Search results

This study is an analysis that aims to understand the rationale behind the concept of value creation contained in the integrated reporting (IR) framework. As such, the authors examined the quality of the disclosures made in integrated reports by measuring the level to which the six capitals (6Cs) have been integrated into disclosures on value creation.

The IR framework’s value creation model focuses on six content elements and three guiding principles. Hence, the present analysis combines content analysis with quantitative measures in the form of a bespoke Integrated Disclosure Index. The index measures the level of integration found in the disclosures instead of the mere presence or absence of mentioned capitals, content elements and guiding principles in isolation. The present sample comprised the 2016 integrated/sustainability reports for 184 listed companies sourced from the Integrated Reporting Examples Database.

The 6Cs are well disclosed in form but only partially disclosed in substance. Further, overall levels of integration between the capitals, the content elements and the guiding principles are higher than average. Disclosures on materiality, business models and stakeholder relationships are somewhat lacking, as are the related medium- and long-term disclosures on outlook.

The paper contributes to the academic debate on IR by building a case for holistically assessing the substance of integrated reports. Considering that the IR value creation model can underpin and align with the 17 UN sustainable development goals, the authors show how the fundamental concept of the 6Cs sustaining value creation is understood and implemented differently across the various elements and principles of the IR framework.

This research also provides guidance for overcoming some of the practical hurdles associated with assessing the quality of reports because the authors provide tools for spotlighting the substance of disclosures over their form.

This paper delves into the substance of integrated reports by assessing how well the 6Cs have been integrated into disclosures on the content elements and guiding principles of the IR framework. In contrast to previous IR research that has mainly analysed capital, elements and principles in isolation, the authors develop an index assessing the integration of these three fundamental concepts of IR.

This study aims to examine whether there exists any relationship between corporate biodiversity reporting decision (CBRD) and corporate environmental performance (CEP).

The primary sample contains 442 firm-year observations over a period of 13 years (2008–2020) for 34 listed Finnish companies. Based on both legitimacy theory and voluntary disclosure theory, 2 logit regression models are estimated to test the CBRD–CEP nexus. CBRD is a dichotomous variable. Three proxies for CEP, namely propensity to emit greenhouse gas (GHG), propensity to consume water and propensity to generate waste are employed.

This study finds that firms having higher propensity to consume water and generate waste are inclined to release biodiversity-related information. The findings support legitimacy theory suggesting that firms with inferior environmental performance may decide on reporting biodiversity information for legitimation purpose.

The study uses Finnish data and hence, the results may lack in generalizability to other national contexts.

The results of this study should be valuable to policy makers for formulating mandatory biodiversity reporting standards to ensure disclosure of standard, extensive and authentic biodiversity-related information by companies. The results should also be valuable to corporate managers and eco-friendly investors.

Corporate biodiversity reporting (CBR) is an under-researched area of environmental accounting literature. Using the Finnish context, this paper extends the existing literature by investigating whether any association exists between CBRD and CEP, which has not been examined before.

Information infrastructures can enable or constrain how companies pursue their visions of sustainability reporting and help address the urgent need to understand how corporate activity affects sustainability outcomes and how socio-ecological challenges affect corporate activity. The paper examines the relationship between sustainability reporting information infrastructures and sustainability reporting practice.

The paper mobilises a socio-technical perspective and the conception of infrastructure, the socio-technical arrangement of technical artifacts and social routines, to engage with a qualitative dataset comprised of interview and documentary evidence on the development and construction of sustainability reporting information.

The results detail how sustainability reporting information infrastructures are used by companies and depict the difficulties faced in generating reliable sustainability data. The findings illustrate the challenges and measures undertaken by entities to embed automation and integration, and to enhance sustainability data quality. The findings provide insight into how infrastructures constrain and support sustainability reporting practices.

The paper explains how infrastructures shape sustainability reporting practices, and how infrastructures are shaped by regulatory demands and costs. Companies have developed “uneven” infrastructures supporting legislative requirements, whilst infrastructures supporting non-legislative sustainability reporting remain underdeveloped. Consequently, infrastructures supporting specific legislation have developed along unitary pathways and are often poorly integrated with infrastructures supporting other sustainability reporting areas. Infrastructures developed around legislative requirements are not necessarily constrained by financial reporting norms and do not preclude specific sustainability reporting visions. On the contrary, due to regulation, infrastructure supporting disclosures that offer an “inside out” perspective on sustainability reporting is often comparatively well developed.

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.

This study aims to evaluate the adequacy of climate risk disclosure by providing empirical evidence on whether corporate disclosure meets rising stakeholders’ demand for risk disclosure concerning climate change.

Drawing on a triangulated approach for collecting data from multiple sources in a longitudinal study, we perform a panel regression analysis on a sample of multinational firms between 2007 and 2021. Inspired by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) principles, our innovative and inclusive model of measuring firm-level climate risks underscores the urgent need to redefine materiality from a broader value creation (rather than only financial) perspective, including the impact on sustainable development.

The findings of this study provide evidence of limited corporate climate risk disclosure, indicating that organisations have yet to accept the reality of climate-related risks. An additional finding supports the existence of a nexus between higher corporate environmental disclosure and higher corporate resilience to material financial and environmental risks, rather than pervasive sustainability risk disclosure.

We argue that a mechanical process for climate-related risk disclosure can limit related disclosure variability, risk reporting priority selection, thereby broadening the short-term perspective on financial materiality assessment for disclosure.

This study extends recent literature on the adequacy of corporate risk disclosure, highlighting the importance of disclosing material sustainability risks from the perspectives of different stakeholder groups for long-term success. Corporate management should place climate-related risks at the centre of their disclosure strategies. We argue that reducing the systematic underestimation of climate-related risks and variations in their disclosure practices may require regulations that enhance corporate perceptions and responses to these risks.

This study emphasises the importance of reconceptualising materiality from a multidimensional value creation standpoint, encapsulating financial and sustainable development considerations. This novel model of assessing firm-level climate risk, based on the GRI principles, underscores the necessity of developing a more comprehensive approach to evaluating materiality.

This study investigates the impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure on firm financial performance under a mandatory disclosure regime in Hong Kong.

The authors examine the largest 109 firms listed on the Hong Kong Exchange (HKEX) as of the financial year of 2019. The authors use a manually constructed index based on the most current 2019 ESG Reporting Guide launched by HKEX, followed by quantitative statistical methods using a model that follows the valuation framework by Ohlson.

The authors find a significant positive association between total ESG disclosure level and firm financial performance in the main tests. However, when the total ESG scores are partitioned into environmental and social subscores, the results show that only social disclosures are value relevant. Moreover, the results demonstrate that environmental and social subscores are both significant when return on assets (ROA) is used as a dependent variable. Furthermore, the robustness tests show that only qualitative ESG information is value relevant to share prices, while both quantitative and qualitative ESG information are relevant to ROA. In addition, the disclosure quality of annual reports alone is good in explaining the firm financial performance in this study.

This study contributes to existing non-financial reporting literature using hand-collected data as well as examining the firm financial performance of ESG reporting under the mandatory disclosure regime in the Hong Kong context.

This study aims to explore how the top 50 Australian companies are disclosing their commitment to addressing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) formulated by the United Nations (UN) in 2015. By investigating the nature and substantiveness of SDG reporting, this study provides exploratory evidence on how companies are taking the initial steps to addressing the SDGs.

A content analysis of SDG disclosures by the top 50 Australian companies was undertaken. This content analysis was guided by the KPMG (2018) SDG disclosure framework. Legitimacy theory was used to interpret the findings, establishing whether such disclosure was substantive or symbolic.

This study reports a moderate level of SDG disclosure among Australian companies. The top five most critical SDGs in Australian context are climate action, gender equality, decent work and economic growth, responsible consumption and production and industry, innovation and infrastructure. The findings also highlight that while the focus of Australian companies is on understanding and prioritizing SDGs, the measurement of SDGs performance needs to increase.

This study adds to limited literature on the corporate responses to SDGs by establishing how companies, especially in Australia, are addressing these goals through changes to their reporting systems, thereby communicating their strategic intent in relation to addressing these goals. A focus on symbolic legitimation through SDG disclosure by the Australian companies in this study reaffirms the findings of similar studies and suggests a need for more substantive SDG management and disclosure if these goals are to be adequately addressed by the corporate sector.

The findings of this study provide insights into the current practices and future prospects of corporate responses to SDGs. Policy implications could arise in relation to possible approaches for disclosing social and environmental information and the paper argues for a potential need for regulation of non-financial reporting.

This study contributes to the limited understanding of the corporate response to an urgent sustainability call made by the UN by providing evidence on how Australian companies are embedding, measuring and reporting the SDGs. The research goes beyond a descriptive analysis of SDG disclosure and assesses whether such disclosure is substantive or symbolic.

This paper aims to examine the association between environmental disclosure and waste performance.

This study is based on a sample of S&P 500 firms over a nine-year period from 2010 to 2018. The pooled ordinary least squares (OLS), logistic, propensity score matching (PSM) and instrumental variable-generalized method of moments regressions analyses have been used to examine the data.

The findings show a significant positive relationship between waste performance and environmental disclosure, suggesting that firms with superior waste performance tend to disclose more environmental information. Further, the authors distinguish between “hard” and “soft” environmental disclosures and find that the effect of waste performance is consistently positive and significant for each type. The observed positive and significant association of waste performance with environmental disclosure remains unchanged, regardless of the industry affiliation of firms, although firms from industries that are less environmentally sensitive provide a slightly higher level of environmental disclosure. The authors also explore possible channels that may explain the association between waste performance and environmental disclosure and find that litigation risk and cash holdings positively moderate the association. The finding remains robust to a number of alternative estimation approaches.

Overall, the authors present important evidence that waste performance is an important indicator of environmental disclosure. The findings are useful for corporations and stakeholders and have important implications around the globe as the authors continue to grapple with the ongoing issue of waste.

This paper explores stakeholder perceptions on the nature and extent of sustainability reporting on the websites of technical universities (TUs) in Ghana.

The authors collected data from the websites of the 10 TUs in Ghana and interviewed the stakeholders of the TUs. In analyzing the data, the authors used thematic analysis for the interview responses. The authors also adopted the global reporting initiative (GRI) guidelines and campus sustainability assessment tools for the presentation and analysis of the sustainability disclosures on the websites of the TUs.

The authors found that due to weak institutional coercions, there were limited disclosures on the websites of the TUs, which aimed at gaining stakeholders' legitimacy; the disclosures were more focused on organizational profile, governance and educational aspects of sustainability. To a large extent, while some external stakeholders such as parents, regulators and alumni appear to be less interested in the disclosures on the TU's websites, internal stakeholders such as employees (teaching and non-teaching staff) and students who frequently visited the TU's websites perceived limited reporting and were not impressed with the extent of sustainability disclosures on these websites.

The findings of this study are intended to assist policy-makers in the educational sector to appreciate the importance of sustainability reporting on their websites. The results of this study will assist higher educational institutions (HEIs) in increasing the success rate of sustainability implementation by overcoming the lack of sustainability disclosures on their websites. Thus, the results of this study have implications for sustainability implementations, particularly those in emerging economies and policy-makers of universities worldwide.

This study could provide two significant values. First, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no other study has explored stakeholder perceptions of sustainability reporting in implementing sustainability within the education sector. Second, the results were arrived at by combining stakeholder consultations with content analyses, which could be a good guideline for sustainability implementation in the educational sector of developing countries.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether mandatory disclosure of information accompanying the sale of real estate achieves its aim of informed purchasers.

Using a case study approach focused on mandatory disclosure in South Australia data was collected from interviews and focus groups with key personnel in the property industry involved in the production of information required to fulfil vendors’ disclosure obligations.

The authors found that purchasers are ill-served by a long and complex form of mandatory disclosure with a short time frame that prevents the use of the information provided. Without good form design and increased digital affordances provided by the cadastral and conveyancing systems, mandatory disclosure is insufficient to ensure minimisation of information asymmetry between vendor and purchaser.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first Australian qualitative study that examines the utility of mandatory vendor disclosure in real estate sales and the first to consider the impact of the digitalisation of cadastral and conveyancing systems upon the efficacy of mandatory disclosure regimes.