Search results

Accounting practices vary not only across firms, but also across countries, reflecting the respective legal and cultural background. Attempts at harmonization therefore continue to be rebuffed. The purpose of this paper is to argue that different wordings in national laws, and different interpretations of similar wordings in national laws, can be explained by taking recourse to the philosophy of language, referring particularly to Searle and Wittgenstein.

The example of the substance over form principle, investigated in seven countries, is particularly suitable for this analysis. It is known in all accounting jurisdictions, but still has very different roots in different European countries, with European and international influences conflicting, which is reflected in the different wording of the principle from one country to the next, and the different socially constructed realities associated with those wordings.

This paper shows that, beyond accounting practices, the legal and cultural background of a country affects the wording of national law itself. The broad conclusion is that different socially constructed realities might tend to resist any attempt at harmonized socially constructed words.

The paper contributes to the debate surrounding the possible homogenization of accounting regulations, illustrating the theory of the social construction of both “reality” and “language” on the specific application of one common principle to various Member State environments.

In the last few years, the European context has been characterised by a high degree of attention paid by policymakers, practitioners and academics to the effects related to the transposition of Directive 2014/95/EU by the member states. In particular, one the main issues of the intervention made by the European Commission is represented by the theoretical misalignment between corporate communications and actions. According to this evidence, this paper aims to shed light on this debate through a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of Directive 2014/95/EU.

The analysis was built using panel data analysis on a sample of 813 European listed companies. Furthermore, the authors performed additional analysis and robustness checks to assess the reliability of the analysis.

The analysis underlined the enabling role of the reporting scope, external assurance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) committees on sustainability reporting. Furthermore, the research highlighted the need to pay specific attention to the real contribution provided by companies to the sustainable development goals.

The research provided theoretical insights into the effects related to mandatory sustainability reporting, which represents an emerging field in accounting research.

The analysis revealed the limited effects of Directive 2014/95/EU. In this regard, the paper contributes to the debate about accounting regulation in Europe.

This paper will shed light on the role of Directive 2014/95/EU in sustainable development. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to analyse CSR decoupling in Europe after the transposition of Directive 2014/95/EU by the member states.