Search results

This paper aims to examine sites of dissonance or consensus between global investor responses to the draft standards, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 (IFRS) (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

A thematic content analysis was used to capture investor views expressed in their comment letters submitted in the consultation period (March to July 2022) in comparison to the ex ante position (issue of draft standards, March 2022) and ex post summary feedback (ISSB staff papers, September 2022) of the ISSB.

There was investor consensus in support of the ISSB and the development of the draft standards. However, there were sites of dissonance between investors and the ISSB, notably regarding the basis and focus of reporting (double or single/financial materiality and enterprise value); definitional clarity; emissions reporting; and assurance. Incrementally, the research further highlights that investors display heterogeneity of opinion.

The ISSB standards will provide a framework for future sustainability reporting. This research highlights the significance of such reporting to investors through their responses to the draft standards. The findings reveal sites of dissonance in the development and alignment of draft standards to user needs. The views of investors, as primary users, should help inform the development of sustainability-related standards by a global standard-setting body apposite to current policy and future reporting requirements, and their usefulness to users in practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the comment letter literature, hitherto focused on financial reporting with a relative lack of investor engagement. Using thematic analysis, sites of dissonance are examined between the views of investors and the ISSB on their development of sustainability reporting standards.

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.

Sustainable development (SD) is widely acknowledged as the center around which all development efforts should revolve. Banking is a crucial component of SD, and the adoption of sustainable banking practices by various banking institutions is a powerful catalyst for its achievement. This paper aims to investigate the level of adoption of environmental, social and governance (ESG) indicators in India and the extent to which financial institutions use these strategies. In addition, the banks have been classified according to their sustainable banking performance and showing a relationship between ESG and sustainability.

An ESG framework has been developed for the Indian banking system that focuses on the behavior of banks. The evaluation of literature helps to identify the gaps in particular frameworks for analyzing sustainable banking practices in developing nations because of the variation in economic criteria between developed and developing countries. An attempt to construct a common framework for measuring the banking sector’s sustainable efforts has been done in the past. Specifically in India, where the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability are of equal importance to governance indicators, these studies fall short of providing relevant indicators. Multiple financial reports, nonfinancial reports, corporate social responsibility reports and business responsibility reports of this sector were analyzed using content analysis techniques against ESG indicators for sustainability attainment.

The result of this study shows that both the sectors are disclosing their environmental indicators more as compared to other dimensions. While the analysis says that private companies are going better than public companies in terms of disclosing their ESG indicators. As compared to the international banking sector, adoption of Global Reporting Initiatives standards, United Nations Environment Programme Financial Initiatives (UNEP FI), Green Credit Policy and Equator Principles (EP) is near to the ground in India. IDFC bank is the only entity that started implementing EP practices and Yes bank also is doing a wonderful implementation of the green policies and is the signatory to UNEP FI.

The current state of sustainable banking in India is reflected in the implementation of the proposed framework. To better integrate sustainability problems into banking, this study provides helpful information for banks and other stakeholders. In addition, this study corrects the lack of research in the Indian context on sustainable banking.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge by far, this is one of the prime studies to inspect the degree of ESG disclosure by the Indian banking sector in their sustainability report.

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 aims to examine how audit committee (AC) attributes influence quality and quantity disclosure of energy consumed by the listed nonfinancial firms for the period of five years (2016–2020). The study aims at providing empirical evidence on how board of director’s independence influences the relationship between AC attributes and firms’ energy in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) on world climate policy.

The study obtained data from a sample of 83 listed nonfinancial firms, content analysis technique was used to compute energy disclosure indexes using global reporting initiative standards, while regression analysis was conducted to test the relationship among research variables.

The study revealed that AC independence, diversity and meetings were significantly related with energy disclosure. Also, the study found that other variables were insignificantly related with energy disclosure.

The study is constrained for not considering all listed firms in the country. Furthermore, the study considered selected attributes, other important audit-committee size attributes such as audit-committee size, audit-committee size tenure could be study in by the future study.

The study’s findings would have practical implications for corporations and other business organizations seeking to actively involve the energy-related SDGs 7 and 13 in their business models and successfully communicate these efforts to stakeholders.

To the best of author’s knowledge, this is the first study that provides empirical evidence on the effect of AC attributes on the energy disclosure using effect of board independence as moderator in Nigeria.

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 study aims to examine the effect of social reputation on the relationship between boards and foreign ownership on the quality of sustainability disclosure.

The sample of this study consists of publicly-traded primary and secondary sector companies in Indonesia for 12 years, from 2009 to 2020. This study uses panel model regression to generate its results. The disclosure data are hand-collected data sourced from annual financial and company sustainability reports.

Higher foreign board component companies report lower quality of sustainability disclosure, whereas companies that possess foreign ownership components report a higher quality of sustainability disclosure. This result is strengthened by obtaining consistent results tested with economic, social and environmental disclosure components. In addition, if the company has a good social reputation, it will strengthen the relationship of foreign ownership to the quality of sustainability disclosure.

These findings are relevant for policymakers, professional organizations and practitioners in Indonesia and other developing countries.

The moderating effect of social reputation on the relation of the foreign board and foreign ownership-quality of sustainability disclosure as this study does remain rare in developing countries. This study complements various research conducted in developing countries, such as Indonesia, by offering a new dimension. The results indicate that social reputation has a moderating role in determining the impact of foreign ownership on the quality of sustainability disclosure.

The study aims to empirically investigate whether the disclosure of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) affects the level of integrated thinking and reporting (ITR) on a sample of European listed companies.

The sample focusses on companies listed to the STOXX Europe 600 Index. Data have been gathered from Refinitiv DataStream for the period 2019–2020 for the measures of ITR level and SDG disclosure. Then, a multivariate regression analysis is developed to test whether or not, and if so, to what extent, SDG disclosure affects the level of ITR.

SDG disclosure has been increased over time and companies have primarily focussed on SDG 8, SDG12 and SDG 13 demonstrating their awareness on sustainability issues close to the core business and on the climate urgency. Furthermore, SDG disclosure leads to a higher level of ITR meaning that SDG disclosure is an important pillar contributing to ITR.

The empirical analysis has not deeply investigated each component of ITR and SDG disclosure.

The research can be useful for companies aiming to improve their commitment towards the SDG implementation with an integrated approach. Moreover, the study sheds light on the importance of the SDG disclosure as a determinant of ITR.

The research contributes to literature in the stream of sustainability accounting, by adding new insights on ITR linked to SDG disclosure. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the originality of the study lies in the inclusion of SDG disclosure as a determinant for ITR that has not been analysed by academics yet.

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.

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.