Search results

The purpose of this research is to identify the combinations of factors leading to experience in sustainability reporting by Spanish public universities.

Using a sample of 49 public universities in Spain, this paper identifies the combinations of factors on innovation profile, political and internal factors that explain the different degree of corporate social reporting experience with fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis.

The study’s findings are a contribution to existing literature as the results obtained point out three different configurations leading to this expertise, with a combination of different conditions based on innovation profile, political and internal factors. Also, the results reveal new characteristics of sustainable development strategies by universities, such as devoting a specific sustainability reporting section in the university website, creating a sustainability body in the university structure or submitting the sustainability report to external assurance.

This study refers only to Spanish public universities. In the future, new studies can enlarge the sample and analyse country effects and impact of public versus private status of universities on sustainability reporting strategies.

The study’s findings are important for university community, regulators and other stakeholders to start considering the need to somehow promote further sustainability reporting and assurance practices by universities, especially in a context of budget restrictions.

This paper opens up a new line of research on sustainability experience using an innovative methodology (fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis) useful with small sample sizes, and provides a complete picture of sustainability reporting by Spanish public universities.

This paper aims to investigate the relationship between corporate reporting on issues related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the quality of non-financial information (NFI) corroborated by different types of assurors.

The study methods used include logistic regressions, focusing on data for Spanish listed companies in 2017–2018.

Analysis shows that companies are more likely to report SDG-related performance when their sustainability report is assured. This association remains constant irrespective of the nature of the assurance, which only became mandatory in Spain following the entry into force of Act 11/2018 in this respect. Moreover, companies that hire KPMG or PwC (two of the big four accounting firms) as assurance providers are more likely to report SDG-related performance than those that hire non-accounting firms. Finally, companies with higher quality assurance statements are more likely to address SDG-related matters.

The authors believe the findings reported in this paper will help decision-makers better understand the quality of organisations’ contributions towards achieving the SDGs. Furthermore, this paper has implications for stakeholders, policymakers, academics and assurance providers concerning the relationship between SDG-related reporting and the quality of NFI.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no prior research has been undertaken to analyse the relationship between SDG-related company reporting and the assurance of NFI.

This paper aims to examine whether the position of universities in the times higher education (THE) impact rankings (IR) is related to the different dimensions of academic quality of universities according to the THE world universities ranking.

The research, based on universities ranked in the top 100 of THE IRs, uses a regression model obtained by the panel data method, using the fixed effects approach, to identify the relationship of academic quality dimensions with that ranking.

The results show an increase in the dissemination of information on sustainable development goals (SDGs) by universities. In addition, it is shown that research, number of citations and international outlook are positively associated with a higher score obtained by universities in THE IRs, which implies a higher impact on the SDGs by these universities.

Based on multifaceted theories, the study highlighted the universities that are best positioned in the THE IRs in relation to their contribution to the SDGs.

This paper aims to assess the cumulative evidence on the determinants of sustainability assurance (SA) reports and the choice of assurance provider quality. It addresses the contradictory and inconsistent findings of past studies conducted over the past two decades.

The authors undertake a meta-regression analysis that enables systematic, comparative assessment of the variables associated with the choice of SA and the type of assurance provider. The authors undertake a chronological analysis with the aim of identifying systematic differences in the empirical evidence across distinct time periods.

The results indicate that there is very little evidence to support many of the expected associations between commonly studied predictor variables (namely, measures based on agency and corporate governance conceptions) and the choice of SA and the assurance provider type. As a result, research on this topic does not make as effective a contribution as might be expected. There is, however, a time period difference. The authors find results from studies using company data prior to 2010 are significantly different from those using post-2010 data. The results indicate the decision to publish SA to be significantly associated with companies in the oil industry and utilities, and larger organisations where agency costs tend to be higher. Obtaining assurance from a higher-quality provider is found to be associated with companies in environmentally sensitive industries and in stakeholder-oriented countries.

The study shows that as yet there is not sufficient evidence to support expected results. Users of the research should be aware of this, and researchers should know that more work is needed. The authors suggest researchers take greater care in the choice and comparability of variable measurement and expand the conceptual base when selecting predictor variables.

Companies need to be more transparent and accountable to critical stakeholders such as report users and regulators, and the latter should be more aware that the organisational practice of SA and choice of service provider have changed over time and are increasingly open to agency and other cultural biases.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply meta-regression techniques for understanding the body of literature on SA and provider choice.

The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the effect of the current financial crisis on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and CSR assurance strategies that companies disclose online to stakeholders, by dividing the time horizon into two periods, before 2008 and from 2008.

The sample includes Spanish listed companies, differentiating CSR reporters from non CSR-reporters. Also distinguished in the CSR-reporters sample, are those companies that assure the CSR report from those that do not. The authors contrast whether there is a trend as regards CSR reporting and CSR assurance, depending on whether the crisis has already begun or not. Next the authors focus on companies that change their CSR reporting strategy or change their CSR assurance strategy and see if there is an impact on performance (both from an accounting and from a market perspective).

Even though the financial crisis has raised the question whether assurance of CSR reports could be a threat for business, bearing in mind the generalized initiatives to cut costs, the results show that the number of CSR reports increased significantly with the crisis (indeed, significant differences were found in ROE from CSR adopters to CSR discontinuing companies). Nonetheless, no significant impact was found regarding the changes in assurance strategy, even though there are no grounds to expect cuts in this area because the absolute number of assured reports is increasing, yet not significantly.

In spite of the current financial crisis, this study identifies a business in a stage of expansion, not only CSR reporting but also assurance of CSR reports, and confirms the stability in time of the CSR assurance decision by companies as an added-value strategy to CSR reporting. There seems to be an investment view of CSR reporting and CSR assurance, which can help companies differentiate their products or services from the competition and reinforce stakeholders ' trust.

This is a pioneering study on the actual effects that the financial crisis has had on CSR reporting and assurance strategies.

We present a critical literature review debating Brazilian research on social and environmental accounting (SEA). The aim of this study is to understand the role of politics in the construction of hegemonies in SEA research in Brazil. In particular, we examine the role of hegemony in relation to the co-option of SEA literature and sustainability in the Brazilian context by the logic of development for economic growth in emerging economies. The methodological approach adopts a post-structural perspective that reflects Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. The study employs a hermeneutical, rhetorical approach to understand and classify 352 Brazilian research articles on SEA. We employ Brown and Fraser’s (2006) categorizations of SEA literature to help in our analysis: the business case, the stakeholder–accountability approach, and the critical case. We argue that the business case is prominent in Brazilian studies. Second-stage analysis suggests that the major themes under discussion include measurement, consulting, and descriptive approach. We argue that these themes illustrate the degree of influence of the hegemonic politics relevant to emerging economics, as these themes predominantly concern economic growth and a capitalist context. This paper discusses trends and practices in the Brazilian literature on SEA and argues that the focus means that SEA avoids critical debates of the role of capitalist logics in an emerging economy concerning sustainability. We urge the Brazilian academy to understand the implications of its reifying agenda and engage, counter-hegemonically, in a social and political agenda beyond the hegemonic support of a particular set of capitalist interests.

The role that the board can have in influencing the adoption of non-financial reporting (NFR) by companies is a topic that has raised interest in the recent literature. However, very few have so far been said on the logic that underpins the selection by corporate boards of a particular model (sustainability and/or integrated). This study aims to examine if and to what extent board characteristics may influence the choice of companies to voluntarily publish a sustainability report, an integrated report or both of them, and if moderating variables, relating to incentives towards corporate transparency, may have an influence. Both of these types of reporting tools are in fact aimed at improving company disclosure towards sustainable development.

Through a multi-nomial regression analysis, this study tests the assumptions in a sample of companies listed on the Eurostoxx600 that adopt integrated or sustainability reporting or both of them for the period 2015–2018 for a total of 2,103 firm-years observations.

The results reveal that sustainability reporting is associated with board independence only, whilst the adoption of integrated reporting is influenced by board size and board independence. The same two variables influence also those companies that jointly adopt both sustainability and an integrated report. This confirms that integrated reporting requires more competencies and monitoring to be adopted. Furthermore, the results provide evidence that information asymmetry and financial constraints influence the decision of companies to publish the integrated report, sustainability report or both, whilst growth opportunities do not. Hence, moderating variables can have a role in explaining this association, and especially those that are related to the firm’s incentives related to the provision of financial capital by investors.

This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it proposes an incremental analysis of the relationship between board characteristics and voluntary disclosure of integrated reporting, considering the effects of moderating variables on this association. Second, the above relationship is examined in a comparative way vis-à-vis the adoption of sustainability reporting. Third, it demonstrates that the analysis of these reporting tools can benefit from an understanding that relies on both agency and stakeholder theories, that have to be conceived somehow complementary. In terms of limitations, this study is exclusively focussed on larger European listed firms, and therefore, the findings may not be valid for small and medium firms and for companies operating outside Europe.

This study provides useful insights for managers and policymakers to better understand which are the characteristics of the board composition that can best encourage a company to pursue a reporting strategy based on sustainable development. This results to be particularly relevant and timely in the European context if the authors take into consideration the developments of the European Parliament and Commission towards the launch of a new legislative proposal on sustainable corporate governance in 2021.

The study contributes to the existing literature in two ways. First, it offers a unique perspective on the direct and indirect effects of board characteristics on the adoption of integrated and/or sustainability reports by examining it in a comparative perspective. Second, it further demonstrates that the analysis of NFR and especially integrated reporting might benefit from the adoption of multiple conceptual lenses, in this case, agency and stakeholder theories.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceived benefits of integrated reporting (IR) and factors influencing the motives that supervisory board members (SBMs) have for advocating a change towards IR implementation.

An exploratory survey study was conducted to investigate the influence of external market conditions, internal organizational conditions and observed benefits on the motivation to advocate IR adoption in companies that have not yet implemented IR. A unique set of survey data from 62 SBMs of Dutch companies was used for analysing the propositions derived from IR literature and based on institutional theory, legitimacy theory and diffusion of innovation theory.

The respondents indicated to be supportive of IR adoption. SBMs who had experienced the implementation of IR observed that IR offers benefits. Their motives for advocating a change towards IR in companies that had not implemented IR were influenced most by the observed benefits in IR companies. SBMs only involved in companies that had not adopted IR are motivated to support IR adoption to a similar extent. These findings suggest that directly observed benefits by SBMs need to exceed a considerable minimum level before these SBMs are more motived to advocate IR than their peers who have not witnessed the implementation of IR and that experiences are shared across companies. The motivation of both groups is influenced by external market conditions but not by internal organizational conditions.

The findings have implications for potential IR adopters and institutions promoting the further diffusion of IR as they emphasize the need for tangible benefits of IR and confirm that sharing good practices and benefits of IR can provide a catalyst for IR adoption. The findings contribute to the understanding of the motivation of SBMs as an important organizational condition for implementing IR as this study provides insights in the factors that drive this motivation of key actors influencing the decision to implement IR. Furthermore, the finding that these factors predominantly comprise tangible results and external market conditions is relevant from an organizational change perspective.

Understanding the mechanisms of IR-adoption decisions provides a relevant basis for deploying programmes promoting IR as a general reporting standard. This could provide society and a broad range of stakeholders with access to information incorporated in integrated reports. It could ultimately have a major impact on society by improving decision-making and increasing the long-term sustainability of organizations and their relations with stakeholders.

This study provides preliminary empirical evidence concerning the perspectives of SBMs on their motives for advocating IR, based on a unique sample from a country that has been involved with IR from its start.

The purpose of this study is to extend existing knowledge on the determinants of sustainability report (SR) assurance practices. Four different theories – stakeholder theory, institutional theory, signaling theory and legitimacy theory – are used to formulate several hypotheses regarding the main factors that can influence a company’s decision to assure its SRs.

Using a sample of 417 listed organizations based in different European countries over five years, the effects of stakeholder commitment, country orientation toward sustainability, firm environmental performance and business ethics controversies on the decision to assure SRs are assessed.

The results show that a company’s decision to assure its SRs is motivated by the need to maintain good relations with its stakeholders (which is in line with stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory), as well as by the willingness to signal their sustainability performance (which is in line with signaling theory) and to gain legitimacy. On the contrary, business ethics controversies do not seem to be relevant to a company’s assurance practices.

This paper provides new insights into the influence that social, environmental and institutional factors have on assurance strategies. New factors that previous research does not investigate – environmental performance, business ethics controversies and corporate governance – are tested. Factors that are already investigated in the literature are considered from an original perspective of introducing alternative measures (e.g. for the scope of national sustainability policies).