide a high-quality assurance to guarantee the integrity of their sustainability reports. Therefore, by incorporating environmental sustainability into their financial goals, a better assurance ultimately will urge firms to move from green washing to strategic goals, which is beneficial for society. Further, firms that focus on sustainability as part of their business strategy may attract employees who engage in green behaviours at work and create a friendlier and productive environment because it gives meaning to the work they do and keeps them engaged to the level needed to perform their jobs capably.

This study contributes to the literature by re-examining the relationship between SA quality and firm value. It also provides new evidence on the moderating effect of CESP on the SA quality–firm value nexus. Specifically, it explores the joint effect of credibility and eco-efficiency on market confidence in sustainability information.

This study aims to examine the effect of sustainability report quality (SRQ) on information risk. This research also aims to examine the effect of SRQ on stock market participation through information risk.

The research sample includes 120 firm-years listed on the Sri Kehati Index period of 2017–2021. The hypothesis test uses firm and industry effect regression analysis. SRQ is measured by the existence of a sustainability committee and external assurance. The information risk is measured by bid-ask spread. Stock market participation is measured by volume of stock trading.

Based on the data analysis, this investigation finds that SRQ reduces information risk. This research also finds that SRQ improves stock market participation by reducing information risk.

First, this examination gives new evidence of SRQ to promote information environment improvement. Second, this examination contributes to providing the role of SRQ in an emerging market, such as Indonesia. Third, this examination contributes to providing the evaluation standard for sustainability reporting quality in Indonesia, since Indonesia has no specific standard for the sustainability report. Fourth, this examination contributes to filling the previous gap.

This paper aims to analyse the impact of the European Union (EU) Directive on the quality of sustainability reporting under the institutional theory lens. Specifically, the authors evaluate what kind of institutional pressure has the highest impact on the quality of corporate disclosure on sustainability issues.

The authors build a quality index based on the content analysis of sustainability information disclosed, before and after the transposition of the Directive, by Italian and Spanish companies belonging to different industries. The authors use an OLS regression model to analyse the effect of coercive, normative and mimetic forces on the quality of the sustainability reports.

The results highlight that normative and mimetic mechanisms positively affect the quality of sustainability reporting, whereas there is no evidence regarding coercive mechanisms, indicating that the new requirements do not provide a significant contribution to the development of better reporting practices, at least in the two analysed countries.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the few studies assessing the quality of sustainability reporting through an analysis involving the period before and after the implementation of the EU Directive. It enriches the literature on institutional theory by analysing how the different dimensions of isomorphism affect the quality of information disclosed by companies according to the EU requirements. It contributes to a better understanding of the impact of the non-financial information Directive, and the results of this paper can be relevant for regulators, practitioners and academia, especially in view of the adoption of the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive proposal.

This paper aims to examine the effect of corporate integrity and external assurance on Sustainability Reporting Quality (SRQ) of Malaysian public listed companies.

The study uses a longitudinal sample of 2,463 firm-year observations of non-financial firms listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia from 2015 to 2019. The study employed panel regression that is, Fixed Effect (FE) Robust Standard Error estimation technique to test its hypotheses.

The panel regression results reveal that corporate integrity and external assurance positively and significantly influence the quality of sustainability reporting. Though the positive association shows an improvement in the SRQ of the sampled firms, it needs an improvement as the disclosure is more general and qualitative than quantitative. The present improvement in SRQ might result from some regulatory changes like the Sustainability Practice Note 9 Updates of Bursa Malaysia 2017 and the Revised MCCG Principle A to C within the same period.

The study adopts a purely quantitative approach and call for a qualitative investigation in the area in the future.

The study has policy implication for the government and regulators to strengthen compliance with the sustainability reporting guide and the Practice Note 9 Updates. It also has implication for corporate integrity and external assurance for companies, to enhance SRQ and achieve sustainable development.

The study bridged literature gaps by offering new insights and empirical evidence on the role of corporate integrity in SRQ, which has received no empirical attention in the Malaysian context.

This study examines the effect of the environmental sensitivity of firms on the relationship between integrated reporting (IR) quality and sustainability performance. Prior research works focus on the nexus between IR quality and sustainability performance with little attention to factors that moderate this relationship.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) and other robust estimations are employed to analyse the data of firms on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE).

This study finds a positive association between IR quality and sustainability performance. However, the strength of this relationship is found to be weaker among environmentally sensitive firms, thereby raising concerns that such firms may be reporting less sustainability information with the mandatory implementation of IR on the JSE.

The findings highlight the need for regulatory bodies to consider additional sustainability disclosure requirements for firms in environmentally sensitive industries.

The findings should make regulatory bodies aware of the possible actions of environmentally sensitive firms in relation to sustainability information within a mandatory setting of IR.

The study extends the existing literature on IR and sustainability performance by considering the effect of firm environmental sensitivity as a moderating factor.

In recent times, stakeholders have called on corporate organizations especially those charged with governance to embrace full disclosure on non-financial issues, especially sustainability reporting. Based on this premise, this study aims to examine the influence of corporate board and assurance on sustainability reporting practices (SRP) of selected 80 firms from 8 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

To measure the corporate board, the authors use both board variables and audit committee variables. Also, the authors adapted the sustainability score model as used by previous authors in the field of sustainability disclosure to measure SRPs. The analysis was done using both ordered logistic regression and probit regression models.

The results show that the combination of board corporate and assurance has a positive and significant impact on the sustainability reporting practice of selected firms in sub-Saharan Africa.

The study places emphasis on the need for strong collaboration between the corporate board and external assurance in evaluating and enhancing the quality of sustainability disclosure.

The study bridged the gap in the literature in the area of corporate board, assurance and SRP of corporate firms which has received little attention within sub-Saharan Africa.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the impact of corporate attributes like a company’s profitability, size, age, leverage and board size on companies’ sustainability reporting as measured through India’s new business responsibility and sustainability reporting (BRSR) framework.

A random sample of 130 companies was taken from the top 1,000 listed companies on the National Stock Exchange. Sequential mixed methods research approach was used to prepare a sustainability quality index. Then, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the impact on the quality of reporting by Indian companies.

Interestingly, the analysis revealed that traditional metrics like age, profitability, board size and leverage did not have significant associations with reporting quality. Rather, the size of a company in terms of market capitalisation was found to have a strong positive impact on sustainability reporting.

This was a cross-sectional study, as time series data for BRSR reporting is not yet available. Also, only five parameters were taken for analysis. Lastly, subjective judgment in content analysis may be involved.

This suggests that only larger companies in India are prioritising sustainability reporting over smaller ones. It affirms the legitimacy and stakeholder theory in the Indian context.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the first endeavours to assess the efficacy of the new Indian BRSR framework and test its primary objectives. Furthermore, significant implications have been given for managers to catalyse and reinforce the sustainability momentum down the lane across companies of all sizes in India.

This study aims to contribute to the emerging debate about materiality with novel insights about the signaling effects related to the disclosure of environmental, social and governance (ESG) information using the guidelines released by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB).

An empirical assessment using panel data analysis was built to evaluate the relationship between sustainability reporting standards and analysts’ forecast accuracy.

The analysis revealed that the proliferation of sustainability reports prepared on mandatory or voluntary basis mitigated the signaling effects related to the disclosure of ESG information by companies. Furthermore, the additional analysis conducted considering sustainability reporting quality and ESG performance revealed the existence of mixed effects on analysts’ forecasts accuracy. Therefore, the insights highlighted the need to consider a cautionary approach in evaluating the contribution of ESG data to financial evaluations.

The practical implications consist of identifying criticisms related to disclosing ESG information by listed companies. In detail, the analysis underlines the need to enhance reporting standards’ interoperability to support the development of more accurate analysis by investors and financial experts.

The analysis reveals increasing attention investors pay to socially responsible initiatives, confirming that financial markets consider sustainability reporting as a strategic driver to engage with stakeholders and investors.

This research represents one of the first attempts to explore differences between GRI and SASB using an empirical approach.

Information infrastructures can enable or constrain how companies pursue their visions of sustainability reporting and help address the urgent need to understand how corporate activity affects sustainability outcomes and how socio-ecological challenges affect corporate activity. The paper examines the relationship between sustainability reporting information infrastructures and sustainability reporting practice.

The paper mobilises a socio-technical perspective and the conception of infrastructure, the socio-technical arrangement of technical artifacts and social routines, to engage with a qualitative dataset comprised of interview and documentary evidence on the development and construction of sustainability reporting information.

The results detail how sustainability reporting information infrastructures are used by companies and depict the difficulties faced in generating reliable sustainability data. The findings illustrate the challenges and measures undertaken by entities to embed automation and integration, and to enhance sustainability data quality. The findings provide insight into how infrastructures constrain and support sustainability reporting practices.

The paper explains how infrastructures shape sustainability reporting practices, and how infrastructures are shaped by regulatory demands and costs. Companies have developed “uneven” infrastructures supporting legislative requirements, whilst infrastructures supporting non-legislative sustainability reporting remain underdeveloped. Consequently, infrastructures supporting specific legislation have developed along unitary pathways and are often poorly integrated with infrastructures supporting other sustainability reporting areas. Infrastructures developed around legislative requirements are not necessarily constrained by financial reporting norms and do not preclude specific sustainability reporting visions. On the contrary, due to regulation, infrastructure supporting disclosures that offer an “inside out” perspective on sustainability reporting is often comparatively well developed.

This paper aims to examine the processes of sustainability reporting assurance (SRA) and the influence they have on shaping perception from disclosures. Given the evidence of inconsistencies and ambiguities in assurance processes, this paper examines how legitimacy is attained and maintained at different stages of SRA.

Evidence collected from 23 semi-structured interviews with assurance providers (APs), consultants, professionals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (non-APs) was used to conduct a thematic analysis from the perspectives of interviewees.

APs and non-APs are united in recognising the value of SRA, although, perspectives on transparency between the two groups differ. Experience and industry knowledge are essential to SRA delivery with non-APs preferring accounting APs. Nevertheless, non-APs are concerned about the role of companies in deciding assurance scope, as it can affect scrutiny. APs favour data accuracy (as opposed to data relevance) assurance due to team dynamics and internal review influences, with the latter also restricting assurance innovation. APs are interested in accessing better evidence and stakeholder engagement evaluations. Providing advisory services was not rejected by all APs. The perspectives of APs and non-APs demonstrate how progress in SRA has gained pragmatic legitimacy with noticeable gaps that serve to undermine attainment of moral legitimacy.

SRA is a developing practice that will adopt changes as it continues to mature; some of these changes could impact findings in this research. General perspectives on SRA were sought from interviewees, this affected the ability for an in-depth focus on any of the range of interesting SRA issues that arose over the course of the research. Interviews were conducted with relevant parties in the SRA space that operate in the UK. Perspectives from parties outside the UK were not solicited.

Companies make an important decision to commission SRA. Findings in this research have highlighted specific non-APs issues of concern that can be useful in structuring operations and reporting regimes to facilitate assurance procedures. The findings will also be helpful to APs as they can direct more emphasis on stakeholder concerns towards demonstrating greater stakeholder accountability. Regulatory and standard setters can enact appropriate policies that can potentially drive the practice forward for assessment of cognitive legitimacy.

The findings provide relevant account of stakeholder voices on the quality of corporate disclosures that has a direct effect on the wellbeing of communities and sustainability of societies. Collective stakeholder input on expectations can shape sustainability discourse.

This research demonstrates the applicability of financial audit quality indicators in SRA processes, extends the debate around the effectiveness of new audit fields and highlights the challenges of maintaining legitimacy with different audiences.