Search results

This paper aims to investigate the effect of voluntary non-financial reporting on the evaluation of audit risk from the auditors’ viewpoint in a post-crisis period. Furthermore, this paper analyses whether auditors perceive that voluntary non-financial reporting impacts audit risk differently for old clients as compared with new clients.

This study is conducted on a sample of Italian audit firms through a paper-based questionnaire. Both Big4 and non-Big4 audit firms have been included in the sample.

Results show that integrated reporting is perceived to be the most relevant reporting method and intellectual capital statement the least relevant. Surprisingly, empirical findings over the sample period show that auditors do not perceive statistically significant differences between old and new clients.

Auditors can identify opportunities to adapt their assessment model to include voluntary non-financial report information. Moreover, they can use different assessment models regarding the research variables in the case of new and old clients.

Empirical findings highlight the growing role of voluntary non-financial reporting in the auditors’ perception of their client’s audit risk. All the observed voluntary non-financial reporting forms, except for intellectual capital, are considered as relevant by auditors in the evaluation of their client’s audit risk when compared to an indifference point. In addition, findings reveal that female auditors perceive a reduced gap in the relevance between integrated reports and intellectual capital reports compared to their counterparts.

Despite the rising trend of sustainable developmental goals (SDGs) incorporation into sustainability reporting, there remains a gap in understanding the role of SDG disclosure (SDGD) in the relationship between sustainability and financial performance. Thus, this study aims to investigate the relationship between sustainability performance and the level of SDGD; the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance; and the link between the level of SDGD and financial performance.

Conducted in Italy, the analysis involves manual collection of sustainability reports from company websites for the fiscal years from 2019 to 2022, followed by textual analysis to identify SDG-related content disclosed in nonfinancial reports. Financial and nonfinancial data from Orbis and LSEG databases are used for regression analysis on panel data.

Findings align with existing literature, emphasizing the partial mediator role played by the level of SDGD in the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance, measured by return on equity. In addition, the study suggests that there is a positive relationship between sustainability performance and the level of SDGD and a positive relationship between the level of SDGD and financial performance.

This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how SDG disclosures function within the broader nexus of sustainability performance and financial outcomes. Findings from this study provide empirical support for the argument that SDGD is not merely a regulatory compliance tool but also a strategic asset that can enhance a firm’s financial performance.

Integrated reporting (IR) provides a joint overview of an organisation’s financial and sustainability performance and strategies. While the prior literature often critiques IR’s potential to entrench injustice, a systematic approach has not been followed. Therefore, this paper provides a systematic literature review, uncovering IR injustices, informing the development of an IR injustice assessment framework to identify injustices and a research agenda.

Combining Flyvbjerg’s phronetic social science and the phases of the IR idea journey to focus on injustice, this paper reviews published IR articles to inform a critique of IR. As a result, we identify specific injustice(s), the actors responsible for them, as well as the victims, as a basis for recommendations for praxis through the development of an IR injustice assessment framework and a research agenda.

We find that different approaches are needed in each phase of the IR idea journey. In the (re)generation phase, a pluralistic approach to IR is needed from the very beginning of the decision-making process. In the elaboration phase, the motivations and the features of IR are assessed. In the championing phase, IR champions support radical innovation, whereas IR opponents are obstructing its spread. In the production phase, the extent to which IR and integrated thinking are linked to the business model is assessed. Finally, we find that IR’s impact is often limited by the symbolic implementation of its tenets.

The findings suggest a need for companies to rethink the ways in which IR is implemented and used to analyse the ways in which IR is supported and disseminated within and outside the organisation, to focus on internal processes and to reflect on the expected impact of IR on the company’s stakeholders.

This study represents the first systematic approach to identifying IR-related injustices, involving how IR adoption might create injustices and marginalise certain stakeholder groups, and offering recommendations for praxis. Furthermore, the paper details the role of IR in either mitigating or amplifying these injustices and develops a research agenda.