Search results

This paper aims to investigate the current state of knowledge in key reporting aspects in relation to sustainability reporting in general and to reflect on their relevance to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in particular. In doing so, the major gaps in that knowledge are identified, and the paper proceeds to suggest further research avenues.

The authors conduct a review of papers published in leading journals concerning sustainability reporting to analyse the progress in the literature regarding three important reporting topics: materiality, comparability and assurance.

The review conducted in this study shows that there is still work to be done to ensure high-quality and consistent sustainability reporting. Key takeaways from the review of the extant literature are as follows: there is ongoing debate about the nature of sustainability reporting materiality, and single versus double materiality. Clearer guidance and better contextualisation are seen as essential for comparability, and, as GRI suggests, there is an important link to materiality that needs to be considered. Finally, assurance has not been mandatory under the GRI, but the current development at EU level might lead to the GRI principles being incorporated in the primary assurance standards.

In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future.

This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

This paper aims to document and discuss the involvement of a group of Spanish academics in the process of social and environmental reporting regulation to reflect on the role of accounting academics in regulatory processes.

The paper describes the long-standing engagement of a group of Spanish scholars in social and environmental reporting regulation, with a particular focus on the transposition of the EU Directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial information to the Spanish legislation.

Despite failures and mistakes in the engagement history of those scholars with different regulatory processes, academics problematized social and environmental reporting regulation, bridged the gap between regulation and practice, and facilitated the debate about social and environmental reporting. This long-term and collective engagement generated the intellectual capital that allowed researchers to provide their perspectives when the Spanish political process was ripe to move such regulation in a progressive direction.

The paper remarks two important aspects that, according to the reported experience, are required for academics to engage in social and environmental reporting regulation: developing long-standing research projects that enable the accumulation of intellectual capital to effectively intervene in regulatory processes when the opportunity arises; and nurturing epistemic communities seeking to promote corporate accountability was fundamental to circulate ideas and foster the connection between academics and policymakers. This long-term and collective perspective is at odds with current forms of research assessment.

Academics have a responsibility to intervene in regulatory processes to increase corporate transparency.

The experience reported is unique and the authors have first-hand information. It spans through two decades and extracts some conclusions that could feed further discussions about engagement and, hopefully, encourage scholars to develop significant research projects.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the progress and future prospects of two relatively “new” institutions in this field: the European Commission (EC), together with the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation.

This paper reflexively analyses the recent events that characterise the European Union (EU) regulatory standard-setting landscape in the sustainability field. It is mainly based on publicly available documents.

After analysing the different routes followed to enter the field, this paper shows how the EC/EFRAG takes a wider view than the IFRS Foundation on certain key reporting aspects, that is, target audience, materiality and reporting boundary. As for the reporting scope, although it seems that the IFRS Foundation has a more restrictive vision, it is working to broaden it.

This paper provides some ideas about the potential cooperation between the two institutions. This paper also highlights some potential problems stemming not only from their intrinsic characteristics but also from the routes they have taken to enter the field.

By envisioning how the EU sustainability reporting standard-setting landscape might evolve, this paper sheds light on how companies might need to approach sustainability reporting to adapt to the new institutional demands. Suggestions for collaboration between the two institutions could help them reach common ground and, thus, prevent misunderstandings for companies and stakeholders.

The reflections and takeaways benefit from the authors’ first-hand information, as both are involved in the EU process. The authors could, therefore, feed into further discussions on the developments and challenges facing the EU in this domain.

The purpose of this study is to provide insights into how accounting and accountability systems can contribute to transforming metrics used thus far in research performance evaluation. New metrics are needed to increase research impact on the challenges addressed by science. In particular, we document and reflect on accounting transformations towards responsible research and innovation (RRI).

The study draws on the European H2020 MULTI-ACT research project that focuses on the development of a collective research impact framework in the area of health research. We document, analyse and report our engagement in this project, which also included research funders, patient organizations, health researchers, accounting practitioners and health care providers. Drawing on RRI, Mode 2 knowledge production and accounting performativity, we inquire into the potential of accounting technologies to foster knowledge production and increase research impact.

The study shows how the engagement of accounting with other disciplines enables the development of new and relevant forms of research impact assessment. We document how accounting can be mobilised for the development of new forms of research impact assessment (i.e. indicators that evaluate key accountability dimensions to promote RRI) and how it helps to overcome the difficulties that can emerge during this process. We also show how the design of multiple accountabilities’ indicators, although chronically partial, produced a generative interrogation and discussion about how to translate RRI to research assessment in a workable setting, and the pivotal role of certain circumstances (e.g. the presence of authoritative actors) that appear during the knowledge production process for creating these generative opportunities.

This study illustrates the key role of accounts in the generation of knowledge. It also shows the value of considering the stakes of all affected actors in devising fruitful accounting approaches. This collective perspective is timely in the accounting discipline and could foster the connection between academics and practice which is so far under-reported. This perspective should be useful for policymakers such as the European Union and managers in the design of new policies, initiatives and practices.

Discussing and devising appropriate research assessment frameworks is strategic for the maximization of the social impact of research results. Accounting has a key role to play in optimizing a sustainable return on investment in research.

How to assess research impact in a more balanced way is in an early stage of development. The study provides empirical and practical material to advance further work and develop its potential to broaden the conceptualization of accountability.

This study aims to understand why some social and environmental reporting (SER) regulations are more successful than others in modifying collective corporate reporting behaviour and expectations. More specifically, it presents a qualitative and historically informed exploration of the construction of the enabling conditions for corporate adoption of SER regulation in a national context.

Drawing on insights from structuration theory and the sociological approach to legal studies, the authors examined the normative persuasion of the first regulation in Spain requiring firms to disclose social and environmental information in a stand-alone report: Article 39 of the Spanish Sustainable Economy Law. The case study is based primarily on 38 semi-structured interviews with relevant actors involved in this SER regulation from 2008 to 2014. Other sources such as legal and policy documents, historical documents, books, press reports and field notes from attendance at technical meetings related to the phenomenon under study help inform and complement the analysis of the interviews.

The analysis reveals that the agency of regulators, regulatees and other relevant actors involved in the SER regulation led to the law becoming a dead letter. However, only by examining the structural circumstances, shaped by history and socio-economic context, can the authors understand how the normative persuasion of law is constructed or undermined.

The study underscores the importance of the national context in developing corporate social responsibility (CSR) regulation and the crucial role of history. The results of this research also suggest that significant progress towards a more transformative CSR regulation cannot be achieved without the support of enabling structures/

Recent SER regulations (European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and IFRS sustainability standards, to mention those that are gaining most traction) may not achieve sufficient compliance if those responsible for drafting them do not ensure that the conditions for the emergence of regulatory persuasion are met. Regulators must therefore have a profound understanding of how these conditions are constructed as part of a historical process inextricably linked to the social structures of the environment in which the law is to be applied.

The study reveals the changing landscape of corporate social responsibility, where scientists, academics, NGO activists and civil society organisations struggle to gain some agency in a field populated by actors, such as trade unions or employers, who were constitutive of Western industrial liberal democracies.

This study presents an in-depth and historically grounded analysis of the dynamics involved in creating the conditions that lead to successful SER legislation in a national context.

This study aims to examine the process through which sustainability is integrated into the organizational practices of accounting.

Action research, drawing on the lens of neo-institutional theory, is used to explore the integration process of sustainability in an Italian company.

The results show how different factors and organizational dynamics contribute to the initiation of both sustainability reporting and the progressive diffusion of sustainability practices in this organization, within the small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) category. In addition, signs of integrated thinking were identified while charting the process of sustainability reporting and its institutionalization within the company.

The study shows that the idea of integrated thinking was rooted in organizational culture prior to the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) framework and the momentum it gave to integrated reporting. In this sense, this research provides evidence to confirm the existence of an alternate narrative in relation to the one offered by the IIRC framework.

The present study contributes to understanding how SMEs can integrate sustainability into their accounting systems. Managers working in these organizations may learn from this experience.

On the one hand, this study further the knowledge of sustainability integration processes within an organizational practice, especially in the case of SMEs. On the other hand, the study is, perhaps, the first to identify signs of integrated thinking on the journey through the sustainability institutionalization process.

The purpose of this paper is to examine in greater depth the influence of internal factors on the disclosure of environmental information by companies. The influence of pro-environmental managers´ personal values on environmental disclosure quality is analyzed and the extent to which the influence of those values is mediated by the practices associated with the environmental organizational structure of the company.

The authors use a partial least squares structural equation model to analyze the relationship between the quality of the environmental information disclosed by 137 environmentally sensitive Spanish firms, their level of commitment towards the environment and the personal values of the directors in charge of those reports.

A central finding of this work is that a positive relationship between the pro-environmental managers’ personal values and environmental disclosure quality is fully mediated by the environmental organizational structures of their companies.

A better understanding of the relationship between the personal values of managers and corporate environmental reporting quality will contribute to the design of policies that can enhance firm transparency and accountability, for example, by educating future managers in sustainability values.

Light is cast on the mechanisms that can enhance corporate transparency and accountability in relation to environmental matters.

In this paper, a quantitative study of the internal driving forces of environmental disclosure is conducted, an aspect that has often been ignored in the literature on quantitative voluntary social reporting. The merit of this approach is its contribution to the literature through the analysis of the reasons why powerful actors within firms could (or could not) develop corporate social reporting practices.