Search results

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the European Union’s (EU) latest regulatory principles for environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures. It explains how some of the EU’s member states are ratifying the EU Commission’s directives on ESG reporting by introducing intelligent, substantive and reflexive regulations.

Following a review of EU publications and relevant theoretical underpinnings, this paper reports on the EU member states’ national policies for ESG reporting and disclosures.

The EU has recently revised a number of tools and instruments for the reporting of financial and non-financial information, including the EU’s modernisation directive, the EU’s directive on the disclosure of non-financial and diversity information, the EU Energy Efficiency Directive, the European pollutant release and transfer register, the EU emission trading scheme, the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, among others.

Although all member states are transposing these new EU directives, to date, there are no specific requirements in relation to the type of non-financial indicators that can be included in annual reports. Moreover, there is a need for further empirical evidence that analyse how these regulations may (or may not) affect government entities and big corporations.

Several EU countries are integrating reporting frameworks that require the engagement of relevant stakeholders (including shareholders) to foster a constructive environment that may lead to continuous improvements in ESG disclosures.

EU countries are opting for a mix of voluntary and mandatory measures that improve ESG disclosures in their respective jurisdictions. This contribution indicates that there is scope for national governments to give further guidance to civil society and corporate business to comply with the latest EU developments in ESG reporting. When European entities respond to regulatory pressures, they are also addressing ESG and economic deficits for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Recent regulatory changes in Europe have promoted non-financial reporting practices (e.g., Directive, 2014/95/EU) and gender diversity in decision-making positions. Special attention is devoted to promoting the gender balance on corporate boards as a key mechanism to enhance corporate governance effectiveness and better address multiple stakeholders' needs. With this in mind, this study intends to examine the impact of boardroom gender diversity on Environmental Social Governance (ESG) disclosure practices in the European listed firms' context.

The study applies different panel data models on an extended sample of 1,392 firms from 21 European Union (EU) countries for six years (2014–2019).

Findings allow to spotlight the positive role exerted by the presence of women directors on the boards in enhancing ESG disclosure, both at the overall and specific (individual ESG scores) level.

Policymakers and regulators might consider the study's evidence as a stimulus to continue in promoting strategic actions and reforms that foster gender equality and balance in corporate decision-making positions.

Creating a heterogeneous and diversified board of directors may support implementing a “sustainable corporate governance” recently claimed by the EC.

The study contributes to the literature by disentangling the links between gender diversity and ESG disclosure over a period that covers a long season of European regulations and measures that affected both non-financial reporting practices and the board of directors' composition. Accordingly, it can contribute to enhancing the practical and theoretical understanding of the pivotal role that gender diversity may exert in strengthening corporate governance and, in turn, corporate transparency and accountability behaviours about non-financial issues.

Provision on framework agreements has been introduced into European Union (EU) Law in 2004. Since then framework agreements have gained popularity and importance on the European Union (EU) public tender market. Nevertheless, the use of frameworks poses significant legal challenges necessitating the clarification of the governing rules and the introduction of further guidelines. Unfortunately, clarifications were not fully provided in the new Directive 2014/24/EU. This article is a study of legal loopholes and uncertainties that occur during public procurement of framework agreements as a result of current EU rules and national practices in Denmark and the United Kingdom. The article highlights the need for clarification of the existing rules and introduction of transparency to the subsequent call-off stage of framework agreements. To achieve study aims, three methods were applied: a doctrinal analysis, a small scale comparative law research and field research based on qualitative research by the means of semi-structured interviews.

This paper aims to explore the emerging phenomenon of integrated reporting (IR) in the context of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and proposes a longitudinal analysis of the level of IR disclosure (IRD) provided by a sample of European SOEs for the period 2013–2017, in accordance with IR framework requirements. The study also proposes an analysis of the possible explanatory factors driving the level of IRD. Specific attention is devoted to examine the influence exerted by the public ownership on the level of IRD provided by SOEs.

The IRs published by a balanced sample of 18 European SOEs between 2013 and 2017 were examined through a manual content analysis. Several analyzes were performed to assess the relationship between the level of IRD provided by SOEs and some possible determinants.

Results show an increasing level of disclosure during the observed period, confirming the relevance of IR as a tool for transparency and accountability within the context of SOEs. Statistical analyzes show that government ownership, external assurance, investor protection and global reporting initiative guidelines adoption positively affect the level of IRD, while SOE size exerts a negative influence.

As this paper examines a context which has been under-investigated, it presents fresh knowledge about the evolution of IR adoption by European SOEs. Furthermore, this paper identifies some of the explanatory factors that drive the preparation of IR, thus providing international integrated reporting council, policymakers and standard-setters with the relevant information for inclusion in specific guidelines for IR by SOEs.

The purpose of this paper is to understand whether Management Commentary (MC) can cover the information needs about underreported company intangibles in accounting traditionalist countries such as Germany and Italy. Furthermore, this work would like to contribute towards an improvement of the managerial culture on intangible resources disclosure and to stimulate the consciousness of the need for a new regulatory policy in accounting.

Focusing on the current regulation on MC and taking into account its hard and soft components, both in Italy and in Germany, we have carried out a semantic analysis together with a manual content one so to find out and to compare specifications for intangibles related disclosure in MC. The authors have decided to follow a semantic approach because of the different languages of the analysed documents, that in any case need to be considered under a cultural perspective of provenience, trying to give more effectiveness to the cross comparison.

The results have shown that just a part of the intangibles is covered by the regulations of MC and that Germany and Italy follow, mainly, the same approach to MC.

The findings highlight the similarities and differences between what the authors need to report on intangibles according to specifications in Italy and Germany.

The authors reveal the approach that a country with rather conservative accounting can follow balancing regulatory approach and needs to disclose information about intangibles without a specific report on that. The authors identify the need for a new policy that can enable the development of intangibles disclosure culture.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the interaction between mandatory and voluntary risk disclosure is a complementary or substitutive consequence of different risk regulatory regimes. The paper is a cross analysis comparing Germany, the US, Italy, France and the UK during the period 2007-2010.

Content analysis is used to examine mandatory and voluntary risk information in corporate annual reports. A framework for the identification and measurement of risk information is developed by considering national and supranational regulations.

A complementary effect between mandatory and voluntary risk disclosure exists in each risk regulation jurisdiction. This effect does not depend on the presence of national risk rules (Germany and the US) as against national risk guidelines (France and the UK). Some cross-country differences emerge in the extent of the complementary effect, which are based on the national risk regulations. Germany shows the highest degree of complementing mandatory with voluntary risk disclosures.

The main limitations relate to the sample size, which is based on the choice of a matched approach and to some country-specific influences on regulatory regimes, which are not analysed. The practical implications refer to the revision or addition of mandated rules by accounting standard setters.

The paper contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it proposes an incremental analysis of corporate risk disclosure by examining the interaction between mandatory and voluntary risk disclosure with a complementary or substitutive consequence in different risk regulatory settings not previously investigated. Second, the paper makes a method-based contribution by developing an original analytical framework based on the analysis of different regulatory regimes.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the quality of narrative reporting of listed UK companies particularly in terms of transparency under guidance from the operating and financial review (OFR).

The approach taken is to rely on secondary data analysis with complementation from a limited case study of three listed UK companies.

The analysis finds that narrative reporting in the UK is generally transparent other than some weaknesses in some reporting areas and some limited evidence of creative reporting.

Further investigation could be made on a larger sample of cases. Also, a comparative case analysis could be conducted between narrative reporting made before the current global financial crisis and shortly after the said crisis.

The paper highlights the general usefulness, relevance, and limitations of narrative reporting not only for corporate decision makers but also general investors, suppliers, employees, the state, and various connected community stakeholder groups.

This paper contributes to the enhanced understanding of narrative reporting practices for listed companies in the UK.

The purpose of this paper, which has been to a large extent based on a recently completed PhD thesis, is to examine the case of Pease Drum and Tank Recycling and Reconditioning Company based in Leeds.

Legislation and the nature of industry have been the prime drivers of the company's green efforts. However, despite the MD's genuine commitment to green issues and the impact of legislation, limitations are imposed directly or otherwise on the degree and extent of caring for the environment.

The company MD participated in an interview carried out in 1999 as part of primary research for a PhD in green marketing, however, attempts at the second interview with the new owners of the organisation in 2003 were not successful.

This paper illustrates how organisations that are required by legislation to be green comply and in this case go beyond mere compliance.

The paper aims to explore the impact of institutional factors on non-financial reporting in the Baltic countries. The vast majority of research in the scientific literature references practices of sustainable disclosures in developed countries with a focus on legal factors and their effect on corporate reporting. Meanwhile, there is a lack of in-depth empirical data for identifying correlations between institutional (mandatory, normative and company-specific) factors and non-financial reporting in developing countries.

The theoretical framework of neo-institutional theory was applied to explore how the external environment affects practices of non-financial reporting in developing countries. The approach used in the paper is quantitative.

The research results reveal that if companies are likely to disclose voluntarily one of non-economic aspects in their reports, they are also likely to disclose more about the other non-economic issues. However, no significant correlations were detected between the disclosure of voluntary (non-economic) and mandatory (economic) aspects. Mandatory factors promote both – economic and non-economic reporting – while normative and company-specific factors promote non-economic reporting more.

The authors contribute to the foreign investors and practitioners by helping to better understand corporate non-financial reporting practices in post-communistic countries.

The research adds to the growing body of research on non-financial reporting practices with particular reference to the developing Baltic context. This study also contributes to scientific literature by exploring the impact of different institutional factors to non-financial reporting in developing countries.