Search results

To perform a detailed analysis of the inherent complexities in achieving the 9th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), it is necessary to understand the procedures used by member states delegations to follow-up and review the progress made in implementing the SDGs and targets as mandated in the A/RES/70/1 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015 (U.N. General Assembly, 2015); best known worldwide as ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. Hence, this chapter aims at providing an overview of sustainability reporting practices to the U.N. High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF). It starts by reflecting on the U.N. landmark events from which the 2030 Agenda emerged and the political and cultural context prevailing at that time. Afterward, it argues on the guidance documents issued by HLPF for following up and reviewing individual countries’ progress. The most controversial issue covered in this chapter undoubtedly concerns information gathering. This issue is because stakeholders consistently question the accuracy of data being provided, not only on Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) but also on corporate sustainability reports. Therefore, the chapter also covers the guidelines of independent external organisations such as the Global Compact Initiative (GCI) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) used by firms to legitimate sustainability reporting content and increase reliability. Finally, this chapter concludes with a brief description of required procedures to submit and present VNRs.

Nowadays, social and environmental reporting is approached in different ways, paths and fields by either large-, small-, or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, as demonstrated by previous scholars, SMEs have been critically discussed because they provide lack of proper sustainability disclosure. The fact that the predominant approach of SMEs toward social responsibility is often “sunken” and not “explicit” can drive the lack of disclosure. Furthermore, unstructured communication practices create difficulties in measuring and reporting the sustainability reporting phenomenon in SMEs. The aim of our study is to shed light on the activity of SMEs’ sustainability reporting and disclosure, specifically, by addressing the variables that influence the choice of the guidelines used to prepare sustainability reports.

The research has been carried out by using qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The empirical evidence is based on all the Italian companies, mostly SMEs, that were certified in 2011 as having adopted both environmental (i.e., ISO14001 or EMAS) and social (i.e., SA8000) management systems. A multivariate linear regression model has been developed to address the influence of several variables (i.e., financial performance, size, time after achievement of the certifications, group/conglomerate control, etc.) on the guidelines’ choice for preparing sustainability reports.

Our findings demonstrate that SMEs prefer to use simple guidelines such as those guidelines that are mandatory under management system certifications. However, the sustainability disclosure driven by the adoption of international guidelines may be more complex if the SME is controlled within a group of companies or if a significant amount of time has passed since the certification date. As such, we developed a taxonomy of their different behavioral drivers according to a legitimacy theory approach.

At this stage, our study didn’t focus on the contents’ quality of the disclosure and reporting practices adopted by SMEs, which is obviously a worthwhile and important area for further research. Furthermore, the analysis took into account the impact of a number of easily accessible variables; therefore, it can be extended to investigate the effect on disclosure of other relevant variables (i.e., nature of the board of directors, age, and industrial sector in which the company operates) as well as contexts prevailing in other countries.

The study represents an important contribution for understanding how and why managers might use externally focused disclosure on social and environmental issues to benefit the company’s legitimacy.

Our study provides interesting insights for policy makers who require social or environmental certification when calling for tenders or specific EU contracts, in order to put aside the “brand” or “symbol” and really focus on the disclosed practices.

Previous studies have provided only a few evidence about reporting practices and related influencing features of SMEs’ sustainability actions. As such, the study wishes to make a significant contribution to the existing literature on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by providing relevant insights about the factors which influence the guidelines used by SMEs in preparing their sustainability reports.

This article analyzes the interplay between regulation and social and environmental reporting in northern Italian social enterprises. Specifically, it investigates how “non-accredited” social enterprises discharge voluntary accountability before and after the introduction of regulation making social and environmental reporting compulsory for “accredited-social enterprises.” By developing a content analysis on 170 stand-alone social and environmental reports, this article provides a longitudinal analysis of voluntary disclosures in a regulated context from 2006 (before regulation) to 2009 (after regulation). Based on the total number of disclosures and the average number of sentences per report, Italian “non-regulated” social enterprises showed increased voluntary disclosure on social and environmental matters from 2006 to 2009; however, when analyzing the average sentences per report, it emerges that the information contained in the stand-alone social and environmental reports decreased, especially disclosures related to “social-related issues.” This article looks beyond crude noncompliance analysis with legislation and analyzes if the regulation influences organizations’ voluntary disclosure. It analyzes all of the social and environmental disclosures provided by northern Italian “non-accredited” social enterprises before and after the introduction of regulation. The novelty of this article rests in the fact that it does not analyze the social and environmental disclosure of “legal social enterprises”; rather, it considers the whole voluntary disclosure context for “non-accredited” social enterprises in a regulated environment.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Recently Italy has engaged in an extensive promotion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) for not-for-profit organisations (NPOs). A major reform of the sector was approved in 2016, with the aim of combating corruption. Accordingly, NPOs will be eligible to receive public funds and tax benefits only when they demonstrate that they produce social impacts through their activities. To give an account of the social impacts produced, the reform introduced mandatory reporting requirements: the formulation of a social report (SR) that has to be published on the NPO’s website along with its financial statement.

The chapter first reviews the Italian ongoing path of reform for NPOs, focusing on the mandatory reporting requirements. Second, it reviews the previous empirical research on SRs in Italian NPOs to provide a picture of the voluntarily reporting practices before the recent reform entered into force.

The chapter finds that SRs in Italian NPOs are in their infancy. They are not used to disclose social impacts or to legitimate NPOs. SR practices usually lack common frameworks, disclosure of outputs and outcomes, stakeholder engagement, dissemination and assurance by third parties.

The chapter contributes to the international debate on CSR by providing the perspective of reporting requirements and practices in Italian NPOs. It analyses the ongoing reform of NPOs and gives the stock of SR practices prior to the reform entering into force. This makes it possible for future research to assess the impact produced by the reform.

In decades since the Rio Summit, freshwater has become an increasingly prominent issue in the global arena and attention has turned to the role of the corporate sector. Various (predominantly voluntary) corporate water accounting standards currently exist, from water-related components in wide-ranging sustainability standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative through to standards specifically focused on water and/or a particular industry. While academic research on adoption of these standards is sparse, initial findings reveal generally poor water reporting in terms of both quality and quantity. In future, the major areas where reporting (and standards) could be improved are the provision of site-level water information and the assessment of water risk throughout the supply chain.