Explore the vast range of titles available.

The present study’s main objective is to assess the impact of non-financial sustainability reporting (NFSR) on corporate reputation and the role of the CEO in the opportunistic behavior of companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. In total, 178 firms were assessed for this paper during 2013–2020. In this study for calculating the NFSR, environmental sustainability reporting (ESR), social sustainability reporting (SSR), governance sustainability reporting (GSR) and ethical sustainability reporting (ETSR), Arianpoor and Salehi’s comprehensive and conceptual model has been used. In addition, the literature states that a CEO’s power can be classified as an opportunity for discretion and opportunistic behavior in CEOs that is in contrast with stakeholder demands. To this end, in this study, CEOs’ power has been used as an indicator for the CEO’s opportunistic behavior, and the CEO pay slice (CPS) index was used to calculate the CEO’s level of power. The results revealed that NFSR affects corporate reputation positively. In addition, ESR, SSR, ETSR and GSR positively affect corporate reputation. Moreover, the CEO’s power affects the relationship between NFSR/ESR/SSR/ETSR and corporate reputation. Because managers desire to engage in social and ethical activities, they try to hide the company’s errors and increase its reputation. The results revealed that the CEO’s power did not affect the relationship between GSR and corporate reputation. Since companies in the Tehran Stock Exchange are under intensive supervision, such as in governance, the impact of a CEO’s power and the interaction of a CEO’s power and GSR on company reputation in this study might, thus, not apply to these companies. It is crucial to investigate NFSR, corporate reputation and CEO power within Iran-specific conditions because of differences in emerging markets and developing countries such as Iran, which have diverse ownership structures, economic status, legal systems, government policies, and culture.

This paper investigates the impact of board characteristics (such as board size, board independence, CEO Duality, board meetings, and committee) on corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) in China. Unlike previous studies, we examine this relationship in light of the three pillars of corporate sustainability reporting: economic, environmental, and social. Using both the Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square (FMOLS) and Dynamics Ordinary Least Square (DOLS) empirical models, our data, which comprises 9842 firm-year observations from both the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges covering the 2006–2019 fiscal periods, reveals that board independence, a larger board size, and a board sustainability committee promote CSR in the three CSR pillars. However, the study shows that CEO duality is more likely to impede CSR. While the current study seems to provide some understanding regarding the relationship between board characteristics and corporate sustainability reporting to corporate boards, regulators, and practitioners interested in advancing the course of CSR, some significant knowledge gaps still need to be explored in future studies. Future research may consider other board characteristics as well as explore other CSR indices like integrated reporting and triple-bottom-line approaches.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the impact of nonfinancial sustainability reporting (NFSR) on enterprise value moderated by the management legitimate authority (MLA) for companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange.Design/methodology/approachTo this aim, 190 firms were assessed during 2014–2019. This study used Arianpoor and Salehi’s indicators. The scoring method for NFSR, environmental sustainability reporting (ESR), social sustainability reporting (SSR) and governance sustainability reporting (GSR) was based on Zimon et al. Also, the CEO pay slice index was used to calculate the management’s legitimate authority. Tobin’s Q was used as a standard measure for the firm value, providing a suitable means of comparison.FindingsThe results revealed that NFSR affects enterprise value positively. In addition, ESR and SSR positively affect the enterprise value. However, GSR did not affect the enterprise value. MLA affects the relationship between NFSR/ESR/SSR/GSR and enterprise value, resulting from the effect of MLA on firm-related information quality and transparency.Practical implicationsLinking NFSR and management’s legitimate authority to firm value will enable managers to lead in helping firms enhance transparency and disclosure, improving their reporting standards and increasing the enterprise value. This, in turn, will ultimately result in better sustainability and governance practices.Social implicationsThe results can help understand that analysts and investors somehow consider discussions related to the NFSR in decisions related to the company’s value, and positive market reactions to these practices’ disclosures can motivate firms to improve value and performance.Originality/valueThe majority of prior research in this field has focused on developing countries. An international perspective is critical, and this study helps draw a more contextualized picture of sustainability than before. In addition, the present research explored the management’s legitimate authority role, which is considered an innovative aspect.

This paper offers a critique of sustainability reporting and, in particular, a critique of the modern disconnect between the practice of sustainability reporting and what we consider to be the urgent issue of our era: sustaining the life-supporting ecological systems on which humanity and other species depend. Tracing the history of such reporting developments, we identify and isolate the concept of the 'triple bottom line' (TBL) as a core and dominant idea that continues to pervade business reporting, and business engagement with sustainability. Incorporating an entity's economic, environmental and social performance indicators into its management and reporting processes, we argue, has become synonymous with corporate sustainability; in the process, concern for ecology has become sidelined. Moreover, this process has become reinforced and institutionalised through SustainAbility's biennial benchmarking reports, KPMG's triennial surveys of practice, initiatives by the accountancy profession and, particularly, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)'s sustainability reporting guidelines. We argue that the TBL and the GRI are insufficient conditions for organizations contributing to the sustaining of the Earth's ecology. Paradoxically, they may reinforce business-as-usual and greater levels of un-sustainability.

Regulations establishing mandatory sustainability reporting practices are proliferating around the world. The empirical evidence comparing sustainability reporting quality (SRQ) in the context of mandatory and voluntary institutional frameworks does not show consensus. Similarly, this occurs with studies addressing the effects of regulatory shocks on SRQ. Moreover, empirical evidence addressing SRQ in Latin American countries is scarce. To fill this gap, this study aims to explore the consequences of introducing new regulatory requirements for sustainability disclosure on SRQ of Peruvian companies. To reach that goal, 81 sustainability disclosure documents published between 2014 and 2016 by 27 companies included in the S&P/BVL Peru General Index of Lima’s Stock Exchange were analyzed using qualitative content analysis methods and adopting a multidimensional approach for SRQ evaluation. The findings show a constant improvement of SRQ regardless of the introduction of the new regulatory requirements. Furthermore, after the entry into force of new sustainability reporting obligations, the number of companies providing third-party independent assurance of the information contained in their sustainability disclosure documents decreases, suggesting that for the Peruvian case, regulatory requirements tend to discourage companies to invest in the credibility of their sustainability disclosure documents, and promote a symbolic application of sustainability disclosure standards.

PurposeThis study explores the quality of sustainability reporting (QSR) and the impact of regulatory guidelines, social performance and a standardised reporting framework (using the Global Reporting Initiative [GRI] guidelines) on QSR in the context of banks in Bangladesh.Design/methodology/approachUsing a sample of 315 banking firm-year observations over 13 years (2002–2014), a content analysis technique is used to develop the 11-item QSR index. Regression analysis is used to test the research hypotheses.FindingsInitially, QSR evolved symbolically in Bangladesh's banks but, over our investigation period, with QSR indicators gradually improving, the trends became substantive. The influences on QSR were sustainable banking practice regulatory guidelines, social performance and use of the GRI guidelines. However, until banks improve reporting information, such as external verification and trends over time, QSR cannot be regarded as fully substantive.Research limitations/implicationsThis study advances QSR research and debate among academic researchers. With regulatory agencies and stakeholders increasingly using sustainability reporting information for decision making, the information's quality is vital.Originality/valueThis study is the first on QSR in the banking industry context, with previous research mostly investigating the quantity of sustainability reporting. The current study also synthesises QSR with sustainability regulation and social performance factors which have rarely been used in the sustainability literature. To gain a holistic understanding of QSR, existing QSR measures are advanced by combining external reporting efforts with banks' internalisation initiatives.

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to examine the effects of the European Non-financial Reporting Directive (2014/95/EU) on firms' sustainability reporting practices, especially reporting quantity (i.e. availability of information) and quality (i.e. comparability and credibility).Design/methodology/approachTo test the main hypotheses, the authors select 905 treated firms from the EU 28 + 2 countries for a difference-in-differences regression analysis of dependent variables from the Refinitiv ESG database.FindingsThe results suggest that the Directive influences sustainability reporting quantity and quality. Treated firms provide around 4 percentage points more sustainability information (i.e. availability) than propensity score matched control firms and are 19 percent more likely to receive external assurance (i.e. credibility). However, we also find that the Directive is not the decisive factor in the adoption of GRI guidelines (i.e. comparability).Research limitations/implicationsThe analysis is restricted to large listed firms and does not account for small, mid-sized and private firms. Further, cross-cultural differences which influence sustainability reporting are controlled for but not investigated in detail. The authors derive several suggestions for future research related to the NFR Directive and its revision.Practical implicationsThe authors’ findings have practical implications for the future development of sustainability reporting in the EU and for other regulators considering the adoption of sustainability reporting.Originality/valueThis study is the first to provide evidence on the NFR Directive's reporting effects across multiple countries. It adds to the growing literature on the consequences of mandatory sustainability reporting. Additionally, this paper introduces a novel measurement approach sustainability information quantity that could benefit researchers.

Companies disclosing nonfinancial information through sustainability reporting practices provide markets with data on their social, environmental, and governance performance. The quality of sustainability reporting is much discussed in the literature because this quality affects factors such as the credibility of accountability and building stakeholders’ trust in the company. Nonetheless, the concept of quality is multidimensional, and empirical evidence relating to the quality of sustainability reporting presents different findings. Regulations on mandatory nonfinancial disclosure (NFD) open new perspectives for research on sustainability reporting quality (SRQ). This study explored the effect of introducing mandatory NFD on SRQ by focusing on the effects of new legislation (Directive 2014/95/EU) introduced in Italy and Germany. The analysis was conducted through qualitative content analysis of the sustainability reporting practices of Italian and German companies in the top lists of stock exchanges. Sustainability reporting practices of one year before (2016) and one year after (2017) the implementation of Directive 2014/95/EU were compared. The results of 132 observations demonstrated that the quality of sustainability reporting increased after implementation of the law on mandatory NFD. Further, the effect of the law seemed to reduce the differences in SRQ of the two countries before the introduction of mandatory NFD. The results suggested that obligatoriness of NFD affects SRQ together with other relevant determinants focused on by previous research (e.g., company size and industry type).

Purpose This paper aims to reflect on the future of sustainability reporting standards by examining the current practical initiatives and the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) position in the arena of non-financial and sustainability reporting and identifies avenues for future research. Design/methodology/approach A critical reflection and analysis of research on the GRI’s achievements and the influence of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation’s initiative to develop global sustainability reporting standards. Findings The GRI has a dominant position in sustainability reporting standard-setting related to the provision of information about the influence of reporting organisations on society and the natural environment. The IFRS Foundation’s initiative to enter the sustainability reporting standard-setting arena, although from the perspective of providing information to investors regarding the influence of society and the environment on the reporting organisation, is an attempt to solidify its own position as the reporting standard setter of choice, not only for financial reporting but for all reporting standards. However, despite its aim to differentiate its role from the GRI by leveraging the financial-oriented ideological side of double materiality, we argue that the IFRS is unlikely to harm the GRI’s global position in producing multi-stakeholder standards for sustainability reporting and accountability. This differentiated position is facilitated by the different sources of legitimacy the GRI and IFRS rely on. Research limitations/implications The paper identifies future research opportunities. Originality/value Due to the recent initiatives for creating new sustainability reporting standard-setters, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper offers one of the first critical reflections on the past and the likely future of the GRI and its sustainability reporting standards. The paper also identifies several new avenues for future research.

PurposeThis paper explores the subpolitical role and main characteristics of a specific accounting technique, sustainability reporting boundaries. Its focus is on how the sett2ing of sustainability reporting boundaries affects the definition and distribution of social risks along the supply chain, particularly the risks related to working condition and human rights.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on Beck's (1986) exploration of the ways in which techno-economic spheres offer opportunities for the politicisation of new areas. It is argued that the sphere of sustainability reporting offers that opportunity for the politicisation of supply chains. Using the case of Inditex, the historical context of initiatives relating to the ready-made garment (RMG) industry at global, European and industry level as well as media coverage on the entity are analysed; this is correlated with the analysis of boundary setting in relation to sustainability reports, focusing specifically on working conditions.FindingsThe analysis suggests that accounting technologies that set contested boundaries are subpolitical, that is, defined outside traditional political processes. The paper finds that the way social risks are framed along the supply chain renders them invisible and impersonal and that the framing of these risks becomes endless as they are contested by different groups of experts. Setting sustainability reporting boundaries has subpolitical properties in producing and framing those risks, whilst is simultaneously limited by the inherent politicisation of such an exercise. The questionable legitimacy of sustainability reporting boundaries calls for the construction not only of discursive justifications but also of new possibilities for political participation.Research limitations/implicationsThe analysis is limited to working conditions along one organisation's supply chain.Originality/valueThe contribution of this paper is threefold: (1) It studies in-depth how working conditions in global supply chains are portrayed in sustainability reports. (2) It answers the call to study accounting technologies themselves, in this case sustainability reporting boundaries. (3) It extends Beck's work on global ecological dangers to working conditions in global supply chains to explore how sustainability reporting boundaries are subpolitically involved in the definition and distribution of social risks along the supply chain.