Search results

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive examination of corporate sustainability reporting strategies, focusing on the rationale for adopting the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards, the challenges to be faced and the implications that can arise for accounting professionals, managers, policymakers and scholars alike.

The single case study approach was followed. Qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis were used for an in-depth, contextual examination of Enel Green Power's sustainability reporting practices and the adoption of the GRI Standards. The documents analyzed include annual sustainability reports, integrated reports and press releases over the period ranging from 2018 to 2022.

The GRI Standards' adaptability, modular structure and emphasis on stakeholder involvement emerged as stimulating factors for Enel Green Power. GRI Standards allowed the company to benchmark its sustainability performance against competitors and identify areas for improvement. The company faced challenges during the implementation of the GRI Standards concerning data collection and management across global operations, stakeholder identification and engagement and alignment of sustainability reporting with corporate strategy. The company addressed these challenges by investing in robust data management systems, maintaining active communication with stakeholders and embedding sustainability into its corporate culture.

This research contributes to the academic literature on sustainability reporting and accounting, offers valuable insights for managers and professionals and informs policymakers about the potential benefits and challenges associated with the adoption of GRI Standards. The paper highlights the importance of aligning organizational strategies with global sustainability frameworks and fostering a culture of transparency and stakeholder engagement.

This work offers a novel contribution to the scholarly discourse on sustainability reporting standardization, shedding light on the governance challenges to be faced and providing potential solutions.

This paper aims to assess the relationship between cultural profiles and the economic, environmental and social dimensions of electricity companies’ reporting based on the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) sustainability framework.

The authors used the competing values framework, developed by Cameron and Quinn, as the theoretical starting point, with primary data collected through surveys that assessed organizational culture and with secondary data collected through the GRI indicators reported by the companies.

First, the framework shows whether a company’s organizational culture corresponds with one of the following options: clan, adhocracy, market or hierarchy. The results show that most of the companies’ organizational cultures were hierarchical, characterized by a greater need for stability and control and a formal work environment. Clans were the second most popular type of organizational culture, characterized as having greater internal flexibility, more informal environments and fewer hierarchical levels. Second, by combining the above results with the assessment of the GRI indicators in the companies’ sustainability reports, the study checked whether the companies had strong (balanced) or non-balanced cultures. The results show that there was a greater correlation between a strong (balanced) culture and the total value of the reported indicators, compared to a non-balanced culture.

The paper takes an innovative approach by correlating two different but well-recognized methodologies as a way to create a more holistic assessment that can help stakeholders to understand both the way these companies work and how this choice reflects the transparency of their reporting.

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of developments in the field of voluntary corporate non-financial and sustainability reporting and disclosure (VRD). The assessment is grounded in the empirical material of a three-year research project on integrated reporting (IR).

Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework structures the arguments in this paper. By investigating local phenomena and the extant literature, the authors glean insights that they later critique, drawing on the empirical evidence collected during the research project. Transformative redefinitions are then proposed that point to future opportunities for research on voluntary organisational disclosures.

The authors argue that the mainstream approaches to VRD, namely, incremental information and legitimacy theories, present shortcomings in addressing why and how organisations voluntarily disclose information. First, the authors find that companies adopting the International IR Council’s (IIRC, 2021) IR framework tend to comply with the framework only in an informal, rather than a substantial way. Second, the authors find that, at times, organisations serendipitously chance upon VRD practices such as IR instead of rationally recognising the potential ability of such practices to provide useful information for decision-making by investors. Also, powerful groups in organisations may use VRD practices to establish, maintain or restore power balances in their favour.

The paper’s limitations stem directly from its aim to be a critical reflection. Even when grounded on empirics, a reflection is mainly a subjective effort. Therefore, different researchers could come to different conclusions and offer different lessons from the two case studies.

The different rationales the authors found for VRD should make a case for reporting institutions to tone down any investor-centric rhetoric in favour of more substantial disclosures. The findings imply that reporting organisations should approach the different frameworks with a critical eye and read between the lines of these frameworks to determine whether the purported normative arguments are achievable practice.

The authors reflect on timely and relevant issues linked to recent developments in the VRD landscape. Further, the authors offer possible ways forward for critical research that may rely on different methodological choices, such as interventionist and post-structuralist research.

This study explores the scope, materiality and extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure – as benchmarked against the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI-G4) – of the top 10 logistics firms operating in Australia. It also investigates the relationships between the extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure of these firms and their actual financial performance.

The authors adopted an inductive case study approach for an in-depth investigation of the relationships among concepts. A content analysis of the firms' sustainability reports was performed to determine their pattern and extent of sustainability disclosure against the GRI framework. A disclosure–performance analysis (DPA) matrix was employed to relate the extent of environmental and social sustainability disclosure of these 10 firms with their actual financial performance (i.e. return on assets [ROA] and total revenue growth).

This study found that the extent of sustainability reporting was relatively high on the labour practices and decent work subgroup, followed by the environmental dimension of the GRI-G4 framework. However, it was relatively low on the society, human rights and product responsibility subgroups of the GRI framework. The DPA revealed that “Leaders” (firms with higher sustainability disclosure levels) achieved significantly higher ROA. However, “Opportunists” (firms with lower sustainability disclosure levels) achieved higher levels of financial returns (i.e. ROA and total revenue growth) with less attention to sustainability issues, which contradicts the win-win view of the sustainability disclosure–financial performance relationship.

First, this study contributes an in-depth review of sustainability disclosure practices of top logistics firms operating in Australia. Second, using DPA, it identifies the novel effects of environmental and social sustainability disclosure levels on these firms' financial performance. It also sheds further light on the potential effect of investments beyond substantial profitability for sustainability growth and corporate governance on the sustainability disclosure–financial performance relationship.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretically informed analysis of the evolution of environmental management accounting (EMA) and social and environmental reporting (SER), and the accompanying development of a sustainability programme, in a large family-owned, unlisted corporation.

A longitudinal case study based on semi-structured interviews and documentary data was conducted. The main periods of fieldwork were carried out in 2007 and between 2010 and 2012. Sustainability reports were collected until 2019 when SER appeared to cease. The case analysis draws on the concepts of organisational identity (OI) and internal legitimacy (IL) to examine the decision-making and actions of a range of key organisational actors as they engage with EMA and SER.

The study demonstrates that a gap between an organisation’s identity claims (“who we are”) and its enacted identity (“what we do”) can enable the adoption of constitutive, performative and representational EMA and SER. It illuminates the nature of the role of key actors and organisational dynamics, in the form of OI and IL, in adapting these practices. It also demonstrates that, in giving meaning to the concept of sustainability, organisational actors can draw on their organisation’s identity and construct the comprehensibility of an organisational sustainability programme.

More empirical work is needed to examine the applicability of OI and IL to other settings. It would also be beneficial to examine the potential for OI work to allow organisations to change and reinvent themselves in response to the evermore pressing environmental crisis and the role, if any, of EMA in this process.

The study enriches our understanding of why and how EMA and SER evolve by demonstrating that paying attention to OI and IL can provide further insight into the decision-making and actions of organisational members as they recognise, evaluate, support and cease these practices.

The objective of this paper is to propose a taxonomy of sustainability communication (SC) topics that provide digital content managers with a guide for setting a sustainability content agenda and for fostering stakeholder engagement mechanisms on environmental, social and economic issues that increasingly characterize conversations on social media of all stakeholder groups.

Taxonomy is a conceptual and qualitative way used to classify and represent the corporate sustainability (CS) domain of knowledge. The taxonomy categories of SC topics are both theoretically and empirically derived, combining an in-depth literature review with a thematic content analysis of 300 web pages of the corporate websites of the top ten sustainable brands selected in “The 2019 GlobeScan-SustainAbility Leaders Survey.”

The analysis of the results led to the construction of a hierarchical dictionary of tags that categorizes all sustainability topics based on a new, four-dimensional conceptual structure: planet, people, profit and governance. Each dimension is organized in four groups of sustainability themes, which, in turn, group multiple topics, considered the smallest communication unit to develop the SC content.

The taxonomy provides a concise and immediate conceptual framework on all those topics of broader interest, which, suitably modulated, can act as touch points with several groups of stakeholders. Drawn upon the best practices of thematic organization of SCs via the web, the taxonomy represents a guide for programming an editorial plan based on environmental, social, economic and governance issues from a sustainability content marketing perspective. The taxonomy of sustainability topics also finds application as a framework for a content intelligent system, providing a dictionary of tags that can be used for the indexing and retrieval of SC web content.

The study represents the first attempt at reaching a taxonomic organization of the sustainability aspects from a communicational perspective, supporting a new way of thinking and managing SC in the digital realm. Moreover, the results highlight, for the first time, that the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) theory, applied to corporate communications, lacks the governance aspect, which is essential to pursue sustainability consistently and effectively.

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 identify the changes in the share of large public interest entities (PIEs) in European Union (EU) Member States providing Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) reporting prior to (2017) and after (2019) the implementation of Directive 2014/95/EU and the factors that influence their decisions to provide SDG reporting in 2019.

The authors use the multilevel theory of social change in organizations as the theoretical background. The sample consists of 341 PIEs based in the EU Member States, for which reports published in 2017 and 2019 are available in the global reporting initiative sustainability disclosure database. The authors analyzed the data using the statistical significance test of equal proportions and the logistic regression model.

The study findings allow to identify a significant positive change in the share of companies providing a reference to SDGs in 2019 compared with 2017. The research confirms that companies’ engagement in United Nations Global Compact and previous experience in sustainability reporting positively influences the decision to report on SDGs in 2019. Contrary to the expectations, industry, size, SDG implementation score, future orientation of government and corporate governance score do not seem to be relevant factors influencing PIEs’ disclosures.

The paper adds to the understanding of the differences in SDG reporting within the EU, which is seen as a frontrunner in implementing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs.