Search results

This paper aims to analyse the impact of the European Union (EU) Directive on the quality of sustainability reporting under the institutional theory lens. Specifically, the authors evaluate what kind of institutional pressure has the highest impact on the quality of corporate disclosure on sustainability issues.

The authors build a quality index based on the content analysis of sustainability information disclosed, before and after the transposition of the Directive, by Italian and Spanish companies belonging to different industries. The authors use an OLS regression model to analyse the effect of coercive, normative and mimetic forces on the quality of the sustainability reports.

The results highlight that normative and mimetic mechanisms positively affect the quality of sustainability reporting, whereas there is no evidence regarding coercive mechanisms, indicating that the new requirements do not provide a significant contribution to the development of better reporting practices, at least in the two analysed countries.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the few studies assessing the quality of sustainability reporting through an analysis involving the period before and after the implementation of the EU Directive. It enriches the literature on institutional theory by analysing how the different dimensions of isomorphism affect the quality of information disclosed by companies according to the EU requirements. It contributes to a better understanding of the impact of the non-financial information Directive, and the results of this paper can be relevant for regulators, practitioners and academia, especially in view of the adoption of the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive proposal.

This paper aims to explore why a company voluntarily engages in the sustainability reporting process, how this process becomes institutionalised and the resulting effects.

The research focusses on a single case study, conducted following an action research approach and interpreted through the lens of institutional work. According to the institutional work theoretical perspective, the individual or organisation is responsible for creating, maintaining or disrupting institutions.

The case company, Deco S.p.A., undertook sustainability reporting to clarify the values that the company was founded upon and how those values translate into management practice. By institutionalising the sustainability reporting process, Deco S.p.A. found its corporate climate improved, various aspects of its operations could be rationalised and the information gathered to produce the report was valuable for decision support.

This research project contributes to understanding why and how a company institutionalises its sustainability reporting. It also provides a better understanding of the internal forces that drive the voluntary reporting of sustainability issues and sheds light on the stages of the institutionalisation process.

The authors find that universities have a role to play in promoting the sustainability of companies, as they can transform the knowledge produced from research into useful knowledge for managing and reporting sustainability issues.

This four-year action research project contributes to the literature on both engagement research and the institutionalisation of sustainability reporting practices. The authors also expose some of the drivers affecting a company’s approach to sustainability reporting.

Motivated by the new European Union Directive 2014/95 on non-financial and diversity information, this paper aims to develop a future research agenda to conduct pragmatic, theory-oriented research into the Directive and corporate sustainability reporting.

Drawing upon the relational dynamics between states, firms and society in regulating non-financial reporting (NFR), this essay frames and analyses the Directive and its grand theories, as unproven theories, by discussing its practical concerns and reviewing the academic literature.

The Directive is an act of policy to legitimise NFR that encompasses two grand theories: improve the comparability of information and enhance corporate accountability. From a pluralist perspective, companies can rest assure that their compliance with the Directive will be perceived as socially desirable, proper and appropriate. However, some of the forces involved in translating the Directive into actionable policies operate contra to the Directive’s goals and, instead, act as barriers to its grand theories. In addressing these barriers, a research agenda is proposed that both traces backward to re-examine the foundational theories of the past and looks forward to explore alternative possibilities for achieving these goals.

This paper provides researchers with a practical-driven and theory-oriented agenda for future research in light of the rising academic interest in the Directive.

The barriers to the Directive’s grand theories help policymakers and practitioners to understand the practical concerns about the implementation of the Directive and other mandatory NFR policies.

This paper enriches the emerging debate on the Directive and highlights future possibilities for fruitful empirical research by developing a research agenda.

With the European Union (EU) Directive 2014/95/UE, there is a growing interest in the corporate disclosure of “non-financial information” (NFI). However, no generally accepted definition of this term exists. This paper aims to reflect on the meaning and importance of the NFI definition by investigating how this term is defined in the literature and by exploring scholars’ cognitive perceptions of its meaning.

Two different research methods were used. A systematic literature review of NFI definitions was integrated with a survey to a sample of Italian scholars working on the NFI research topic.

This study demonstrates that the meaning of NFI is still ambiguous and multifaceted as neither a common understanding nor a single and generally accepted definition of the term exists. As the advent of the EU directive, this term has often referred to information about society and the environment, though most academics define and understand NFI differently, as corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues, intellectual capital information and information that are external to financial statements. These definitions pave the way for conceptualising NFI as a genus and its different understandings (i.e. CSR, ESG information, etc.) as species. Therefore, what constitutes NFI is open to interpretations.

This paper contributes to enriching the literature on the meaning of NFI and providing further insights into explaining the heterogeneity of the NFI definition.

This paper provides researchers, practitioners and regulators with some novel insights into the meaning and understanding of NFI. It provides regulators and standard setters with knowledge for building a commonly accepted definition of NFI. Meanwhile, policymakers, regulators, practitioners and academics can contribute to establishing a definition by following three approaches: regulative, open and adaptive. This can help to avoid the risk of an information gap among stakeholder expectations, regulator requests and NFI reporting in practice.

The literature focussing on the meaning of NFI is still scarce. This study contributes to extending the knowledge of how the term NFI is defined and understood by academics.

This paper aims to achieve the following objectives. First, through a longitudinal study, the authors explore the trend of voluntary external assurance of sustainability reports among Italian listed companies from 2008 to 2012. Thus, the authors aim to analyse the content level of the assurance statements and to test whether it is affected by certain corporate variables and by the type of practitioner chosen.

A legitimacy theory framework is adopted to investigate the phenomenon of sustainability report assurance services in Italy. The authors developed an assurance statement disclosure index (ASDI) constructed on the basis of the standards ISAE 3000 and AA1000AS. Thus, the authors tested whether the ASDI is affected by certain corporate variables using an ordinary least square (OLS) regression model. To test how each specific item is related to the assurance provider, a contingency table was developed.

The results of this paper show many differences in the assurance statements content in particular with reference to the criteria used, conclusive comments and recommendations. The presence of a corporate social responsibility committee and an expert who serves on it is positively related to a higher rank on the ASDI. In contrast, Big4 firms seem to be associated with a lower disclosure rank. Finally, Big4 are positively associated with the indications of the provider’s characteristics and negatively with their conclusive comments and recommendations.

This paper presents some findings in an area where little evidence exists, that is, the effects of some variables on the quantity of information disclosed in the assurance statements.