Search results

Although the association between sustainability assurance (SA) quality and firm value has been examined in previous studies, the moderating relationship is novel in this study and highlights the effect of corporate environmental sustainability performance (CESP) on the relationship between SA quality and firm value. This study aims to examine whether such an effect is strengthened or weakened by eco-efficiency, as measured by ISO 14001 certification, aggregate CESP score and each individual dimension of CESP (emission reduction [ER], resource reduction [RR] and product innovation [PI]).

The sample includes 40 companies in Euronext Paris with the largest market capitalisations (the Cotation Assistée en Continu 40 [CAC 40] index) from 2010 to 2020. The authors apply the feasible generalised least squares regression technique to estimate all the regression models. Because observed associations may be biased by reverse causation or self-selection, the authors use the instrumental variable approach and Heckman two-stage estimation.

The results show that SA quality had a positive and significant effect on firm value. Second, the authors demonstrate that CESP, as assessed by ISO 14001 certification, has a stronger interaction with assurance quality and acting as a moderator variable. Using the ASSET4 scores, an alternative proxy for CESP, the authors find inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of CESP attributes. The CESP and ER scores are homogeneous and have a positive effect on firm value. However, the PI and RR CESP attributes are not homogenous and do not have the same interactive effect on firm value. The results are robust to the use of an instrumental variable approach and the Heckman two-stage estimation procedure.

Policy implications: Regulators may be interested in the findings when considering current and future assurance requirements for sustainability reporting, and shareholders when considering SA as an investment choice criterion. The insights into and enhanced understanding of the incentives for obtaining high SA quality can help policymakers develop effective policies and initiatives for SA. Considering the possible improvements in sustainability performance when obtaining a high level of sustainability verification, governments need to consider mandating SA.

Firms receive clear confirmation of the importance of investing in SA quality. Financial markets do not evaluate SA dichotomously but reward companies with higher SA quality because of the greater credibility it provides. Firms should allocate a significant percentage of their annual budgets and other relevant resources to environmental training and development programmes to improve and maintain environmental performance. If they care about environmental issues, they must announce this by issuing sustainability reports and seeking assurance of the information disclosed. High-quality assurance not only has a significant effect on investors’ investment reliability judgements but also the perceived credibility of environmental performance fully moderates the effect of assurance on these judgements.

This study has social implications; the authors find that the French market rewards firms that provide a high-quality assurance to guarantee the integrity of their sustainability reports. Therefore, by incorporating environmental sustainability into their financial goals, a better assurance ultimately will urge firms to move from green washing to strategic goals, which is beneficial for society. Further, firms that focus on sustainability as part of their business strategy may attract employees who engage in green behaviours at work and create a friendlier and productive environment because it gives meaning to the work they do and keeps them engaged to the level needed to perform their jobs capably.

This study contributes to the literature by re-examining the relationship between SA quality and firm value. It also provides new evidence on the moderating effect of CESP on the SA quality–firm value nexus. Specifically, it explores the joint effect of credibility and eco-efficiency on market confidence in sustainability information.

This study aims to examine the effect of sustainability report quality (SRQ) on information risk. This research also aims to examine the effect of SRQ on stock market participation through information risk.

The research sample includes 120 firm-years listed on the Sri Kehati Index period of 2017–2021. The hypothesis test uses firm and industry effect regression analysis. SRQ is measured by the existence of a sustainability committee and external assurance. The information risk is measured by bid-ask spread. Stock market participation is measured by volume of stock trading.

Based on the data analysis, this investigation finds that SRQ reduces information risk. This research also finds that SRQ improves stock market participation by reducing information risk.

First, this examination gives new evidence of SRQ to promote information environment improvement. Second, this examination contributes to providing the role of SRQ in an emerging market, such as Indonesia. Third, this examination contributes to providing the evaluation standard for sustainability reporting quality in Indonesia, since Indonesia has no specific standard for the sustainability report. Fourth, this examination contributes to filling the previous gap.

This paper aims to evaluate the outcome effectiveness of the global reporting initiatives (GRI) transitions by understanding how companies have responded to the changes from G3.1 to G4 and finally to the GRI Standards.

A quality disclosure score is developed that incorporates assessments of both the quality of disclosures and the materiality of Australian companies. To analyse materiality, survey data were collected from 187 companies. Disclosure scores are based on a content analysis of the sustainability reports of 12 mining and metals companies and 12 financial services companies that used the GRI Standards from 2011 to 2019 (a total of 213 reports).

The study found that the GRI transitions have not led to companies improving the quality of their disclosures on areas considered important for them to achieve their social and environmental goals. Instead, the companies tended to use a greenwashing strategy, where the quality of disclosure of material issues declined or fluctuated over time.

From a practical perspective, the disclosure score developed in this paper enables managers of companies to recognize a threshold of completeness and to summarize the areas that are not materially relevant to their business.

The results are potentially helpful for investors, shareholders and other stakeholders, enabling them to better understand sustainability reports.

This study contributes to the body of research in sustainability reporting by providing evidence on the outcome effectiveness of the latest updates in the GRI framework.

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 examine the effect of corporate integrity and external assurance on Sustainability Reporting Quality (SRQ) of Malaysian public listed companies.

The study uses a longitudinal sample of 2,463 firm-year observations of non-financial firms listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia from 2015 to 2019. The study employed panel regression that is, Fixed Effect (FE) Robust Standard Error estimation technique to test its hypotheses.

The panel regression results reveal that corporate integrity and external assurance positively and significantly influence the quality of sustainability reporting. Though the positive association shows an improvement in the SRQ of the sampled firms, it needs an improvement as the disclosure is more general and qualitative than quantitative. The present improvement in SRQ might result from some regulatory changes like the Sustainability Practice Note 9 Updates of Bursa Malaysia 2017 and the Revised MCCG Principle A to C within the same period.

The study adopts a purely quantitative approach and call for a qualitative investigation in the area in the future.

The study has policy implication for the government and regulators to strengthen compliance with the sustainability reporting guide and the Practice Note 9 Updates. It also has implication for corporate integrity and external assurance for companies, to enhance SRQ and achieve sustainable development.

The study bridged literature gaps by offering new insights and empirical evidence on the role of corporate integrity in SRQ, which has received no empirical attention in the Malaysian context.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the evolution of greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting quality and to determine whether the evolution of reporting quality is linked with the type of information reported based on the “search”, “experience”, and “credence” typology.

The method is based on the content analysis of GHG reporting in 245 sustainability reports by 45 oil and gas companies between 1998 and 2010. The content analysis disclosure index developed links GHG reporting requirements with seven quality dimensions. The information associated with each item on the content analysis index is classified as “search”, “experience” or “credence”. Statistical analysis is used to determine whether any significant change occurred in either overall GHG reporting quality or in the quality of reporting in any of the individual dimensions of quality over the period of the study.

GHG reporting quality has not improved significantly between 1998 and 2010. The quality of reporting is not the same in each of the seven dimensions of quality and this can be explained by information typology.

This paper provides the first longitudinal analysis of the quality of GHG reporting. The methodology developed advances current measures of reporting quality by linking reporting requirements with particular quality dimensions. The results show that the type of information is important in terms of quality evolution and that this can dictate the measures required to improve quality.

Based on institutional theory, this paper aims to examine whether, and if so which, institutional forces influence the quality of China’s listed financial institutions’ (FIs) sustainability disclosures.

Using univariate statistical and multiple regression analyses, this study quantitatively examines the impacts of coercive pressure from the government and stock exchanges, imitation within subsectors and normative pressure from industry associations and regulators on the quality of China’s listed FIs’ sustainability disclosures. Assessment of the robustness of regression results uses panel random-effects and generalized methods of moments estimation.

Financial sector corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure quality did not increase dramatically following issue of the “Guiding Opinions on Establishing a Green Finance System.” However, a convergence in quality is found over time. State ownership concentration and state links to dominant shareholders negatively impact the quality of financial sector sustainability disclosures, whereas stock exchange index listing requirements and industry association reporting guidance have positive influences.

First, data availability limits the sample to listed financial firms with RKS quality scores. Thus, results may not be generalizable to the broader listed and unlisted financial sector. Second, this study only examines the influence of external forces based on institutional theory. However, internal institutional forces, such as corporate governance, may require examination. This study’s results indicate that coercive pressure, as represented by issue of the “Green Finance” policy, has not yet prompted the financial sector to improve reporting quality; however, normative pressure has had significant influence in influencing FIs’ CSR practices, with China’s banks potentially taking a leading role.

The financial sector has a lower direct environmental impact than traditional polluting industries and different operating and reporting structures, features often used to argue for its exclusion in prior studies. However, its indirect environmental impact via lending and investing activities is significant, suggesting evidence on the determinants of sustainability disclosure quality is required. This study uses evidence from China’s financial sector to reduce this gap in the literature.

The purpose of this study is to develop a sustainability reporter classification matrix (hereafter referred to as the “matrix”) to explain why some reporters publish better-quality sustainability reports than others and why some reporters experience improvements in the quality of their sustainability reports while others experience no improvement or a decline in sustainability report quality.

The study draws on the existing literature, which is analysed using a combination of legitimacy theory (i.e. commitment to sustainability reporting) and resource-based view (RBV, i.e. competencies in sustainability reporting).

A two-dimensional matrix is developed representing organisations’ competencies in (explained using the RBV) and commitment to (explained using legitimacy theory) sustainability reporting. Based on these two dimensions the matrix identifies four reporter classifications: incompetent uncommitted reporters (who publish low-quality reports); competent uncommitted reporters (who publish average-quality reports); incompetent committed reporters (who publish average-quality reports); and competent committed reporters (who publish high-quality reports). The matrix explains how reporters can transition from one quadrant/classification to another and how this transition can be either forward (moving from a lower quadrant to a higher quadrant), resulting in improvements in report quality, or backward (moving from a higher quadrant to a lower quadrant), leading to a deterioration in disclosure quality.

The study builds on the extant literature, combining legitimacy theory with the RBV, to provide a more complete explanation for why organisations publish sustainability reports of varying quality and why this quality varies over time. These insights can also be used to explain variations in the quality of integrated reports. The matrix may prove useful to practitioners as a tool for classifying reporters, identifying issues, assessing risk and tracking progress made.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of stakeholder pressure and corporate governance on the quality of sustainability report. This study uses environment, employee, consumer and shareholder as stakeholders, while board of commissioner effectiveness and family ownership are used as corporate governance components.

This research uses multiple regression method with total observations of 123 sustainability reports of listed firms on Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2010-2014.

The result shows that companies which get pressure from environment and consumer have higher quality of sustainability report than other firms. Pressure from employee positively affects the quality of sustainability report. Meanwhile, pressure from shareholders has no effect on the quality of sustainability report. Board of commissioner effectiveness positively affects the quality of sustainability report, and family ownership has no effect on the quality of sustainability report.

This research reveals how various types of stakeholders and corporate governance in Indonesia react to corporate social responsibility and thus influence the quality of sustainability report, which has not been discussed by previous studies.

This study aims to examine the relationship and effect of integrated reporting (IR) quality on sustainability performance and explore the relationships and effects of corporate governance mechanisms on IR quality and sustainability performance.

Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used in a longitudinal study by following the steps in Roemer’s Evolutionary Model on a sample of listed companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) in South Africa for a period from 2011 to 2016.

This study finds board effectiveness and external audit quality to be important determinants of IR quality. It also observes a strong effect of the IR quality on sustainability performance.

This study contributes by using and analysing a longitudinal data set from JSE, currently the only capital market globally requiring the mandatory IR application since 2010.