Search results

This paper aims to analyse the impact of the European Union (EU) Directive on the quality of sustainability reporting under the institutional theory lens. Specifically, the authors evaluate what kind of institutional pressure has the highest impact on the quality of corporate disclosure on sustainability issues.

The authors build a quality index based on the content analysis of sustainability information disclosed, before and after the transposition of the Directive, by Italian and Spanish companies belonging to different industries. The authors use an OLS regression model to analyse the effect of coercive, normative and mimetic forces on the quality of the sustainability reports.

The results highlight that normative and mimetic mechanisms positively affect the quality of sustainability reporting, whereas there is no evidence regarding coercive mechanisms, indicating that the new requirements do not provide a significant contribution to the development of better reporting practices, at least in the two analysed countries.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the few studies assessing the quality of sustainability reporting through an analysis involving the period before and after the implementation of the EU Directive. It enriches the literature on institutional theory by analysing how the different dimensions of isomorphism affect the quality of information disclosed by companies according to the EU requirements. It contributes to a better understanding of the impact of the non-financial information Directive, and the results of this paper can be relevant for regulators, practitioners and academia, especially in view of the adoption of the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive proposal.

With the European Union (EU) Directive 2014/95/UE, there is a growing interest in the corporate disclosure of “non-financial information” (NFI). However, no generally accepted definition of this term exists. This paper aims to reflect on the meaning and importance of the NFI definition by investigating how this term is defined in the literature and by exploring scholars’ cognitive perceptions of its meaning.

Two different research methods were used. A systematic literature review of NFI definitions was integrated with a survey to a sample of Italian scholars working on the NFI research topic.

This study demonstrates that the meaning of NFI is still ambiguous and multifaceted as neither a common understanding nor a single and generally accepted definition of the term exists. As the advent of the EU directive, this term has often referred to information about society and the environment, though most academics define and understand NFI differently, as corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues, intellectual capital information and information that are external to financial statements. These definitions pave the way for conceptualising NFI as a genus and its different understandings (i.e. CSR, ESG information, etc.) as species. Therefore, what constitutes NFI is open to interpretations.

This paper contributes to enriching the literature on the meaning of NFI and providing further insights into explaining the heterogeneity of the NFI definition.

This paper provides researchers, practitioners and regulators with some novel insights into the meaning and understanding of NFI. It provides regulators and standard setters with knowledge for building a commonly accepted definition of NFI. Meanwhile, policymakers, regulators, practitioners and academics can contribute to establishing a definition by following three approaches: regulative, open and adaptive. This can help to avoid the risk of an information gap among stakeholder expectations, regulator requests and NFI reporting in practice.

The literature focussing on the meaning of NFI is still scarce. This study contributes to extending the knowledge of how the term NFI is defined and understood by academics.