Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether board composition affects corporate sustainability (CS) levels in private firms. Additionally, the study examines a potential interplay between CS levels and CS reporting, and the impact of EU Directive 2014 / 95/EU (Non-Financial Reporting Directive [NFRD]) on resources spent on CS.

The authors surveyed the chief executive officers (CEOs), chief financial officers (CFOs) and Environment Officers of Swedish private firms subject to NFRD, receiving 149 valid responses (a response rate 24%). The authors coded the responses using van Marrewijk and Werre’s (2003) CS levels framework. The levels are Pre-CS, Compliance-driven, Profit-driven, Caring, Synergistic and Holistic. The study then explained the CS levels with board characteristics.

While on average the sample firms have a profit-driven CS level, the authors find that CS level is positively driven by female Chairs, female CEOs and external CEOs. Early voluntary reporting before NFRD does not explain the CS level. On adoption of the NFRD, mandatory reporters increased resources spent on CS activities and CS reporting more than early voluntary-reporters. Nonetheless, slightly over half of the sample firms reported no significant impact of the NFRD on resources spent on CS.

The findings may be useful for stakeholders interested in corporate governance and CS levels. Also, the findings support further regulation such as EU Directive 2022/2464 (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive [CSRD]).

In private firms, female leaders are likely to play a significant role in driving altruistically motivated CS practices.

The focus is on private firms in Sweden which, unlike those in other jurisdictions, were subject to NFRD. Methodologically, the use of a survey provides an alternative to the previous heavy reliance on archival research.

The purpose of the review is to synthesize the research on materiality measures of sustainability reporting and highlight how preparers, users, auditors, regulators and other stakeholders assess or determine the materiality in sustainability reporting. The review further summarizes the findings on consequences and determinants of material disclosures in sustainability reporting. Several directions for future research are also discussed.

This study provides a systematic review of materiality measures developed in the context of sustainability reporting. This synthesis of the literature summarizes the existing methodologies of measuring materiality. It also evaluates the strength and limitations of existing methods and approaches of measuring materiality in sustainability disclosures.

We find that the ex post materiality measures are simplistic and unidirectional in nature and ex ante materiality measures lack external validity and are generally narrow in focus – for example, focused on single firms or industries. Another major limitation in the current literature is the absence of robust empirical investigation of double materiality in sustainability reporting and a vast majority of the measures are developed without stakeholder engagement. Lastly, we document that the findings on determinants of material disclosure are fragmented and inconclusive and that the literature on consequences of material disclosure is rather un-explored.

The study explains the connections and differences between the various materiality measures. We document that materiality is measured in two distinct ways, ex ante and ex post and often times without stakeholder engagement. Moreover, given that a vast majority of the measures rely on manual content analysis, we find that they suffer from reproducibility and scalability.