Search results

This study aims to investigate the equity market reaction to sustainability disclosure measures derived from firms' inaugural sustainability reports following the implementation of mandatory sustainability reporting in Singapore.

This study explores the equity market reaction to first-time sustainability reports of mandatory adopters and compares the reactions between voluntary and mandatory adopters. To mitigate any imbalanced distribution effects, entropy balancing techniques are employed.

The author observes a significant equity market reaction when mandatory adopters adhere to a reporting framework and release sustainability reports as standalone documents. Additionally, the study indicates that government regulation amplifies the equity market reaction for companies that include a board statement within their sustainability reports and present them as standalone publications.

The lack of quantitative information disclosed in the first-time sustainability reports may restrict the generalizability of the findings.

The findings provide valuable insights for organizations and managers to evaluate the market's response to sustainability disclosures and improve communication effectiveness with investors. Furthermore, the study has direct policy implications for global standard-setting organizations in sustainability reporting. The findings support the notion that investors value market-led and investor-focused sustainability disclosures.

The study contributes to the limited body of research that examines the capital market effects of mandatory sustainability disclosures. To the author’s knowledge, this is among a few studies to directly investigate the equity market reaction to mandatory sustainability disclosures at the firm level.

This study aims to examine whether announcements of mandatory sustainability disclosure affect corporate sustainability performance (CSP).

The authors use a quasi-experiment provided by mandatory sustainability disclosure announcements that occurred in 21 countries from 2006–2016. A difference-in-differences method is adopted. The authors restrict the drawing of all candidate treatment and control firms to a pool of firms that did not disclose sustainability information one year before the announcements.

The authors find that the announcements of mandatory sustainability disclosure are positively related to CSP. The positive effect is more pronounced for firms in countries with higher anticipation effects and lower awareness effects. Specifically, the authors find that the effect of the announcements is more pronounced in a country where the rule of law is higher and stakeholders are less likely to initiate communication about sustainability with firms, and with fewer active participants in and signatories to the United Nations Global Compact initiative. The findings hold under different robustness analyses.

The study enriches the knowledge about the effect of the announcements of comprehensive mandatory sustainability disclosure by analysing the consequences of these announcements. In the contribution to this growing stream of research, the authors provide evidence on the consequences of the announcements based on a cross-country sample and importantly, focusses on the non-economic consequences.

Public-interest entities – among which are listed companies – are obliged to publish nonfinancial disclosure in some countries and regions. The European Commission established mandatory nonfinancial disclosure by Directive 2014/95/EU. While a large body of literature was developed on sustainability reporting quality (SRQ) in voluntary context, evidence about the effect of mandatory nonfinancial disclosure on SRQ is controversial and previous experiences worldwide did not make clear if obligatoriness improves SRQ. This chapter aims to bridge the gap of empirical evidence about this phenomenon in European countries, focusing on first implementation of new legislation by Italian and German companies. The research has an explorative character and it adopts content analysis methods performed on sustainability reporting practices of companies listed in FTSE-MIB and DAX 30. The analysis aims to understand if obligatoriness affects SRQ, causes some changes in reporting practices such as harmonizing Italian and German ones by performing a cross-country comparison. The findings suggest that obligatoriness improves reporting quality and, above all, it fills the gap between different countries by fostering the adoption of international guidelines and the consequent introduction of some content, such as materiality analysis and quantitative measures of social and environmental performance.

The recent European Union Directive 95/2014 enforced a radical shift from voluntary to mandatory disclosure of non-financial information. Given radical changes in reporting practices, there is an urgent need to assess the firms’ attitude to disclose non-financial information regarding the new requirement. This paper aims to investigate whether the quantity and quality of non-financial information, voluntarily disclosed in the years before the directive came into force, were linked to the level of compliance.

Selecting a sample of 60 Italian companies from the obliged entities, the authors carried out a manual content analysis on corporate reports and developed some research hypotheses to explore if their sustainability practices can affect non-financial disclosures required by the Italian adoption of the European directive (i.e. Legislative Decree 254/2016).

Evidence showed that prior skills and competencies in non-financial reporting made a significant contribution especially regarding to the presence of business model, but further efforts are expected to improve the quality of non-financial reports.

This study yields an initial assessment of the implementation of the European directive in Italy. It may, therefore, help policymakers to identify ways to improve the harmonization of reporting practices. Preparers can also be supported in choosing different positioning of reporting on non-financial information.

This research provides interesting insights into the ex ante and ex post adoption of the European directive by investigating how Italian companies are reacting to regulatory and institutional requirements. One of the main problems remains the lack of a shared understanding of the term “non-financial”, which can make the communication process difficult and unclear.

Sustainability Declarations were introduced by the Queensland State Government on 1 January 2010 as a mandatory disclosure measure for all dwelling sales in the State. The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact this policy decision has had in the homebuyer decision‐making process in the first year since its introduction and to consider the effectiveness of the legislation in meeting its policy objectives.

This quantitative research comprised a two‐part process: the first stage surveyed the level of compliance by the real estate industry with the legislative requirements. Stage two comprised an online survey of Real Estate Institute of Queensland members to determine what impact the Sustainability Declaration has had on home buyer decision making and how effective the legislative mechanisms have been in achieving the policy objectives.

This paper assesses the initial impact of this initiative over its first year in operation. These preliminary findings indicate a high level of compliance from the real estate industry, however results confirm that sustainability is yet to become a criterion of relevance to the majority of homebuyers in Queensland.

These quantitative findings support anecdotal evidence that the objectives of the legislation to increase homebuyer awareness and relevance of sustainability issues in the home are not being achieved.

Sustainability Declarations are a first step in raising homebuyer awareness of the importance of sustainability in housing. Further monitoring of this impact will be carried out over time.

This is the first research undertaken to assess the impact of this new mandatory disclosure legislation in Queensland, Australia. The findings will inform policy makers and assist them to assess the effectiveness of the current legislation in achieving its policy objectives.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether Italian listed companies within the food and beverage (F&B) industry adopt sustainable responsible conduct beyond the boundaries of compliance and which industry-specific matters the companies address as core to their business within a regulatory setting of sustainability disclosure.

This study develops a multiple case study of the five Italian listed companies in the F&B industry and employs a content analysis on their sustainability reports.

This study reveals a policies–practices decoupling along with a means–ends decoupling that jeopardises the commitment to sustainability. The results show a reasonable level of compliance, but companies are at an early stage of coherent and practical application.

This study offers practical avenues for companies, regulators and policy makers. Companies in the F&B industry are guided towards the learning process to shape sustainable, responsible practices at the core of their business, as this study provides a replicable assessment of F&B sustainability issues. Regulators and policy makers are called to monitor the concrete implementation of sustainability issues and improve the understanding of the sustainability agenda to overcome the misalignments that companies are currently facing.

This study provides fertile ground for assessing the degree of maturity in favour of sustainable responsible conduct within the F&B industry and shows the obstacles to this commitment in the mandatory setting of sustainability disclosure.

To investigate, compare and document the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure to sustainability disclosure during a transition from a voluntary to mandated “comply or explain” sustainability reporting regime. And to empirically test if, during the regime transition period, changes in the magnitude (extent) of sustainability disclosure is a significant determinant of changes in the magnitude (extent) of intellectual capital disclosure.

Content analysis of 1,744 annual reports drawn from 436 Singapore listed firms spanning a four-year observation window (i.e. April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2018). The magnitude (number of sentences) and extent (number of items) of (1) intellectual capital disclosure measured using a 38-item index; (2) sustainability disclosure of a 105-item index; and (3) 15-item index to measure the magnitude and extent of joint sustainability/intellectual capital disclosure.

The average magnitude and extent of sustainability and the joint sustainability/intellectual capital disclosure increased whilst the average magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure increased when regulatory discussion of a change to mandated sustainability reporting emerged. However, in the annual period the mandated sustainability reporting became effective while the average magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure declined. Regression tests indicate a significant (insignificant) association between the change in the magnitude (extent) of sustainability disclosure and intellectual capital disclosure.

From a research perspective, the analysis implies researchers investigating the consequences of mandated sustainability disclosure should consider impact on alternative non-financial disclosure themes and develop theoretical frameworks to derive why and how management may shift non-financial reporting strategies and practices.

For regulators, findings suggest there may be a need to weigh spillover costs of reductions in transparency related to intellectual capital. For investors, declines in the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure following a transition to mandated sustainability reporting may limit future firm valuation particularly of heavy intangible asset-oriented firms.

Initial study empirically investigating the impact of the transition from a voluntary to mandated sustainability reporting regime on the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure.

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.

This paper aims to examine the European Union (EU) 95/2014 Directive’s impact on large public companies. It chose Italy as a pivotal country that made non-financial information assurance mandatory, going beyond the EU Directive’s original requirements. Specifically, it investigates how the UE Directive fosters institutionalisation of the non-financial reporting (NFR) process in organisations.

Two large public companies in Italy are used as case studies. Data are gathered from annual and integrated reports, institutional websites and semi-structured interviews with the managers and employees involved in different organisational positions. The authors adopted the neo-institutional theory as a theoretical lens to identify the organisations’ response to the (external) institutional pressures influencing corporate reporting practices.

The findings demonstrate how the EU Directive fostered changes to large public companies’ reporting practices and external pressures contributed to influencing changes to internal organisational practices in terms of new internal processes, procedures and structures. These changes are motivated by the companies’ need to guarantee reliable information to be produced in their non-financial reports.

This paper helps academics and policymakers to advance NFR practices by understanding regulatory factors that can foster changes in the internal reporting process and responsibility within organisations.

The findings provide some empirical insights to foster reflections on the EU Directive’s effectiveness in changing reporting practices. This paper contributes to enriching the literature on institutional theory in shaping mandatory non-financial disclosure by identifying the institutional pressures influencing the effectiveness of regulations to change NFR practices.

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.