Search results

This paper aims to evaluate the outcome effectiveness of the global reporting initiatives (GRI) transitions by understanding how companies have responded to the changes from G3.1 to G4 and finally to the GRI Standards.

A quality disclosure score is developed that incorporates assessments of both the quality of disclosures and the materiality of Australian companies. To analyse materiality, survey data were collected from 187 companies. Disclosure scores are based on a content analysis of the sustainability reports of 12 mining and metals companies and 12 financial services companies that used the GRI Standards from 2011 to 2019 (a total of 213 reports).

The study found that the GRI transitions have not led to companies improving the quality of their disclosures on areas considered important for them to achieve their social and environmental goals. Instead, the companies tended to use a greenwashing strategy, where the quality of disclosure of material issues declined or fluctuated over time.

From a practical perspective, the disclosure score developed in this paper enables managers of companies to recognize a threshold of completeness and to summarize the areas that are not materially relevant to their business.

The results are potentially helpful for investors, shareholders and other stakeholders, enabling them to better understand sustainability reports.

This study contributes to the body of research in sustainability reporting by providing evidence on the outcome effectiveness of the latest updates in the GRI framework.

This study aims to investigate the quality of disclosure of a cutting-edge reporting tool – integrated reporting (<IR>) – in terms of its effectiveness to report on COVID-19 pandemic information, its ability to provide forward-looking information and risk impact implications, and its quality determinants in challenging times.

Thanks to a content analysis of 247 <IR> for FY20, an integrated reporting disclosure score was developed to assess the disclosure quality provided by the sampled companies. Three research questions were tested through logistic regressions.

Non-financial disclosure activities struggle to provide adequate information in terms of potential future scenarios, risk assessment and forward-looking analyses. However, companies incorporated in “Anglo-Saxon” territories drafted integrated reports of higher quality. More recently, incorporated companies have made a greater effort to measure and report COVID-19 pandemic impacts on environmental, social and governance and business activities, also increasing their risk assessment and mitigation efforts. Concerning the determinants of disclosure quality, leverage, corporate governance structures, country of incorporation and belonging to “high impact” industries all lead to a higher quality of <IR> disclosure.

Examining in detail corporate social responsibility activities and corporate governance integrity is pivotal to orienting strategy towards sustainable trajectories: to do so, corporate reporting and disclosure practices are essential tools. In this context, corporate governance systems that emphasize board diversity are proven, even in disruptive circumstances, to play a crucial role in providing corporate reports of higher quality. High disclosure quality that goes beyond mere financial results is considered to be necessary to remain competitive strategically, socially and environmentally.

This article investigates the quality of stakeholder engagement (SE) process disclosure in the context of non-financial reporting (NFR) introduced by Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD). SE implies the involvement of the subjects interested in the organization's activity, according to the principle of inclusiveness and the key concepts of the stakeholder theory (ST).

The authors conducted a content analysis on 75 non-financial statements (NFSs) published by companies listed on the Italian Stock Exchange in 2018 and 2021 to evaluate the evolutionary profiles of SE quality through the years.

The average level of SE is not significantly high. The research showed an overall poor quality of disclosure concerning stakeholders' key expectations and issues to be addressed and answered. Furthermore, a certain variability emerged in the quality of the disclosure between the various reports, and no significant improvements in SE quality were noted from 2018 to 2021.

The conclusions provide a replicable method for the analysis of SE quality in NFSs and the development of new standpoints in the ongoing debate on the implications of mandatory legislative frameworks for NFR. Content analyses intrinsically present margins of subjectivity. The sample was limited to a subset of NFS from Italy; hence, the results could be country specific.

This work suggests some possible ways of improvement of SE practices by companies.

Original assessment model based on eight variables identified from the academic literature and the most common international sustainability reporting standards. These variables were stakeholder identification, stakeholder selection process, degree of involvement, SE approach, dialogue channels, SE results, different points of view and integration of the SE process.

This paper explores stakeholder perceptions on the nature and extent of sustainability reporting on the websites of technical universities (TUs) in Ghana.

The authors collected data from the websites of the 10 TUs in Ghana and interviewed the stakeholders of the TUs. In analyzing the data, the authors used thematic analysis for the interview responses. The authors also adopted the global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines and campus sustainability assessment tools for the presentation and analysis of the sustainability disclosures on the websites of the TUs.

The authors found that due to weak institutional coercions, there were limited disclosures on the websites of the TUs, which aimed at gaining stakeholders' legitimacy; the disclosures were more focused on organizational profile, governance and educational aspects of sustainability. To a large extent, while some external stakeholders such as parents, regulators and alumni appear to be less interested in the disclosures on the TU's websites, internal stakeholders such as employees (teaching and non-teaching staff) and students who frequently visited the TU's websites perceived limited reporting and were not impressed with the extent of sustainability disclosures on these websites.

The findings of this study are intended to assist policy-makers in the educational sector to appreciate the importance of sustainability reporting on their websites. The results of this study will assist higher educational institutions (HEIs) in increasing the success rate of sustainability implementation by overcoming the lack of sustainability disclosures on their websites. Thus, the results of this study have implications for sustainability implementations, particularly those in emerging economies and policy-makers of universities worldwide.

This study could provide two significant values. First, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no other study has explored stakeholder perceptions of sustainability reporting in implementing sustainability within the education sector. Second, the results were arrived at by combining stakeholder consultations with content analyses, which could be a good guideline for sustainability implementation in the educational sector of developing countries.

This study aims to review the literature on non-financial information (NFI) assurance including external assurance of sustainability reports (SRA) and integrated reports (IRA). The objectives are as follows: provide an overview of academic research; understand the nature of NFI assurance engagements by organising the literature around the five key elements of an assurance engagement; develop a framework for understanding NFI assurance; and provide directions for future research.

The study undertakes a structured literature review of 179 articles published from 1999 to 2023.

The review identified 324 researchers located in 35 different countries who published 179 articles on SRA and IRA. The researchers, their locations, journals, methods, theories and themes are examined. The literature is structured around the definition of an assurance engagement including a tripartite arrangement, subject matter, a suitable criterion, sufficient appropriate evidence and a written assurance report. A framework for understanding NFI assurance is offered. Avenues for future research, structured around the five elements of an assurance engagement, are presented.

Researchers will benefit from an overview of the literature and guidance on areas for future research. Lecturers can use the findings to develop content for their auditing courses. Reporting managers will benefit from a better understanding of this new form of assurance. Regulators can use this study’s insights to better inform the development of laws and corporate governance codes mandating NFI assurance. Standard setters can use these findings to guide the emergence of the new assurance standards. Assurance practitioners may use this research to inform practice.

The findings may prove useful in addressing capture, which deters NFI assurance from enhancing disclosure credibility and fulfilling its transparency and accountability role. This is to the detriment of the wider society.

The consolidation of the literature around the five key elements of an assurance engagement is unique. The framework devised offers useful insights into the dynamics of assurance generally and NFI assurance more specifically. The study is timely given the new European Union regulations on NFI reporting and assurance and the work of the International Audit and Assurance Standards Board in developing a specialist NFI assurance standard.

Businesses are increasingly vulnerable and exposed to physical climate change risks, which can cascade through local, national and international supply chains. Currently, few methodologies can capture how physical risks impact businesses via the supply chains, yet outside the business literature, methodologies such as sustainability assessments can assess cascading impacts.

Adopting a scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), this paper reviews 27 articles that assess climate risk in supply chains.

The literature on supply chain risks of climate change using quantitative techniques is limited. Our review confirms that no research adopts sustainability assessment methods to assess climate risk at a business-level.

Alongside the need to quantify physical risks to businesses is the growing awareness that climate change impacts traverse global supply chains. We review the state of the literature on methodological approaches and identify the opportunities for researchers to use sustainability assessment methods to assess climate risk in the supply chains of an individual business.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting has been widely accepted as a vital tool for communicating with stakeholders on a range of social, environmental, and governance issues, but how companies define, interpret, apply, integrate, and communicate their CSR efforts and impacts in corporate reporting is anything but a straightforward task. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the concept of materiality in CSR reporting and demonstrate practical examples of good CSR and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reporting practices. We chose the aviation industry because of its economic relevance, constant growth, and future expected changes in the aftermath of COVID-19. In addition, airlines affect many of the SDGs directly and indirectly with contending results. This chapter is timely because of the growing willingness by companies to integrate CSR and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) thinking into the corporate strategy and business operations using materiality assessment and enhancing their competitive advantage and ability to maintain long-term value and because ESG and ethical investing have become part of the mainstream investing. Thus, this chapter contributes to an understanding of the wide range of existing and new reporting frameworks and regulations and reinforces the importance of discussing how this diversity of approaches can affect the work toward worldwide comparability of CSR and sustainability reporting.

This study aims to explore how the top 50 Australian companies are disclosing their commitment to addressing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) formulated by the United Nations (UN) in 2015. By investigating the nature and substantiveness of SDG reporting, this study provides exploratory evidence on how companies are taking the initial steps to addressing the SDGs.

A content analysis of SDG disclosures by the top 50 Australian companies was undertaken. This content analysis was guided by the KPMG (2018) SDG disclosure framework. Legitimacy theory was used to interpret the findings, establishing whether such disclosure was substantive or symbolic.

This study reports a moderate level of SDG disclosure among Australian companies. The top five most critical SDGs in Australian context are climate action, gender equality, decent work and economic growth, responsible consumption and production and industry, innovation and infrastructure. The findings also highlight that while the focus of Australian companies is on understanding and prioritizing SDGs, the measurement of SDGs performance needs to increase.

This study adds to limited literature on the corporate responses to SDGs by establishing how companies, especially in Australia, are addressing these goals through changes to their reporting systems, thereby communicating their strategic intent in relation to addressing these goals. A focus on symbolic legitimation through SDG disclosure by the Australian companies in this study reaffirms the findings of similar studies and suggests a need for more substantive SDG management and disclosure if these goals are to be adequately addressed by the corporate sector.

The findings of this study provide insights into the current practices and future prospects of corporate responses to SDGs. Policy implications could arise in relation to possible approaches for disclosing social and environmental information and the paper argues for a potential need for regulation of non-financial reporting.

This study contributes to the limited understanding of the corporate response to an urgent sustainability call made by the UN by providing evidence on how Australian companies are embedding, measuring and reporting the SDGs. The research goes beyond a descriptive analysis of SDG disclosure and assesses whether such disclosure is substantive or symbolic.

The purpose of this paper is to compare environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures regulatory frameworks in developed and developing countries, identifying similarities, differences and trends to contribute to effective and sustainable practices globally.

Descriptive research design compares ESG frameworks in developed and developing countries. It reviews literature, collects data, analyzes differences and categorizes countries based on ESG development stages. Implications, recommendations and an analytical ESG table are explored and validated.

The study's findings have significant implications for practice, society and research. The categorization of 28 countries into four ESG framework development stages facilitates strategic implementation and improved decision-making aligned with sustainability reporting.

The study's findings will support regulators, policymakers and institutional investors in bridging the sustainability gap. By categorizing countries based on their ESG framework development stages, the study aims to provide benchmark practices for countries in the early stages of ESG disclosure. This will address information asymmetry issues and facilitate the establishment of resilient business operations and reporting practices. Ultimately, the study promotes long-term social and economic well-being by strengthening emerging sustainable practices.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study represents a novel contribution to the existing literature by analyzing the varying levels of development in the ESG policy framework across countries. It fills a gap in current research by providing a comprehensive assessment of the ESG landscape and highlighting the disparities and advancements in different countries. This study aims to shed light on the state of ESG policies and practices globally, providing valuable insights for future research and policy development in the field.

The main objective of the study was to compare Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) norms with Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, so as to establish whether BRSR norms match the global standards and best practices or not. Additionally, an effort was made to ascertain and highlight areas where BRSR norms are more comprehensive, just match, or require further refinement to be at par with the GRI standards. The study highlights the similarities and dissimilarities between the internationally accepted GRI standards and the BRSR framework; thereby suggesting areas of improvement for the BRSR framework.

Scrutinised all the 36 standards of the Global reporting initiative and BRSR format and guidelines of the Securities Exchange Board of India. The Content Analysis Technique was used to ascertain the percentages of similarities between the two frameworks.

The content analysis found that there are 52.30% similarities between BRSR norms and GRI standards. Further, this study shows the factors that led to the dissimilarities between BRSR and GRI standards. This study found 18 areas where BRSR is more informative than GRI, and 7 areas where BRSR could be further refined.

This study contributes to research in the sustainability reporting framework to be adopted by Indian listed companies. There are a few Indian listed companies who are already reporting as per the GRI framework and might perceive the BRSR as a separate reporting altogether. But as found in this study, more than half of the BRSR framework is similar to the GRI framework; thus, half the work is almost done. As such this study helps Indian firms in developing an understanding of the BRSR and puts in perspective its standing among global sustainability reporting standards. This study shall help institutional investors, rating agencies, and external assurers to better visualize an Indian entity, by referring to its Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting.