Search results

Unique among European Union (EU) economic governance entities and multilateral banks, the European Investment Bank (EIB) possesses a dual nature, as an EU body and a bank. The EIB has been ever evolving to adapt to policy and market developments and to reflect the geo-economic landscape. In 2019, in association with the EU's Green Deal, the bank announced its metamorphosis into a “Climate Bank,” ending its fossil fuel lending after 2021. Additionaly, upon the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its attendant health and economy crisis, EU decision-makers have solicited the bank to support both urgent needs for tackling and countering the spread of the disease and the post-pandemic economic recovery. Nevertheless, devastated economic actors in need of assistance fall within many sectors, including some less green ones.

This article is grounded on agency theory for developing a generic stakeholder framework, which is then subsequently applied in investigating the EIB, in interaction with its main stakeholders.

This article investigates the EIB stakeholders in pursuing these two seemingly contradictory objectives of exclusively restricting its activity to green funding and expanding its action for achieving a broad impact in the real economy. By exploring this tension, the article argues that by prioritizing the post-COVID restart, the EIB risks to deviate from its strict green commitment.

The analysis of the EIB's divergent stakeholder stances demonstrates some ambivalence in future EIB activity in an effort to equipoise climate finance with a post-pandemic boost. The same ambivalence might equally occur with other major economic governance actors. The stakeholder framework developed and applied in the case of the EIB can be useful for studying also the stakeholder dynamics of other organizations.

The analysis demonstrates a tension between selective climate-related funding for “building back better” and the need for a wide broaching of countercyclical stimulus, with implications for economic and social actors alike.

The approach is novel, as it develops a new analytical framework for understanding stakeholder dynamics and tests it empirically on the EIB. This constitutes the first study of EIB stakeholder management.

Recently many European countries have incurred crises in public finance despite the fact that EU institutions have pushed the national governments toward the sustainability of public finance with compulsory and voluntary rules regarding fiscal governance. This paper investigates the relations between the quality of fiscal governance and the financial virtuosity of national fiscal policy. We proposed a general framework for analyzing the fiscal governance issue and we empirically tested the correlation between the dimensions of fiscal governance and the budgetary performance of EU countries. The results showed a positive correlation between the quality of fiscal governance in the EU countries and financial surplus in the period concerned. However further investigations are needed and an effort should be made to collect uniform data on fiscal governance in the European Union.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of sustainable board governance, based on (1) sustainability board committees, (2) critical mass of female board members and (3) sustainability-related executive compensation, on sustainable supply chain reporting (SSCR).

Based on stakeholder and critical mass theories, a sample of 1,577 firm-year observations for firms listed at the EuroSTOXX600 for the period 2017–2021 is used. Sustainable board governance and SSCR proxies are collected from the Refinitiv database. Correlation and logit regression analyses are conducted to measure the impact of sustainable board governance on SSCR.

Sustainable board governance significantly improves SSCR. The findings are robust to various robustness checks, based on the modification of dependent and independent variables.

Due to massive regulations on sustainability reporting, finance and corporate governance, firms listed on the EuroSTOXX 600 are focused in this analysis. The European capital market represents a unique setting for archival research.

European standard setters should connect the relationship between sustainable board governance and SSCR in future regulations, for example, due to the recent corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD) and corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD).

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper provides the first analysis on the impact of sustainable board governance on SSCR.

This paper seeks to focus on the preconditions for forging International strategies to deal with social and environmental sustainability. Taking the Brundtland Report and its implied strategy based on inter‐governmental conferences and treaties at the global level as a point of departure, the paper suggests an alternative strategy which focuses on governance arrangements (GAs) rather than government agencies and at the regional rather than the global level. The paper argues that for these to function effectively, they must be perceived as legitimate by those affected by their decisions. The paper aims to argue that this will depend on their conformity with certain generic principles regulating the chartering, composition and decision making of such GAs. If these are successful in Europe, their norms may diffuse to other world regions.

This is a conceptual paper, which presents principles for international governance for sustainability based on current experiences with governance in the European Union.

The paper points out that, since the publication of the Brundtland Report, among the most significant political/institutional changes with regard to policies for environmental sustainability have been the expansion of the competences of the European Union (EU) and the emergence of a numerous and wide‐ranging set of trans‐national non‐governmental organizations. The paper indicates how this new institutional terrain may be used to forge new governance strategies for sustainability.

The originality/value of the paper lies in its analysis of decision making in the EU as a point of departure for global governance for sustainability.

This paper aims to analyze the impact that sustainable board governance has on corporate social responsibility (CSR) on the European capital market because of the current debate of future European regulations on the topic.

Based on a legitimacy and stakeholder theoretical framework, the author conducts a structured literature review and includes 86 quantitative peer-reviewed empirical (archival) studies on board gender diversity, sustainability board expertise and sustainability-related executive compensation and their impact on CSR variables.

Gender board diversity represents the most important variable in this literature review. The included categories of sustainable board governance positively influence both the total CSR and environmental outputs.

A detailed analysis of sustainable board governance proxies is needed in future archival research to differentiate between symbolic and substantive use of CSR. In view of the current European reform initiatives on sustainable corporate governance in line with the EU Green Deal project, future research should also analyze the interactions between the included sustainable board governance variables and their contributions to CSR.

As both stakeholder demands’ on CSR outputs and CSR washing have increased since the financial crisis of 2008–2009, firms should be aware of a substantive integration of sustainability within their boards of directors (e.g. because of composition and compensation) to increase their CSR efforts and long-term firm reputation.

This analysis makes useful contributions to prior research by focusing on sustainable board governance as a key determinant of CSR outputs on the European capital market. The European Commission’s future evidence-based regulations [e.g. the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD) and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDD)] should be promoted.

The authors have examined the developments in law and in practice concerning integrated reporting. An integrated report combines the most material elements of information about corporate performance (re: financial, governance, social and environmental functioning) – currently reported in separate reports – into one coherent whole. The authors first explore the motivation of companies and legislators to introduce integrating reporting. Next, they analyse how integrated reporting can be supported by legislation thereby taking into account the existing regulatory environment.

Literature study; desk research, analysing integrated reports; organisation of an international academic conference (30 May 2012 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands).

EU law needs adjusting in the field of corporate annual reporting. Although integrated reporting is currently being explored by some frontrunners of the business community and is being encouraged by investors, the existing legal framework does not offer any incentive, nor is uniformity and credibility in the reporting of non-financial information stimulated. The law gives scant guidance to companies to that end. The authors argue that amending the mandatory EU framework can support the comparability and reliability of the corporate information. Moreover, a clear and sound EU framework on integrated corporate reporting will assist international companies in their reporting. Presently, companies have to comply with various regulations at an EU and a national level, which do not enhance a holistic view in corporate reporting. The authors provide options on how to do this. They suggest combining EU mandatory corporate reporting rules with the private regulatory reporting regime developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

Focus on EU and Dutch corporate reporting laws, non-legislative frameworks, and corporate practices of frontrunners.

The chapter can provide guidance to policymakers, companies and other stakeholders who want to form an opinion on how to legally support integrated reporting. It addresses important questions, especially concerning how European and domestic legislation could be adjusted in order to (i) reflect the newest insights regarding corporate transparency and (ii) become an adequate framework for companies with added benefits for financiers and investors. Moreover, it reports on the benefits of integrated reporting for reporting companies. The authors argue that integrated reporting can be a critical tool in implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the main corporate strategy of a company.

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.

Corporate governance (CG), initially associated with private organizations, has been adopted by higher education institutions (HEIs). These are being managed more as firms in this post-standardization phase, in which the commercialization of higher education, competition and selective choice, finite resources and sustainable development (SD) have become major requirements for accountability and action. Principles of CG can collaborate and guide the process of making universities sustainable. The chapter analyses the effects of CG on the creation of a culture of sustainability in universities. In doing so, it analyzes the websites of public HEIs in EU-15 countries for a set of social responsibility indicators and investigates the impact and practices of two young Portuguese universities regarding United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. The results point out that CG and SD principles tend to guide the strategy of most public HEIs in the EU-15, confirming that they have made a commitment to good governance and sustainability.

Motivated by claims that the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IRF) can be used to comply with Directive 2014/95/EU (the EU Directive) on non-financial and diversity disclosure, the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies can comply with corporate reporting laws using de facto standards or frameworks.

The authors adopted an interpretivist approach to research along with current regulatory studies that aim to investigate business compliance with the law using private sector standards. To support the authors’ arguments, publicly available secondary data sources were used, including newsletters, press releases and websites, reports from key players within the accounting profession, public documents issued by the European Commission and data from corporatergister.com.

To become a de facto standard or framework, a private standard-setter requires the support of corporate regulators to mandate it in a specific national jurisdiction. The de facto standard-setter requires a powerful coalition of actors who can influence the policymakers to allow its adoption and diffusion at a national level to become mandated. Without regulatory support, it is difficult for a private and voluntary reporting standard or framework to be adopted and diffused. Moreover, the authors report that the <IRF> preferences stock market capitalism over sustainability because it privileges organisational sustainability over social and environmental sustainability, emphasises value creation over holding organisations accountable for their impact on society and the environment and privileges the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders.

The authors question the suitability of the goals of both the <IRF> and the EU Directive during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The planned changes to both need rethinking as we head into uncharted waters. Moreover, the authors believe that the people cannot afford any more reporting façades.

The authors offer a critical analysis of the link between the <IRF> and the EU Directive and how the <IRF> can be used to comply with the EU Directive. By questioning the relevance of the compliance question, the authors advance a critique about the relevance of these and other legal and de facto frameworks, particularly considering the more pressing needs that must be met to address the economic, social and environmental implications of the COVID-19 crisis.

This paper aims to develop a conceptual framework informed by a literature review. This framework aims to deepen and broaden the understanding of the relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and non-financial reporting (NFR) through qualitative research approaches.

A review of corporate governance and NFR literature and existing research frameworks leads to the development of a conceptual framework to encourage future qualitative accounting research on the corporate governance mechanisms for NFR.

Few studies consider the complex interrelationships between NFR and corporate governance mechanisms. Quantitative studies using secondary data sources dominate accounting research on the topic. Of the small number of qualitative studies, many are theoretical and offer little new knowledge about the effectiveness of corporate governance mechanisms in practice. The research framework, developed from a literature review and consideration of multiple qualitative approaches, proposes numerous avenues for future research.

This paper is based on a scoping review of the literature using peer-reviewed journal papers. Other researchers may have identified additional literature for inclusion, including grey literature.

More qualitative research into NFR and corporate governance mechanisms may help to guide practitioners seeking to incorporate sustainability into their governance practices.

The critical relationship between NRF and corporate governance is under-explored in research yet has significant consequences for organisations pursuing sustainability.

The authors develop a conceptual framework for qualitative accounting research on NFR and corporate governance, addressing key outstanding questions in this area and considering different theoretical perspectives when approaching this critical topic. Although there is scope for further research in general in this promising area, including quantitative reviews and discursive studies, qualitative research would be of particular value. The authors also outline multiple directions for nurturing academic debate.