Search results

Recent research finds that the effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information, especially when CSR is not related to core business activities (immaterial CSR issues), on investment decisions will be eliminated when it is explicitly assessed. As CSR expectations from investors appear to be different across specific cultures and countries (Van der Laan Smith et al., 2010), we aim to investigate (1) the effect of CSR materiality on investors' willingness to invest and (2) how the explicit assessment of CSR information moderates the effect of explicit assessment and CSR materiality on investment judgment by professional investors in Thailand.

A 2 × 2 between-subject experiment was conducted based on 136 professional investors.

Overall, the results suggest that an investor's willingness to invest is greater when CSR is material than when CSR is immaterial. In addition, the assessment of willingness to invest in a firm's stock is not affected by the presence or absence of explicit assessment of the material CSR. However, the results suggest that when CSR issues are immaterial, explicit assessment significantly removes the effect of CSR performance on the investor's investment judgment. Consistent with the findings from Guiral et al. (2019), professional investors seem to process CSR information in a similar way as nonprofessional investors.

The findings suggest that material CSR information has a significant impact on the investment decisions of professional investors. This is consistent with the materiality guidance provided by the Sustainability Accounting Standard Board (SASB) as helpful in improving the value of CSR information for investors. These results should be of interest to both business people and regulators because, despite differences in the cultural and audit environment, the results confirm that professional investors in Thailand use CSR information in an experimental setting, thereby providing some evidence of value creation from CSR activities and nonfinancial disclosures.

While recent experimental research has primarily examined how nonprofessional investors evaluate CSR information in Western countries, this study extends the literature by focusing on professional investors in emerging capital markets and how they use CSR information in their investment decisions (Coram et al., 2009). The study also addresses the call for research on differences in CSR reporting and practices in different cultures and countries (Van der Laan Smith et al., 2010; Coram et al., 2009) to provide insights into how professional investors in Thailand use CSR information to formulate investment judgments.

This paper aims to investigate the current state of knowledge in key reporting aspects in relation to sustainability reporting in general and to reflect on their relevance to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in particular. In doing so, the major gaps in that knowledge are identified, and the paper proceeds to suggest further research avenues.

The authors conduct a review of papers published in leading journals concerning sustainability reporting to analyse the progress in the literature regarding three important reporting topics: materiality, comparability and assurance.

The review conducted in this study shows that there is still work to be done to ensure high-quality and consistent sustainability reporting. Key takeaways from the review of the extant literature are as follows: there is ongoing debate about the nature of sustainability reporting materiality, and single versus double materiality. Clearer guidance and better contextualisation are seen as essential for comparability, and, as GRI suggests, there is an important link to materiality that needs to be considered. Finally, assurance has not been mandatory under the GRI, but the current development at EU level might lead to the GRI principles being incorporated in the primary assurance standards.

In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future.

This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

Materiality as an emerging trend aims to make sustainability reports (SR) more relevant for stakeholders. This paper aims to investigate whether the reporting practice of electric utility companies (EUC) is in compliance with the materiality principle of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) when disclosing SR.

A twofold content analysis focusing on material aspects (MAs) is conducted, followed by correlation analysis. Logic and conversation theory (LCT) serves to evaluate the communication quality of documented materiality in SR by EUC.

The coverage and quality of documented MAs in SR by EUC do not meet the requirements for relevant and transparent communication. Materiality does not guide the reporting practice and is not taken seriously.

Mediocre quality of coverage and communication in SR shows that stakeholders’ information needs are not considered adequately. The content analysis is limited in focusing on merely documented aspects rather than on actual performance.

This study considers the quality of communication of documented materiality through the lens of LCT. It contributes to the academic debate by introducing LCT as a viable theoretical perspective for analyzing SR. The paper evaluates GRI-G4 reporting practices in the electricity sector, which, while under-researched is crucial for sustainability. It also contributes to the emerging body of empirical research on the relevance of materiality as a guiding principle for sustainability reporting.

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.

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.

The concept of materiality is becoming increasingly important for sustainability performance measurement and reporting. It is widely agreed upon that materiality matters, in the sense that companies should identify, prioritize and disclose information on sustainability issues that are considered material. There is, however, a tension at the heart of this consensus, owing to parallel approaches to materiality being used in practice. This paper aims to shed light on how and why the parallel uses of the materiality concept may cause confusion and how this tension could be resolved.

This paper takes as point of departure the tension between two approaches to materiality: based on the Global Reporting Initiative definition, which emphasizes sustainability issues that are important to stakeholders and that have significant impacts and based on the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board definition, which emphasizes sustainability issues that are financially material, i.e. likely to influence the financial performance of the company. This paper discusses the nature and consequences of the tensions between how the two definitions of materiality in sustainability reporting are used in practice, with a particular emphasis on users of information in financial markets. This paper provides empirical insight on these users’ perspectives through a survey (n = 30) and qualitative interviews (n = 6) of financial market professionals.

This study reveals tensions between different approaches to materiality in practice and how this may lead users of sustainability reports to draw unjustified conclusions on the basis of materiality assessments. Specifically, this paper demonstrates the perceived shortcomings in information availability and information quality from the perspectives of different stakeholders in financial markets with different information needs.

The users of sustainability reporting information require clarity in the communication of materiality in non-financial reports. This paper addresses how such clarity can be pursued.

Clarity about materiality in non-financial reporting is important both for investors that pursue financial return on green investments and for society at large, which relies on information about real sustainability impacts.

This paper furthers the understanding of how different materiality concepts may be problematic and how recent and ongoing developments may mitigate the risks of conflating uses of the concept.

As the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context.

To inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years.

This study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability.

This study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR.

By taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR.

In this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.

This paper outlines the development of the principle of materiality in the European accounting framework, from the Modernization Directive (2003/51/EC) to the NFI Directive (2014/95/EU) and on to the proposals for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR) Directive (2021/0104 (COD)). The authors highlight how the requirements for corporate reporting in terms of sustainability matters have changed, underlining the main issues that require further attention by practitioners, researchers and legislators.

This paper is based upon a historic analysis of European Union (EU) regulations in the field of non-financial and sustainability reporting and how these have changed over time. A conceptual comparison of different reporting concepts is presented, and changes in their relevance to the EU accounting framework are discussed as part of the historic analysis. Implications from corporate practice are derived from previous empirical findings from the EU Commission's consultations.

The proposed change from non-financial to sustainability reporting within the EU affects more than simply the terminology used. It implies that a different understanding is needed of both the purposes of company reporting on sustainability matters and the aims of carrying out such reporting. This change was driven by the need and desire to appropriately interpret the principle of materiality set forth in the NFI Directive. However, the recent redefinition in the shift within the EU Commission's proposals presents considerable challenges–and costs–in practice.

Future research on the conceptualization and operationalization of ecological and social materiality, as well as on the use of this information by different stakeholder groups, is necessary in order to (a) help companies that are applying the reporting requirements in practice, (b) support the increased harmonization of the reports published by these companies and (c) fully assess the costs and benefits associated with the increase in reporting requirements for these companies.

Companies have to establish relevant reporting processes, systems and formats to fulfil the increasing number of reporting requirements.

This paper outlines the historic development of the principle of materiality regarding mandatory non-financial or sustainability reporting within the EU. It outlines a shift in rationales and political priorities as well as in implications for European companies that need to fulfil the reporting requirements. In consequence, it describes appropriate interpretations of this principle of materiality under current and upcoming legislation, enabling users to apply this principle more effectively.

This paper aims to investigate materiality judgement providing insights, critiques and future research paths in light of the open debate on the role of materiality in corporate financial disclosure, highlighting potential connections and implications with sustainability and intellectual capital (IC) reporting.

The research presents an overview of the analysis of financial materiality, including new stimuli from recent studies and regulatory requirements for financial and non-financial reporting. Accordingly, this study used a systematic literature review (SLR) based on a combination of content, text and bibliometric analysis of materiality in accounting research studies, collecting data from the Scopus database as one of the most relevant repositories.

The SLR identified four relevant research trends, concerning: (1) the relevance of materiality principles in corporate disclosure; (2) financial reporting practices and materiality; (3) theories and approaches in defining financial materiality and (4) the existence of quantitative and qualitative thresholds in the materiality judgement.

The results provide theoretical and practical implications when comprehending the development of the concept of financial materiality in financial statements and whether they can be appropriate in reporting IC as well. We identified future research paths.

From a practical perspective, this study is useful for companies implementing financial materiality based on stakeholder engagement and improving their transparency in financial and non-financial reporting practices.

The research investigates if the process for assessing materiality is in line with the expectations of all stakeholders involved in financial and non-financial reporting.

This research is the first to investigate the scientific basis and applicability of the concept of financial materiality to sustainability and IC reporting.

This study aims to empirically analyze a sound commitment and a consistent integration of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in the corporate reporting and management systems of companies that have a leading position in sustainability.

The study applies a content analysis procedure based on a proposed analytical framework to codify the commitment and the SDG integration. In order to analyze the consistency of the integration, this study has provided a “SDG integration” score based on fuzzy inference systems methods. The companies in the sample have been identified as benchmarks in terms of sustainability in a specific region of Spain.

The findings show a lack of formality regarding the SDG commitment at the highest decision-making level and a low level of SDG integration in the reporting and management systems. These results are mainly explained because the most companies do not prioritize according to the materiality analysis and those SDGs more reported have not been deployed along targets and KPIs in a consistent way.

The results provide practical implications that help to overcome the limitations in terms of comparison and consistency of the SDGs-reported information. It also illustrates how the leading sustainable companies are doing the SDG reporting and suggests which elements could be improved to promote a consistent integration of the SDGs in the management systems.

This study provides new work lines in the promotion of an effective SDG-business reporting based on a robust management structure that allows an alignment among the SDG-business decisions based on a normative, strategic and operational approach.