Search results

The aim of this paper is to examine the effects of the European Non-financial Reporting Directive (2014/95/EU) on firms' sustainability reporting practices, especially reporting quantity (i.e. availability of information) and quality (i.e. comparability and credibility).

To test the main hypotheses, the authors select 905 treated firms from the EU 28 + 2 countries for a difference-in-differences regression analysis of dependent variables from the Refinitiv ESG database.

The results suggest that the Directive influences sustainability reporting quantity and quality. Treated firms provide around 4 percentage points more sustainability information (i.e. availability) than propensity score matched control firms and are 19 percent more likely to receive external assurance (i.e. credibility). However, we also find that the Directive is not the decisive factor in the adoption of GRI guidelines (i.e. comparability).

The analysis is restricted to large listed firms and does not account for small, mid-sized and private firms. Further, cross-cultural differences which influence sustainability reporting are controlled for but not investigated in detail. The authors derive several suggestions for future research related to the NFR Directive and its revision.

The authors’ findings have practical implications for the future development of sustainability reporting in the EU and for other regulators considering the adoption of sustainability reporting.

This study is the first to provide evidence on the NFR Directive's reporting effects across multiple countries. It adds to the growing literature on the consequences of mandatory sustainability reporting. Additionally, this paper introduces a novel measurement approach sustainability information quantity that could benefit researchers.

This study derives a new framework that comprehensively assesses management quality along four dimensions, namely Sporting Success; Financial Performance; Fan Welfare Maximization; and Leadership and Governance. Filled with measurable key performance indicators (KPIs), these dimensions serve the purpose of objectively quantifying the relevant success factors. Ultimately, the performance in all dimensions indicates a football club's management quality.

The study relies first on a review of the literature in the field of both general management and sports. Second, the authors adapt the balanced scorecard framework to the field of professional football and use a set of KPIs to assess the management quality of the Bundesliga teams over the seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18. Third, the authors validate the relative weights of the four dimensions composing the so-called “Football Management Quality score” (i.e. FoMa Q-Score) using expert interviews.

Two movements characterize the score development in 2017/18 compared to 2016/17: first, scores appear more contracted than previously. Second, both average and median scores improved, suggesting a general improvement in the management quality within the Bundesliga.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first exploratory study deriving and measuring relevant key criteria for managing football clubs and illustrating the findings in a ranking. The aim of this study is to establish a model that impacts both academia and practice. By utilizing existing management literature and adjusting it to football particularities, the newfound knowledge begins to close the gap in sport management literature.