Search results

In recent years, three-dimensional (3D) seismic base isolation system has been studied extensively. This paper aims to propose a new 3D combined isolation bearing (3D-CIB) to mitigate the seismic response in both the horizontal and vertical directions.

The new 3D-CIB composed of laminated rubber bearing coupled with combined disk spring bearing (CDSB) was proposed. Comprehensive analysis of constitution and theoretical derivation for 3D-CIB were presented. The advantage of CDSB is that the constitution can be flexibly adjusted according to the requirements of the bearing capacity and vertical stiffness. Hence, four different combinations of CDSB were designed for the 3D-CIB and employed to isolate nuclear reactor building. A comparative study of the seismic response in terms of seismic action, acceleration floor response spectra (FRS), peak acceleration and relative displacement response was carried out.

3D-CIB can effectively reduce seismic action, FRS and peak acceleration response of the superstructure in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Overall, the horizontal isolation effectiveness of 3D-CIB was slightly influenced by vertical stiffness. The decrease in the vertical stiffness of the 3D-CIB can reduce the vertical FRS and shift the peak values to a lower frequency. The vertical peak acceleration decreased with a decrease in the vertical stiffness. The superstructure exhibited a rocking effect during the earthquake, and the decrease in the vertical stiffness may increase the rocking of the superstructure.

Although the advantage of 3D-CIB is that the vertical stiffness can be flexibly adjusted by different constitutions, the vertical stiffness should be designed by properly accounting for the balance between the isolation effectiveness and displacement response. This study of isolation effectiveness can provide the technical basis for the application of 3D-CIB into real engineering of nuclear power plants.

This paper seeks to explore the gaps between regulatory requirements and authoritative guidance regarding climate disclosure in Australia; reporting practices; and the demands for increased disclosure and standardization of that disclosure.

The Draft Reporting Framework of the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) is used to develop a scoring system against which the climate disclosures of one large Australian company that has received awards for its disclosure record are assessed. Relevant theories of voluntary disclosure are used to explain the findings.

The results of this analysis indicate an inadequate amount of disclosure in this company's reports about some aspects of climate change impacts and their management. Further, the disclosures that are made tend to lack technical detail and are somewhat skewed towards the more positive aspects of climate change impacts and management.

These findings are based on just one large Australian company that has received commendations for its climate disclosure record, and may therefore not reflect the climate disclosure practices of other Australian companies.

The results of this case study appear to support calls for increased guidelines for the disclosure of climate change related information and greater standardization of reporting. Several potential policy options for doing this are assessed.

The paper uses an objective measure to assess climate change disclosures which was developed for this research. The results are expected to be useful for informing the continuing debate around the regulation of and/or provision of guidance to Australian companies about the disclosure of climate change related information.

Purpose/Aim: Over the last quarter of a century, several voluntary frameworks and non-financial reporting standards have been developed by various initiatives and organisations. Especially after the 2008 financial crisis, which deepened into values crises, the need for evaluating social, environmental, and economic consequences and herein for non-financial disclosures accrued. This chapter aims to outline the current state in the ecosystem for non-financial reporting and its projected future developments and suggests further developments in this field. Since financial institutions played a negative role in the crises and will be important in future responsible investing, the authors also addressed some financial institutions’ specific non-financial issues.

Method: In search of an answer to our questions about whether existing non-financial reporting pronouncements meet (various) stakeholders’ expectations and whether international pronouncements are needed, we rely on triangulation. We start with the identification of phenomena of non-financial reporting. Description of phenomena is further on supplemented with a literate overview. Based on a review of prior research and study of the current framework’s pros and cons, we present a possible path of further development in non-financial reporting. Making that mixed-methodological approach is used (i.e. deductive and inductive reasoning).

Results/Findings: The authors deduce that there has been a substantial increase in demand for non-financial information, social responsibility ratings and other non-financial information services on behalf of preparers, users of such reports and the public. The authors particularly highlight the shortcomings that currently exist and outline the characteristics that future international non-financial reporting frameworks would have to meet with the awareness that such framework or standards will have their advantages and disadvantages. As seen by the authors, the main problem is how to achieve political consensus and then general acceptance by users.

Originality/Significance: The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation has become active in the field of non-financial reporting and started a project to become an internationally recognised standard-setter. However, with many mandatory or voluntary initiatives being started in this field, IFRS Foundation will need to address many challenges and ambiguities to become a leading organisation in non-financial reporting. Therefore, the research question is whether a new board, comparable to the International Accounting Standards Board, with the straightforward task of setting non-financial reporting standards would be needed in the future.

This paper problematizes TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) reporting in a way that demonstrates areas where academic research can contribute towards realizing the transformative potential of this unique form of sustainability accounting in its early stages of development.

The paper proposes a number of research agendas for impactful interdisciplinary research into new forms of corporate reporting of sustainability risks, opportunities and dependencies.

There are several major challenges that both reporting corporations and investors need to address in realizing the potential of TCFD style risks, opportunities and dependencies reporting. Key among these is developing new practices of climate-related scenario analysis and reporting.

There is potential for many different academic research studies to provide solid evidence in helping improve the practical impact of TCFD style sustainability reporting. These impacts may assist in moving corporate policies and actions towards zero carbon.

This is the first agenda-setting paper that addresses the need for, and opportunities of, academic research into TCFD reporting and its potential to transform corporate accounting and reporting of sustainability.

Purpose – This chapter reviews the influence that institutional investors have on corporate climate change disclosures and related reporting regimes.

Approach – We overview recent research undertaken by the authors that provides evidence of the influence of institutional investors on voluntary reporting of climate change information in annual and sustainability reports. In addition, this chapter considers the influence of institutional investors on climate change disclosure regulation and the use of climate change information by investors.

Findings – The material presented in this chapter indicates that institutional investor coalitions have been internationally influential in determining the extent and content of climate change disclosures of large corporations. The CDP annual questionnaire has been particularly influential. The influence of other initiatives such as development of the CDSB reporting framework is not yet clear. Further, the ability of institutional investor coalitions to influence the regulation of climate change disclosure is uncertain, since most national governments have not yet headed requests for greater regulation.

Research implications – Several avenues for future research are identified including a consideration of the trade-offs between investor information demands, costs of compliance and a desire for concise reporting; investor decision making processes as well as the impediments to use of the information currently available; and the validity of the perception that increased disclosure requirements assists with driving emissions reductions and ensuring adequate consideration of climate change risks.

Value – The material presented in this chapter is expected to be useful for informing the continuing debate around the regulation of and/or provision of guidance to companies about the disclosure of climate change related information to investors and other stakeholders.

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of developments in the field of voluntary corporate non-financial and sustainability reporting and disclosure (VRD). The assessment is grounded in the empirical material of a three-year research project on integrated reporting (IR).

Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework structures the arguments in this paper. By investigating local phenomena and the extant literature, the authors glean insights that they later critique, drawing on the empirical evidence collected during the research project. Transformative redefinitions are then proposed that point to future opportunities for research on voluntary organisational disclosures.

The authors argue that the mainstream approaches to VRD, namely, incremental information and legitimacy theories, present shortcomings in addressing why and how organisations voluntarily disclose information. First, the authors find that companies adopting the International IR Council’s (IIRC, 2021) IR framework tend to comply with the framework only in an informal, rather than a substantial way. Second, the authors find that, at times, organisations serendipitously chance upon VRD practices such as IR instead of rationally recognising the potential ability of such practices to provide useful information for decision-making by investors. Also, powerful groups in organisations may use VRD practices to establish, maintain or restore power balances in their favour.

The paper’s limitations stem directly from its aim to be a critical reflection. Even when grounded on empirics, a reflection is mainly a subjective effort. Therefore, different researchers could come to different conclusions and offer different lessons from the two case studies.

The different rationales the authors found for VRD should make a case for reporting institutions to tone down any investor-centric rhetoric in favour of more substantial disclosures. The findings imply that reporting organisations should approach the different frameworks with a critical eye and read between the lines of these frameworks to determine whether the purported normative arguments are achievable practice.

The authors reflect on timely and relevant issues linked to recent developments in the VRD landscape. Further, the authors offer possible ways forward for critical research that may rely on different methodological choices, such as interventionist and post-structuralist research.

The paper uses theoretical conceptions of power and orchestration to analyse the role of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue on the global standardisation of sustainability reporting.

The paper adopts an interpretive approach and draws on a qualitative dataset derived from interviews, documentary analysis and observation.

The paper traces how the Corporate Reporting Dialogue was orchestrated by the International Integrated Reporting Council, with the objective of aligning sustainability reporting standards, but moved to become a vehicle for orchestrating standards consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure. Collaboration between the Dialogue's five most active bodies forged the blueprint adopted by the International Sustainability Standards Board's vision of sustainability reporting that prioritised reporting only on those socio-ecological issues deemed to materially affect future enterprise value.

The paper explicates the role of collaborative initiatives in the standardisation of sustainability reporting and shows how these initiatives act as vehicles to subtly undermine the GRI position (presented as one standardiser amongst many whose vision appears as an outlier, despite its position as the dominant sustainability reporting standardiser), and establish the prioritisation of a sustainability reporting worldview based on investor-oriented enterprise value creation. The case also draws attention to the specific orchestrators involved in establishing this prioritisation, and reveals the influence of philanthropic foundations. In doing so, it extends our understanding of legitimacy generation in standard-setting by showing how collaborative initiatives offer private standardisers another means to generate input legitimacy for what, in this case, represented a vision of reporting at odds with most sustainability reporting practice. Finally, the paper extends the sites of power to collaborative initiatives and details the mechanisms through which covert power is exercised but also masked where orchestrators use convening power, funding and membership choices to define the boundaries of discussion by influencing who participates, what is on the agenda and what activity is undertaken. Rather than viewing standardisation as a simple pursuit of conquest between individual standardisers, the paper considers how collaboration provides the opportunity for assimilation.

Climate change is one of the most major risks facing today’s companies. Evaluating the climate change risks and opportunities which are related to a company’s operations is important for both the companies and their stakeholders’ sustainability, as a whole. Thereby, from theoretical perspectives, the primary objective of the chapter is to illustrate the role of integrated reporting for business in climate change and the management of the risks and opportunities associated with climate change.

An extensive literature research is conducted in order to understand the relationship between integrated reporting and business role in climate change and also the role of reports in managing the risks and opportunities associated with climate change.

A company that successfully addresses the way in which it affects and is affected by climate change could manage its risk properly and also provide a positive contribution to the creation of more sustainable world and governments’ climate change goals.

The research is a theoretical study; for further studies, empirical studies can be conducted to understand the role of integrated reporting to manage the risks and opportunities associated with climate change.

This study may be useful for managers and governmental agencies in realizing the role between integrated reporting and its contribution to being a sustainable firm and in managing effects of climate change.

There is lack of studies that analyze the role of integrated reporting and the managing of risks and opportunities associated with the climate change. Examining the issue will add value to the literature in this area.

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 evaluate non-financial reporting (NFR) frameworks insofar as risk reporting is concerned. This is facilitated through analysis of the adequacy of climate- and pandemic-related risk reporting in three industries that are both significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are at risk from climate change. The pervasiveness of pandemic and climate-change risks have been highlighted in 2020, the hottest year on record and the year the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Stakeholders might reasonably expect reporting on these risks to have prepared them for the consequences.

The current debate on the “complexity” of sustainability and NFR frameworks/standards is critically analysed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and calls to “build back better”. Context is provided through analysis of risk reporting by the ten largest airlines and the five largest companies in each of the hotel and cruise industries.

Risk reporting on two significant issues, pandemics and climate change, is woefully inadequate. While very little consideration has been given to pandemic risks, disclosures on climate-related risks focus predominantly on “risks” of increased regulation rather than physical risks, indicating a short-term focus. The disclosures are dispersed across different corporate reporting media and fail to appreciate the long-term consequences or offer solutions. Mindful that a conceptual framework for NFR must address this, the authors propose a new definition of materiality and recommend that sustainable development risks and opportunities be placed at the core of a future framework for connected/integrated reporting.

For sustainable development risks to be perceived as “real” by managers, further research is needed to determine the nature and extent of key sustainable development risks and the most effective mitigation strategies.

This paper highlights the importance of recognising the complexity of the issues facing organisations, society and the planet and addressing them by encouraging robust consideration of the interdependencies in evolving approaches to corporate reporting.

This study contributes to the current debate on the future of corporate reporting in light of two significant interconnected crises that threaten business and society – the pandemic and climate change. It provides evidence to support a long-term oriented and holistic approach to risk management and reporting.