Search results

This paper aims to examine the reporting on sustainability and the level of compliance with international best practice, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), aimed at improving communicative value to users.

Using a qualitative approach, comprising interviews with senior managers and analysis of disclosures in annual reports of Thai-listed companies, this paper contributes to the literature by providing evidence from an emerging market setting.

This study finds that sustainability reporting and integrated reporting perspectives of sampling companies are aiming to satisfy information needs to stakeholders and value creation to external users. Sustainability disclosures are related to some aspect of integrated reporting (IR) principles but not all.

The findings of this study are based on the results from interviews and annual reports of five business sectors, and may therefore, not reflect the sustainability reporting practices and/or annual reports of other Thai-listed companies. Also, there is limited reporting on future outlook.

The findings suggest that while sustainability and IR is being adopted very widely, in many countries, there is much variation in reporting practice especially in our emerging country context adopting a “comply or explain” approach.

For the Thai-listed companies, IR systems could be in their early stages and still have long way to go. The results can greatly encourage Thai-listed firms to incorporate integrated information in annual reports based on international standards thus building trust in capital markets and wider society.

The findings contribute to the literature on sustainability reporting and on the level of compliance with international best practice such as GRI by providing empirical analysis of non-financial disclosures within publicly available reporting in Thailand.

Integrated reporting enhances the meaningfulness of non-financial information, but whether this enhancement is progressive or regressive from a sustainability perspective is unknown. This study aims to examine the influence of the Integrated Reporting (<IR>) Framework on the disclosure of financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information in integrated reports.

Using a disclosure index constructed from the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 Guidelines and UN Sustainable Development Goals, the authors content analysed integrated reports of 40 companies from the International Integrated Reporting Council’s Pilot Programme Business Network published between 2015 and 2017. The content analysis distinguished between financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information.

The extent of sustainability-related disclosures in integrated reports remained more or less constant over the study period. Impact-material disclosures were more prominent than financial material ones. Impact-material disclosures mainly related to environmental aspects, while labour practices-related disclosures were predominantly financially material. The balance between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures varied based on factors such as industry environmental sensitivity and country-specific characteristics, such as the country’s legal system and development status.

The paper presents a unique disclosure index to distinguish between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures. Researchers can use this disclosure index to critically examine the nature of sustainability-related disclosure in corporate reports.

This study offers an in-depth understanding of the influence of non-financial reporting frameworks, such as the <IR> Framework that uses a financial materiality perspective, on sustainability reporting. The findings reveal that the practical implementation of the <IR> Framework resulted in sustainability reporting outcomes that deviated from theoretical expectations. Exploring the materiality concept that underscores sustainability-related disclosures by companies using the <IR> Framework is useful for predicting the effects of adopting the Sustainability Disclosure Standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, which also emphasises financial materiality.

Despite an emphasis on financial materiality in the <IR> Framework, companies continue to offer substantial impact-material information, implying the potential for companies to balance both financial and broader societal concerns in their reporting.

While prior research has delved into the practices of regulated integrated reporting, especially in the unique context of South Africa, this study focuses on voluntary adoption, attributing observed practices to intrinsic company motivations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study to explicitly explore the nature of materiality in sustainability-related disclosure. The research also introduces a nuanced understanding of contextual factors influencing sustainability reporting.

This paper aims to critically examine the conceptualisation of the principle of materiality, which is one of the most divisive concepts in current regulatory work on standard setting for sustainability reporting. This paper pays particular attention to the current agenda for standard setting for sustainability reporting and the related discourse, including the International Sustainability Standard Board (ISSB) Exposure Draft IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. A new conceptualisation of materiality is proposed based on the critique.

The academic and grey literature relating to current regulatory work on sustainability reporting, responses to the ISSB General Requirement Exposure Draft and sustainability reporting frameworks and standards are reviewed. This review also includes the papers in this journal’s special issue on standard setting for sustainability reporting. This review is used to develop original views on how materiality could be conceptualised and interpreted for sustainability reporting. This paper’s viewpoint is built on the criticisms of various definitions of materiality found in the literature and the author’s original critique of the materiality definitions provided in various reports and standards/frameworks on sustainability reporting.

Both financial materiality and double materiality approaches have drawbacks. A single materiality approach underpinned by accountability for financial and non-financial capitals instead of decision usefulness for any stakeholder is proposed. The proposed conceptualisation is also underpinned by the need to recognise dependencies between the environment, society and organisations when creating long-term enterprise value. The proposed approach is expected to trigger real changes in organisational practices to pursue a purpose beyond profit.

The proposed approach to defining materiality for sustainability reporting bridges the divide between financial materiality and social and environmental materiality concepts underpinning different standards and regulations.

The approach to materiality proposed in this paper is aimed at enabling organisations to pursue United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to make the planet and societies more sustainable.

This paper proposes a new conceptualisation of and approach to materiality determination for sustainability reporting.

This paper aims to investigate the extent to which accounting standards for social impact reporting are in the public interest. This study aims to explore what the public interest means for social impact reporting by charities; and assess the extent to which the accounting standardisation of social impact reporting supports the public interest so defined.

This study conducts a case study of how stakeholders in Australian charities conceptualise the public interest when discussing accounting standardisation. This paper distinguishes three concepts of the public interest from prior research, namely, aggregative, processual and common good. For each, this paper analyses the implications for accounting and how accountants serve the public interest, and how they align with stakeholder views.

Stakeholder views align with the aggregative and processual concepts of public interest, however this was contested and partial. Accounting standards for social impact reporting will only serve the public interest if they also capture and implement the common good approach.

Clarifying how key stakeholders interpret the public interest can help standard-setters and governments design (or withhold) accounting standards on social impact reporting. This paper also distinguishes different practical roles for accountants in this domain – information merchants, umpires or advocates, which each public interest concept implies.

This paper extends prior research on accounting for the public interest to social impact reporting. The paper empirically demonstrates the salience of the common good concept of public interest and demonstrates the diversity of views on the standardisation of social impact reporting by charities.

Motivated by the growing and urgent demands for a unified set of internationally accepted, and high-quality environmental, social and governance (hereafter ESG) disclosure standards, this exploratory study aims to propose a roadmap for setting out the proper technical groundwork for global ESG disclosure standards.

An exploratory study is conducted to gain initial understanding and insights into establishing a worldwide set of standards for reporting on sustainability, as this topic has not been extensively studied. This study examines the viewpoints of various stakeholders, including sustainability practitioners, academics and organizations focused on ESG issues, to generate knowledge that is more solid than knowledge produced when one group of stakeholders work alone.

The results revealed that there is an ongoing and incompatible debate regarding several conceptual and practical challenges for setting a unified set of ESG disclosure standards.

The study results provide multidimensional insights for regulatory parties and standard-setters to develop a high-quality package of global ESG reporting standards. This, in turn, enables different groups of stakeholders to understand the firm’s impact on the environment, society and economy.

Research into this timely and relevant global issue is considered an appealing area of study and deserves significant attention. Thereby, working on this topic merits remarkable attention. Furthermore, this exploratory article provides valuable and informative suggestions for creating a unified and high-quality set of internationally accepted sustainability reporting standards.

This paper aims to explore the perspectives of corporate report preparers and other stakeholders on integrated reporting (IR) in a major Southeast Asian economy.

A survey is used to explore perspectives on IR.

There is a limited level of knowledge regarding IR, but a high level of interest. Corporate report preparers paradoxically state that they can see the benefits of IR, yet they are reluctant to implement it.

Changes to university curricula, training sessions, seminars and conferences may be needed to disseminate information regarding IR.

IR implementation may be stymied by the low levels of knowledge in Southeast Asia and hence lack of demand from stakeholders. High-quality reporting generally supports capital flows into a region and thus influences economic and social well-being. The integrated financial and non-financial information needs of stakeholders thus have an indirect impact on society.

Southeast Asia is an economic powerhouse and home to hundreds of millions of people. It is important to understand the potential for IR in this region. This is the first survey of its kind to explore these matters.

Despite its envisaged benefits, integrated reporting (IR) has yet to achieve its “breakthrough”, especially among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This study aims to discern SME leaders’ attitudes toward IR, and thereby to reveal managerial perceptions of both the potential benefits and the challenges that actually prevent them from embarking on IR.

This explorative study is grounded on semi-structured interviews with 16 managers of large German SMEs, which yet do not apply IR but are potential candidates to implement it in the future. The engagement with non-preparers is expected to paint a more representative picture of actual reasons for IR (dis-)engagement compared to prior studies that address the few firms that have adopted IR and overcome its challenges. Applying Brown and Fraser’s (2006) conceptual landscape, results are presented analogous to a business case-, stakeholder accountability- and critical theory dimension.

Contrary to prior studies, which identified stakeholder accountability endeavors as kindling SME managers’ interest in voluntary reporting initiatives, managers regard IR primarily as a business case, serving to achieve legitimacy, improve corporate image, reach out to professional investors and assist in employee recruitment. However, they refrained from actually adopting the novel reporting medium, which suggests that decision-makers might not believe the business case to be as unproblematic as claimed by the proponents of IR. This was traced back to three major impediments that currently inhibit SMEs from reporting in an integrated way, namely, a perceived lack of interest by the relevant publics, infeasibility of the IR concept to meet user needs and preparation costs. These drawbacks resemble those of earlier voluntary reporting experiments, calling into question the “revolutionary” character of IR. The study critically concludes that the future development of IR depends on addressing these barriers.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first explorative study to deliberately engage with IR non-preparers to draw conclusions on impediments to IR. The identification of relevant incentives and disincentives for IR among SME managers at first hand not only adds to the small extant IR research body and provides valuable insights for research, practice and standard setting but also contributes to the contemporary debate about dominant legitimacy-based explanations in the broader domain of social and environmental accounting and reporting.

The purpose of this paper is to examine why companies assure some of the information found in their integrated reports, possible changes required to existing assurance practices and the motivation for either seeking to expand current technologies of assurance or to maintain the status quo.

The research is exploratory/interpretive. Data are collected from detailed interviews with preparers and assurance experts. Framing theory provides the data analysis framework.

Three broad views on assurance are identified. An expectation management perspective focusses on the role of assurance as a legitimisation tool and requires no changes to existing assurance standards. A value-adding perspective emphasises the role of assurance in improving the usefulness of information being reported to stakeholders and its function as part of a broader corporate governance system. This can evolve into a change-potential outlook in terms of which assurance is used to promote positive organisational change, something which may require the development of new standards/guidelines for assuring integrated reports.

Only preparers and assurance experts are engaged to explore the rationale for seeking to have parts of an integrated report assured. The views of the broader stakeholder community are not taken into account. The study is also limited to a single jurisdiction where integrated reporting practices are relatively well established.

Assurance of non-financial information cannot be understood only in terms of broad drivers such as firm size, environmental impact or listing status. It is inextricably linked with the perceived relevance of integrated (or sustainability) reporting and the value which assurance provides to an organisation and its stakeholders.

The study complements the mainly quantitative research on determinants of assurance of environmental or social disclosures. It is one of the few to provide primary evidence on the reasons for having these types of disclosures assured and how this informs the need for changes to existing assurance practices. The paper is also one of the first to deal with the assurance of environmental or social information in an integrated reporting context.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an understanding of the role of communication in the sustainability reporting process within Australian local councils. The study focuses on three areas; understanding and awareness levels of local councils towards sustainability, sustainability reporting methods and the importance of community engagement.

A qualitative semi-structured interview approach was adopted for this investigation. In total, 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior managers across 13 local councils.

Findings indicate that sustainability reporting is very much an emerging field in local government in Australia with varying levels of understanding and awareness of sustainability amongst councils. A lack of consistency in the current communication message being produced was found along with a lack of community engagement by most councils in the reporting process. Without clarity in the communication process, sustainability reporting in the local government context will continue to falter without a clear focus.

The paper suggests the need for the local government sector to carefully consider the role of communication in an effort to provide direction on how best to discharge their sustainability accountabilities.

Little attention has been given to the role of communication in accounting. The findings contribute to an understanding surrounding communication process issues in an effort to advance the sustainability reporting agenda within local government.

This paper aims to respond to increasing interest in the intersection between accounting and human rights and to explore whether access to information might itself constitute a human right. As human rights have “moral force”, establishing access to information as a human right may act as a catalyst for policy change. The paper also aims to focus on environmental information, and specifically the case of corporate water‐related disclosures.

This paper follows Griffin and Sen, who suggest that a candidate human right might be recognised when it is consistent with “founding” human rights, it is important and it may be influenced by societal action. The specific case for access to corporate water‐related information to constitute a human right is evaluated against these principles.

Access to corporate water‐related disclosures may indeed constitute a human right. Political participation is a founding human right, water is a critical subject of political debate, water‐related information is required in order for political participation and the state is in a position to facilitate provision of such information. Corporate water disclosures may not necessarily be in the form of annual sustainability reports, however, but may include reporting by government agencies via public databases and product labelling. A countervailing corporate right to privacy is considered and found to be relevant but not necessarily incompatible with heightened disclosure obligations.

This paper seeks to make both a theoretical and a practical contribution. Theoretically, the paper explores how reporting might be conceived from a rights‐based perspective and provides a method for determining which disclosures might constitute a human right. Practically, the paper may assist those calling for improved disclosure regulation by showing how such calls might be embedded within human rights discourse.