Search results

This study aims to evaluate the quality of the energy efficiency disclosures made by Australian cities. As cities are significant energy users, and energy use is a crucial source of greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency initiatives can play an essential role in addressing climate change. Yet, little is understood about the energy efficiency disclosures being made.

The authors developed an original energy efficiency disclosure index to assess the reporting quality of the eight largest Australian cities. The websites of these cities were analysed for information on energy efficiency measures from December 2018 to June 2019. Annual reports, environmental reports, climate action plans and any other material related to energy plans were downloaded and then coded using the index.

While all cities provided energy efficiency information, little financial information was provided, limited forward-looking information was disclosed, key challenges were not disclosed, and each city provided energy efficiency disclosures differently. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that public accountability is limited.

An important implication is the need to standardise and improve cities’ energy efficiency reporting, especially concerning financial information. Cities, governments and the Carbon Disclosure Project (formerly the CDP) could achieve this, perhaps as part of the broader update of the CDP city-focused guidelines for greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting.

Although some studies on GHG reporting by cities have already been undertaken, including energy efficiency as part of their disclosure index, no study has focused on energy efficiency disclosures. The authors provide original insights concerning these practices. The study also provides an energy efficiency disclosure index that can be used in further research.

New Space activities offer benefits for human progress and life beyond the Earth. However, there is a risk that the New Space Economy may develop according to an anthropocentric mindset favouring human progress and survival at the expense of all other species and the environment. This mindset raises concerns over the social and environmental impacts of space activities and the accountability of space actors. This research article explores the accountability of space actors by presenting a pluralistic accountability framework to understand, inspire and change accountability in the New Space Economy. This study also identifies future research opportunities.

This paper is a reflective and normative essay. The arguments are developed using contemporary multidisciplinary academic literature, publicly available evidence and examples. Further, the authors use Dillard and Vinnari's accountability framework to examine a pluralistic accountability system for space businesses.

The New Space Economy requires public and private entities to embrace hybrid and pluralistic accountability for their social and environmental impacts. A new way of seeing the relationship between human life, the Earth and celestial space is needed. Accounting language is used to mirror and mobilise broader forms of responsibility in those involved in space.

This paper responds to the AAAJ's special issue call for examining how accountability can be ensured in the New Space Age. The space activities businesses conduct, and the anthropocentric view inspiring their race toward space is concerning. Hence, the authors advocate the need for rethinking accountability between humans and nature. The paper contributes to fostering the debate on social and environmental accounting and the accountability of space actors in the New Space Economy. To this end, the authors use a pluralistic accountability framework to help understand how the New Space Economy can face the risks emanating from its anthropocentric mindset.

The Agenda 2030 have drawn a lot of interest in academic studies. This necessitates accounting research on nonfinancial reporting and sustainable development goals (SDG) disclosure in an under-investigated context. The purpose of this study is to examine the contribution of nonfinancial reporting practices to SDG disclosure by 120 companies from 12 African nations for the years 2016 to 2020.

The study uses a content analysis to gauge how much information are disclosed on SDG by the selected firms. The authors carried out content analysis using the global reporting initiative frameworks to determine the level of SDG disclosure across the companies by examining the selected nonfinancial reports.

Sustainability reports account for 50% of such SDG disclosure making it the highest. This is followed by corporate social responsibility report which accounts for 23%, while environmental reports account for 20% and Chairman’s statement accounts for 7%. The result is expected since corporate sustainability report has been the major channel for disclosing activities relating to social and governance issues in recent times.

The results of this study demand that corporate entities in Africa take responsibility for their actions and exert significant effort to achieve the SDG. While the government has the main responsibility, corporate entities must support the SDG to be realized.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the few studies that examines nonfinancial reporting practices with a focus on SDG disclosure. In addition, this study offers novel insight into how accounting research contributes to nonfinancial reporting practices and SDG disclosure.

To investigate the impact of board characteristics (board gender diversity, board chair age, board subcommittees, board meetings, board skill, board size and board independence) on corporate social responsibility disclosures (CSRD) of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in Kenya during the period 2015–2018.

The study employed fixed-effects balanced panel data to examine the impact of board characteristics on CSRD. The analysis is repeated using two regression estimators (robust least square and random effects) and the four CSRD subcomponents to evaluate the robustness of the main analysis.

The results established that board gender diversity, board chair age and board subcommittees had significant negative effects on CSRD. The impact of the remaining board characteristics was found to be insignificant.

The study was limited to the disclosures included in the annual reports, which means that information disclosed in other media, like websites, was not considered. The second limitation concerns mediating and moderator variables that were not considered.

There is a need for a stricter corporate governance implementation mechanism, as opposed to the “comply or explain” principle, since results suggest that most of the board characteristics do not appear to be impactful. Additionally, the low level of reported CSRD calls for the establishment of Corporate Social Responsibility or related committees.

The evidence suggests that SOEs are reluctant to report on issues such as ethics, health and safety initiatives, environment and social investments.

The paper extends the literature on the impact of board characteristics on CSRD in unlisted non-commercial SOEs in a developing country context.

This study investigates if and how the board size, the board independence, the CEO duality and the board-specific skills are associated with higher-quality Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) disclosure in European State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).

We measured SDGs disclosure through a content analysis of SOE's reports from 2017 to 2022. The characteristics of the boards analyzed are board size, board independence, CEO duality and board-specific skills. We performed multiple regression models to test the association between the SDGs disclosure and the characteristics of the boards.

The results show that board size, independent directors and board-specific skills are positively associated with higher-quality SDGs disclosure, while CEO duality is negatively associated with higher-quality SDGs disclosure.

This study provides several practical implications. Shareholders could equip their firms with larger boards, more independent and highly skilled directors, while avoiding a CEO duality for improving the SDGs disclosure; capital providers could examine the characteristics of a firm's board before allocating financial resources to verify which firms are accountable in reaching the SDGs. Also, standard-setters and policymakers could use the results of this research to define new standards or regulatory pathways to push firms to put more efforts in preparing a comprehensive and high-quality SDGs disclosure.

While prior studies mostly focused on sustainability reporting overall, this study adds a specific insight about SDGs disclosure employing an investigation which has not been previously analyzed.