Search results

This study examines how accounting tools and techniques are used to create and support membership and reporting boundaries for a multi-entity sustainability scheme. It also considers whether boundary setting for this initiative helps to connect corporate activity with planetary boundaries and the SDGs.

A case study of a national agrifood sustainability scheme, analysing extensive documentary data and multi-entity sustainability reports. The concept of partial organising is used to frame the analysis.

Accounting, in the form of planning, verification, target setting, annual review and reporting, can be used to create a membership and a reporting boundary. Accounting tools and techniques support the scheme's standard-setting and monitoring elements. The study demonstrates that the scheme offers innovation in how sustainability reporting is managed. However, it does not currently provide a cumulative assessment of the effect of the sector's activity on ecological carrying capacity or connect this activity to global sustainability indicators.

Future research can build on this study's insights to further develop our understanding of multi-entity sustainability reporting and accounting's role in organising for sustainability. The authors identify several research avenues including: boundary setting in ecologically significant sectors, integrating global sustainability indicators at sectoral and organisational levels, sustainability controls in multi-entity settings and the potential of multi-entity reporting to provide substantive disclosure.

This paper provides insight into accounting's role in boundary setting for a multi-entity sustainability initiative. It adds to our understanding of the potential of a multi-entity reporting boundary to support connected measurement between corporate activity and global sustainability indicators. It builds on work on partial organising and provides insight into how accounting can support this form of organising for sustainability.

The purpose of this study is to assess how higher education anchor institutions (HEIs) voluntarily report their non-economic impacts. Its goals are to quantify the ease of public access to this information; strengthen the conceptual foundation for HEI impact reporting; and provide guidance for making HEI voluntary disclosures more accessible, comparable and systematic.

Using an exploratory mixed methods design and purposeful sampling, this study analyzed voluntary public disclosures of 41 anchor institution universities in the USA to assess how they communicate their public value creation to stakeholders. Data sources included impact reports, donor reports, annual reports and sustainability reports. The study also analyzed the accessibility of this information by timing how long it took to locate.

The sampled US anchor institutions communicate their non-economic impact to stakeholders in myriad ways using a variety of formats. Time required to find the reports ranged from 37 to 50 min, with an average of 42.30 min. Disparate reporting formats inhibit comparability.

Only 41 anchor institutions were examined. The small sample may not be representative of the broader landscape of higher education institutions.

Findings offer guidance for improving voluntary nonfinancial disclosures to increase public confidence in higher education institutions while advancing community and global resilience. To strengthen voluntary disclosure practices, the study recommends using a standardized reporting format, framing HEI impact through socio-ecological resilience indicators, integrating reports and obtaining some form of assurance. These changes would enhance the credibility and comparability of the disclosures.

This research provides some of the first empirical insight into how US higher education anchor institutions report their value creation to the public. Its application of socio-ecological systems theory outlines an actionable conceptual foundation for HEI reporting by linking organizational, community and global resilience.

In pursuit of objectives, under the European Green Deal, to channel capital flows to sustainable activities, the EU Taxonomy offers clarity, labelling real economic activities as “sustainable”, based on technical screening criteria. This study of disclosure experiences aims to explore the role of co-evolutionary relationships in the Taxonomy’s effectiveness.

Co-evolution theory implies a dynamic interplay among sustainable finance stakeholders (SFSs), through adjustment to, impact on and operationalisation of the Taxonomy. Corporate disclosure experiences, including those of financial institutions and related SFS experiences, may reveal co-evolutionary processes. With significant Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), Irish SFSs provide contextual insight. Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of Irish SFSs capture inaugural corporate Taxonomy disclosure experiences.

A thematic analysis reveals six co-evolutionary processes that facilitate Taxonomy implementation in pursuit of policy objectives: [1] cross-functional reporting; [2] iterative pre-empting and addressing compliance issues; [3] regulation as a catalyst for co-evolution; [4] advanced capacity building; [5] stakeholder adaptation and [6] graduated use of ESG data. Implications for sustainability policy development and management are significant.

Whilst limited to just one EU jurisdiction, given limited prior empirical evidence for sustainable finance regulations from co-evolutionary perspectives, this study highlights a catalytic, yet precautionary role for co-evolution in their transformation effectiveness. As such, they must take account of their potential to stimulate co-evolution and to nurture it in pursuit of their policy objectives.

The findings of this study add to a small, but growing body of academic literature on the Taxonomy Regulation, which suggests that a co-evolutionary lens is important for gaining a comprehensive understanding of its early-stage dynamics. From an implementation perspective, the qualitative data reveals actionable implications for regulators and policymakers, such as building capacity, better anticipation of outcomes and investment in data infrastructure.

Unlike existing analyses of disclosures, this study offers a co-evolutionary lens on Taxonomy contributions to sustainable development through qualitative accounts.