Search results

Stakeholder theory research identifies changes in language as one possible mechanism to overcome the deficiencies of current accounting practices with regard to social aspects. This study aims to examine the effects of the terms used for specific accounts on company internal decision-making, drawing on the example of “value creation accounting”.

The study uses a survey based-experiment to analyze the effects of terms used for specific accounts on decision-making, with a focus on social aspects (in particular expenditures for staff) in cost reduction and expenditure decisions.

The findings indicate that wordings, which more closely relate to value creation than to costs, decrease cost reductions and increase the priority ascribed to the social aspect of reducing staff costs in times of financial shortage. The effects of terms used on cost reductions are stronger among female decision makers.

The analysis suggests that conventional accounting language best suits organizations that aim at incentivizing decision makers to primarily cut costs. By contrast, if an organization follows an approach that puts importance on social aspects in times of financial shortage and on not doing too sharp cost reductions, value creation-oriented language is the more effective approach.

The study suggests that the specific terminology used for accounts should be chosen more carefully and with awareness for the possible effects on cost reduction decisions as well as on social consequences.

This study contributes to a better understanding of the relevance of language in accounting. It suggests that the terms used for accounts should be chosen purposefully because of their far-reaching potential consequences for stakeholders as well as for the organization.

The aim of this paper is to examine the effects of the European Non-financial Reporting Directive (2014/95/EU) on firms' sustainability reporting practices, especially reporting quantity (i.e. availability of information) and quality (i.e. comparability and credibility).

To test the main hypotheses, the authors select 905 treated firms from the EU 28 + 2 countries for a difference-in-differences regression analysis of dependent variables from the Refinitiv ESG database.

The results suggest that the Directive influences sustainability reporting quantity and quality. Treated firms provide around 4 percentage points more sustainability information (i.e. availability) than propensity score matched control firms and are 19 percent more likely to receive external assurance (i.e. credibility). However, we also find that the Directive is not the decisive factor in the adoption of GRI guidelines (i.e. comparability).

The analysis is restricted to large listed firms and does not account for small, mid-sized and private firms. Further, cross-cultural differences which influence sustainability reporting are controlled for but not investigated in detail. The authors derive several suggestions for future research related to the NFR Directive and its revision.

The authors’ findings have practical implications for the future development of sustainability reporting in the EU and for other regulators considering the adoption of sustainability reporting.

This study is the first to provide evidence on the NFR Directive's reporting effects across multiple countries. It adds to the growing literature on the consequences of mandatory sustainability reporting. Additionally, this paper introduces a novel measurement approach sustainability information quantity that could benefit researchers.

On the invitation of the Editor I am publishing in the JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION a selection of lists of music publishers' numbers, with an indication of the date of issue of their publications so numbered.

Global and interconnected supply chains are increasingly exposed to systemic risks, whereby individual failures propagate across firms, sectors and borders. Systemic risks have emerged from the decisions of individual firms, e.g., outsourcing and buffer reduction, and are now beyond their control. This paper aims to identify appropriate approaches to mitigating those risks.

Systemic risks require analyzing supply chains beyond a dyadic perspective. This study approaches the problem through the lenses of complex systems and network theories. Drawing on the lessons learned from other systemic-risk-prone systems, e.g. energy and financial networks, both in research and practice, this study analyzes the adequate level of governance to monitor and manage systemic risks in supply chains.

The authors argue that governance institutions should be mandated to overview and reduce systemic risks in supply chains from the top down, as central bankers do for the financial system. Using firm-level data and tools from network analysis and system dynamics, they could quantify systemic risks, identify risk-prone interconnections in supply chains and design mitigating measures. This top-down approach would complement the bottom-up supply chain management approach and could help insurers design policies for contingent business interruptions.

Instead of looking at supply chains purely from the firms’ angle, the perspective of insurers and governments is brought in to reflect on the governance of risks.

A SPLENDID conference, I thought. True, there were those who complained, those who thought some of the papers were elementary and those who thought that we had come a long way to learn very little. I don't agree at all. Some of the papers did, I admit, deal with basic considerations but it does nothing but good to re‐examine the framework of our services from time to time. In any case other papers were erudite, and for the first time I have seen an audience of librarians and authority members stunned, almost, into silence.