Pub Date : 2023-06-19DOI: 10.1108/sampj-09-2022-0464
Asil Azimli, K. Çek
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test if building reputation capital through environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing can mitigate the negative effect of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) on firms’ valuation. Design/methodology/approach This study uses an unbalanced panel of 591 financial firms between 2005 and 2021 from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom (UK) and the USA. Ordinary least square method is used in the empirical tests. To alleviate a potential endogeneity problem, robustness tests are performed using the two-stage least square approach with instrumental variables. Findings The results of this paper show that sustainable reporting can offset the negative effect of EPU on the valuation of financial firms. Consistent with the stakeholder-based reputation-building hypothesis, sustainability performance may have an insurance-like impact on firms’ valuation during periods of high uncertainty. Practical implications According to the findings, during high policy uncertainty periods, investors accept to pay a premium for the stocks of the firms which built social capital through environmental and social investments. Accordingly, it is suggested that regulatory bodies and governments motivate firms to increase their stakeholder orientation to attain higher reputation capital. Social implications Managers can mitigate the negative impact of policy uncertainty on the value of their firms via building social capital, which will increase financial market stability in return, and portfolio investors may use such firms for portfolio optimization decisions. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is one of the first to examine the mitigating role of ESG investing on EPU and firm valuation relationships for financial firms. Thus, this study provides new insights related to the impact of ESG performance on valuation during uncertain times.
{"title":"Can sustainability performance mitigate the negative effect of policy uncertainty on the firm valuation?","authors":"Asil Azimli, K. Çek","doi":"10.1108/sampj-09-2022-0464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-09-2022-0464","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The purpose of this paper is to test if building reputation capital through environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing can mitigate the negative effect of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) on firms’ valuation.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000This study uses an unbalanced panel of 591 financial firms between 2005 and 2021 from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom (UK) and the USA. Ordinary least square method is used in the empirical tests. To alleviate a potential endogeneity problem, robustness tests are performed using the two-stage least square approach with instrumental variables.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The results of this paper show that sustainable reporting can offset the negative effect of EPU on the valuation of financial firms. Consistent with the stakeholder-based reputation-building hypothesis, sustainability performance may have an insurance-like impact on firms’ valuation during periods of high uncertainty.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000According to the findings, during high policy uncertainty periods, investors accept to pay a premium for the stocks of the firms which built social capital through environmental and social investments. Accordingly, it is suggested that regulatory bodies and governments motivate firms to increase their stakeholder orientation to attain higher reputation capital.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000Managers can mitigate the negative impact of policy uncertainty on the value of their firms via building social capital, which will increase financial market stability in return, and portfolio investors may use such firms for portfolio optimization decisions.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is one of the first to examine the mitigating role of ESG investing on EPU and firm valuation relationships for financial firms. Thus, this study provides new insights related to the impact of ESG performance on valuation during uncertain times.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47430824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-19DOI: 10.1108/sampj-04-2022-0200
Francesco Scarpa, Silvana Signori
Purpose This study aims to contribute to the debate about the place of corporate taxation in corporate social responsibility (CSR) by reviewing the present state of research, offering a comprehensive understanding of the content and dimensions of corporate tax responsibility (CTR) and discussing further developments in research and action. Design/methodology/approach The study builds on a systematic literature review of 117 theoretical and empirical papers on tax within the broad field of CSR published in peer-reviewed academic journals and books. Findings The analysis unfolds and discusses the construct of CTR and proposes a unified conceptualisation that elucidates for what firms are (or should be) held accountable on tax matters and the different dimensions (i.e. instrumental, political, integrative and ethical) which justify greater tax responsibility and enable its achievement. Practical implications The results can provide companies with practical guidance to enhance their tax responsibility and can give stakeholders and policymakers suggestions for new mobilisation strategies to achieve more responsible tax behaviour. Social implications Corporate tax payments are a fundamental dimension of CSR, as they fund public goods and services and reduce the unequal distribution of wealth. Providing a more structured understanding of CTR, this paper can contribute towards attaining more responsible tax outcomes which can better serve and benefit the whole society. Originality/value This study offers a structured overview of the present state of tax research in CSR, while providing a comprehensive understanding and conceptualisation of the construct of CTR, thus enabling scholars to situate their work and develop further relevant research in this field.
{"title":"Understanding corporate tax responsibility: a systematic literature review","authors":"Francesco Scarpa, Silvana Signori","doi":"10.1108/sampj-04-2022-0200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-04-2022-0200","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This study aims to contribute to the debate about the place of corporate taxation in corporate social responsibility (CSR) by reviewing the present state of research, offering a comprehensive understanding of the content and dimensions of corporate tax responsibility (CTR) and discussing further developments in research and action.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The study builds on a systematic literature review of 117 theoretical and empirical papers on tax within the broad field of CSR published in peer-reviewed academic journals and books.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The analysis unfolds and discusses the construct of CTR and proposes a unified conceptualisation that elucidates for what firms are (or should be) held accountable on tax matters and the different dimensions (i.e. instrumental, political, integrative and ethical) which justify greater tax responsibility and enable its achievement.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000The results can provide companies with practical guidance to enhance their tax responsibility and can give stakeholders and policymakers suggestions for new mobilisation strategies to achieve more responsible tax behaviour.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000Corporate tax payments are a fundamental dimension of CSR, as they fund public goods and services and reduce the unequal distribution of wealth. Providing a more structured understanding of CTR, this paper can contribute towards attaining more responsible tax outcomes which can better serve and benefit the whole society.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000This study offers a structured overview of the present state of tax research in CSR, while providing a comprehensive understanding and conceptualisation of the construct of CTR, thus enabling scholars to situate their work and develop further relevant research in this field.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48230400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-13DOI: 10.1108/sampj-03-2022-0133
Tiffany C. H. Leung, Jieqi Guan, Yui-yip Lau
Purpose This study aims to examine management attitude and awareness towards green logistics, explores the external conditions that drive and restrict its positive behaviour, investigates the level of its adoption amongst logistics service providers (LSPs) and determines the major barriers affecting its application in the industry. Design/methodology/approach This research investigates the key decision-making process on green logistics attitude and behaviour through in-depth interviews and thematic analysis. Findings This study explores both institutional and individual-level attitudes/awareness. Then, the driving and restraining forces and the challenges that influence the industry’s adoption of green initiatives are determined. Finally, this study constructs a framework following a behavioural driving route with interactions among green “attitude”, sustainable “subjective norms”, “behavioural control” and “external context” factors. Practical implications Findings can enlighten the practitioners who are struggling to adopt the green or low-carbon practice and provide valuable insights and constructive advice to LSPs and their stakeholders. Social implications Findings can draw the government and policy-makers’ attention to provide necessary financial or non-financial support for the practitioners to improve their green operations. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the first attempts to adopt the hybrid theoretical lens on the green behaviour of the logistics industry. New insights are added to existing environmental management literature with a wider understanding and deeper investigation of the decision-making on green logistics in the industry. The theoretical framework in this study can offer future applications to a relevant large-scale study.
{"title":"Exploring environmental sustainability and green management practices: evidence from logistics service providers","authors":"Tiffany C. H. Leung, Jieqi Guan, Yui-yip Lau","doi":"10.1108/sampj-03-2022-0133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-03-2022-0133","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This study aims to examine management attitude and awareness towards green logistics, explores the external conditions that drive and restrict its positive behaviour, investigates the level of its adoption amongst logistics service providers (LSPs) and determines the major barriers affecting its application in the industry.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000This research investigates the key decision-making process on green logistics attitude and behaviour through in-depth interviews and thematic analysis.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000This study explores both institutional and individual-level attitudes/awareness. Then, the driving and restraining forces and the challenges that influence the industry’s adoption of green initiatives are determined. Finally, this study constructs a framework following a behavioural driving route with interactions among green “attitude”, sustainable “subjective norms”, “behavioural control” and “external context” factors.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000Findings can enlighten the practitioners who are struggling to adopt the green or low-carbon practice and provide valuable insights and constructive advice to LSPs and their stakeholders.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000Findings can draw the government and policy-makers’ attention to provide necessary financial or non-financial support for the practitioners to improve their green operations.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the first attempts to adopt the hybrid theoretical lens on the green behaviour of the logistics industry. New insights are added to existing environmental management literature with a wider understanding and deeper investigation of the decision-making on green logistics in the industry. The theoretical framework in this study can offer future applications to a relevant large-scale study.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46461043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-08DOI: 10.1108/sampj-11-2022-0605
S. Keddie, M. Magnan
Purpose This paper aims to examine how the use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) incentives intersects with top management power and various corporate governance mechanisms to affect excess annual cash bonus compensation. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a novel artificial intelligence (AI) technique to obtain data about ESG incentives use by firms in the S&P 500. The authors test the hypotheses with an endogenous treatment-regression and a contrast test. Findings When the top management team has power and uses ESG incentives, there is a 32% reduction in excess annual cash bonuses implying ESG incentives are an effective corporate governance tool. However, nuanced analyses reveal that when powerful management teams with ESG incentives are from environmentally sensitive industries, have a corporate social responsibility (CSR) committee or have long-term view institutional shareholders, they derive excess bonuses. Practical implications Stakeholders will better understand management’s motivations for the inclusion of ESG incentives in executive compensation contracts and be able to identify situations which require closer scrutiny. Social implications Given the increased popularity of ESG incentives, society, regulators, boards of directors and management teams will be interested in better understanding when these incentives might be effective and when they might be abused. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the use of ESG incentives in relation to excess pay. The authors contribute to both the CSR and executive compensation literatures. The work also uses a new methodological technique using AI to gather difficult-to-obtain data, opening new avenues for research.
{"title":"Are ESG performance-based incentives a panacea or a smokescreen for excess compensation?","authors":"S. Keddie, M. Magnan","doi":"10.1108/sampj-11-2022-0605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-11-2022-0605","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This paper aims to examine how the use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) incentives intersects with top management power and various corporate governance mechanisms to affect excess annual cash bonus compensation.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The authors use a novel artificial intelligence (AI) technique to obtain data about ESG incentives use by firms in the S&P 500. The authors test the hypotheses with an endogenous treatment-regression and a contrast test.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000When the top management team has power and uses ESG incentives, there is a 32% reduction in excess annual cash bonuses implying ESG incentives are an effective corporate governance tool. However, nuanced analyses reveal that when powerful management teams with ESG incentives are from environmentally sensitive industries, have a corporate social responsibility (CSR) committee or have long-term view institutional shareholders, they derive excess bonuses.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000Stakeholders will better understand management’s motivations for the inclusion of ESG incentives in executive compensation contracts and be able to identify situations which require closer scrutiny.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000Given the increased popularity of ESG incentives, society, regulators, boards of directors and management teams will be interested in better understanding when these incentives might be effective and when they might be abused.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the use of ESG incentives in relation to excess pay. The authors contribute to both the CSR and executive compensation literatures. The work also uses a new methodological technique using AI to gather difficult-to-obtain data, opening new avenues for research.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43401156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-07DOI: 10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0238
Luis Perera-Aldama
Purpose This paper aims to offer an overview of key aspects of the journey to develop the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Framework and Guidelines, focusing on the Materiality construct. It provides a practitioner’s perspective of several issues related to this construct. Design/methodology/approach This commentary is mainly based on publicly available technical documents, the analysis of papers related to the Materiality construct and a contextual review of the evolution of the main features of the GRI Guidelines and Standards. Findings This paper discusses the conundrum currently surrounding the Materiality construct and offers some reflections and suggestions about the challenges facing GRI. Practical implications Clarification of the Materiality construct could reduce confusion and eventually allow for clear identification and differentiation of the financial and sustainability accounting fields at their interface. Social implications Language creates reality; an opportunity has arisen to bring appropriate and distinctive terminology to the sustainability reporting field, bridging the gap between competing logics. Originality/value This viewpoint is timely. It contributes a practitioner’s perspective to the current debate on the development of the Materiality construct.
{"title":"GRI and materiality: discussions and challenges","authors":"Luis Perera-Aldama","doi":"10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0238","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This paper aims to offer an overview of key aspects of the journey to develop the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Framework and Guidelines, focusing on the Materiality construct. It provides a practitioner’s perspective of several issues related to this construct.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000This commentary is mainly based on publicly available technical documents, the analysis of papers related to the Materiality construct and a contextual review of the evolution of the main features of the GRI Guidelines and Standards.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000This paper discusses the conundrum currently surrounding the Materiality construct and offers some reflections and suggestions about the challenges facing GRI.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000Clarification of the Materiality construct could reduce confusion and eventually allow for clear identification and differentiation of the financial and sustainability accounting fields at their interface.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000Language creates reality; an opportunity has arisen to bring appropriate and distinctive terminology to the sustainability reporting field, bridging the gap between competing logics.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000This viewpoint is timely. It contributes a practitioner’s perspective to the current debate on the development of the Materiality construct.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42043983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-06DOI: 10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0284
Blerita Korca, Ericka Costa, Lies Bouten
Purpose As the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context. Design/methodology/approach To inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years. Findings This study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability. Practical implications This study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR. Social implications By taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR. Originality/value In this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.
{"title":"Disentangling the concept of comparability in sustainability reporting","authors":"Blerita Korca, Ericka Costa, Lies Bouten","doi":"10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0284","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0284","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000As the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000To inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000This study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000This study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000By taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000In this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42695316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-29DOI: 10.1108/sampj-07-2021-0307
Navarani Vejaratnam, S. Chenayah, Z. Mohamad, A. Appolloni
Purpose This study aims to investigate the potential influence of organisational responses to conflicting institutional demands towards barriers to environmental performance (EP) monitoring of government green procurement (GGP) in Malaysia. Design/methodology/approach The paper used a qualitative methodology based on a single case study involving policymakers, procurement officials and a monitoring authority. The study data were analysed drawing on the perspectives of organisational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Findings The three key challenges that hindered EP monitoring of GGP in Malaysia were policy irregularities, knowledge asymmetry and communication gaps. These challenges are likely the consequences of the acquiescence, avoidance, compromise and defiance strategies commonly used in dealing with the institutional complexity faced in Malaysia’s public policy arena. Practical implications The government, at various institutional levels, may benefit from the theoretical and empirical findings of the case study. Knowledge of barriers can facilitate the policymakers in designing the monitoring process meticulously. Meanwhile, awareness of the influence of organisational responses to institutional complexity on GGP barriers can help redefine field actors’ interests and values in improving policy monitoring. In addition, reporting of the monitored EP bridges the institutional gaps between the macro-state level and the micro-organisational level of GGP, besides increasing the government’s transparency and accountability regarding green procurement. Social implications Fewer challenges in the EP monitoring system contribute to an improved GGP policy. In turn, an improved policy may enhance public health and reduce environmental degradation. Originality/value The study contributes to the GGP monitoring and institutional theory by showing that barriers to EP monitoring culminate from the organisational response to the institutional demands faced in the policy environment. The authors argue that this is one of the few studies that have examined the barriers to EP monitoring of public policy explicated in the context of organisational responses to institutional demands.
{"title":"Strategic responses to environmental performance monitoring barriers: a case study of Malaysian Government green procurement","authors":"Navarani Vejaratnam, S. Chenayah, Z. Mohamad, A. Appolloni","doi":"10.1108/sampj-07-2021-0307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-07-2021-0307","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This study aims to investigate the potential influence of organisational responses to conflicting institutional demands towards barriers to environmental performance (EP) monitoring of government green procurement (GGP) in Malaysia.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The paper used a qualitative methodology based on a single case study involving policymakers, procurement officials and a monitoring authority. The study data were analysed drawing on the perspectives of organisational responses to conflicting institutional demands.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The three key challenges that hindered EP monitoring of GGP in Malaysia were policy irregularities, knowledge asymmetry and communication gaps. These challenges are likely the consequences of the acquiescence, avoidance, compromise and defiance strategies commonly used in dealing with the institutional complexity faced in Malaysia’s public policy arena.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000The government, at various institutional levels, may benefit from the theoretical and empirical findings of the case study. Knowledge of barriers can facilitate the policymakers in designing the monitoring process meticulously. Meanwhile, awareness of the influence of organisational responses to institutional complexity on GGP barriers can help redefine field actors’ interests and values in improving policy monitoring. In addition, reporting of the monitored EP bridges the institutional gaps between the macro-state level and the micro-organisational level of GGP, besides increasing the government’s transparency and accountability regarding green procurement.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000Fewer challenges in the EP monitoring system contribute to an improved GGP policy. In turn, an improved policy may enhance public health and reduce environmental degradation.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The study contributes to the GGP monitoring and institutional theory by showing that barriers to EP monitoring culminate from the organisational response to the institutional demands faced in the policy environment. The authors argue that this is one of the few studies that have examined the barriers to EP monitoring of public policy explicated in the context of organisational responses to institutional demands.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45458612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-26DOI: 10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0287
Caterina Pesci, Paola Vola, L. Gelmini
Purpose This paper discusses the evolution of sustainability reporting and the role of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in relation to the social and environmental accounting (SEA) literature calling for a revolution in the standardization of sustainability reporting and the inherent complexities. This paper focuses on the future role of GRI in light of the changes resulting from harmonization supported by the International Sustainability Standards Board and the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group’s draft European Sustainability Reporting Directive. Design/methodology/approach Building on Bourdieu (1983, 1992) and SEA studies, the authors adopt a critical and qualitative approach to theorize power dynamics in the sustainability reporting field. After identifying the main issues arising from the complexity of the sustainability reporting standards and practices according to SEA scholars, the authors connect them with Bourdieu’s (1992, 1983) field theory to discuss the future role of GRI. Findings The findings suggest two distinct but intertwined roles that GRI could play in the future, namely, power related and theoretical/technical, aimed at engendering revolutionary rather than evolutionary changes in sustainability reporting. Practical implications This study offers practical implications for GRI to strengthen its future role in sustainability reporting standardization. Social implications The limited time available to mitigate the disastrous consequences of non-sustainable business on society and the environment calls for urgently addressing the complexities of sustainability accounting to foster a positive impact on society and the environment. Originality/value The authors’ reflections reclaim the SEA literature as central to identifying sustainability complexity and Bourdieu’s (1983, 1992) notions of power as key to understanding the role of GRI in the sustainability field. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes the intersection of different critical concepts, including power, complexity, value, capital and materiality.
{"title":"Flattening or addressing complexity? The future role of GRI in light of the sustainability accounting (r)evolution","authors":"Caterina Pesci, Paola Vola, L. Gelmini","doi":"10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0287","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This paper discusses the evolution of sustainability reporting and the role of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in relation to the social and environmental accounting (SEA) literature calling for a revolution in the standardization of sustainability reporting and the inherent complexities. This paper focuses on the future role of GRI in light of the changes resulting from harmonization supported by the International Sustainability Standards Board and the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group’s draft European Sustainability Reporting Directive.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000Building on Bourdieu (1983, 1992) and SEA studies, the authors adopt a critical and qualitative approach to theorize power dynamics in the sustainability reporting field. After identifying the main issues arising from the complexity of the sustainability reporting standards and practices according to SEA scholars, the authors connect them with Bourdieu’s (1992, 1983) field theory to discuss the future role of GRI.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The findings suggest two distinct but intertwined roles that GRI could play in the future, namely, power related and theoretical/technical, aimed at engendering revolutionary rather than evolutionary changes in sustainability reporting.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000This study offers practical implications for GRI to strengthen its future role in sustainability reporting standardization.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000The limited time available to mitigate the disastrous consequences of non-sustainable business on society and the environment calls for urgently addressing the complexities of sustainability accounting to foster a positive impact on society and the environment.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The authors’ reflections reclaim the SEA literature as central to identifying sustainability complexity and Bourdieu’s (1983, 1992) notions of power as key to understanding the role of GRI in the sustainability field. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes the intersection of different critical concepts, including power, complexity, value, capital and materiality.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45480283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-25DOI: 10.1108/sampj-03-2023-0127
Mercedes Luque-Vílchez, Michela Cordazzo, G. Rimmel, C. Tilt
Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Practical implications In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects. Social implications The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future. Originality/value This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.
{"title":"Key aspects of sustainability reporting quality and the future of GRI","authors":"Mercedes Luque-Vílchez, Michela Cordazzo, G. Rimmel, C. Tilt","doi":"10.1108/sampj-03-2023-0127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-03-2023-0127","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000This 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.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The 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.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The 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.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43116844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-19DOI: 10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0054
Irshad Ali, Peni Fukofuka, A. Narayan
Purpose The aim of this paper is to provide critical reflections on the role of standard setters and the endeavours of various organisations to provide sustainability reporting standards. Design/methodology/approach The authors’ critical reflections are informed by the literature and websites of IASB, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), global reporting initiative (GRI) and other relevant organisations. The authors use Bourdieu’s concept of field to support their analysis and critique. Findings The authors highlight how a disrupted standard-setting field will be a distraction from efforts to address real sustainability issues and concerns. Determining the “legitimate” sustainability reporting standards is likely to be an outcome of struggles between occupants in the sustainability standard-setting field. Accordingly, the shape of legitimate standards will be defined by those with power. The concern is the priority and the motive underpinning the endeavours of those with power. The authors propose that it is important for both the ISSB and GRI to serve the interest of a broad range of actors, including those who are not likely to have a say in sustainability reporting standard setting. Practical implications This paper contributes to sustainability reporting practice by putting forward a case for strengthening current sustainability reporting practices with appropriate changes to overcome some of the criticisms of the GRI. Social implications The authors highlight that there is a much broader group of stakeholders who require sustainability information and that it is important that the sustainability reporting standards serve the information needs of all stakeholders and not just those of the dominant actors. However, the ISSB with its economic focus will inevitably focus on the concern of investors and market participants. Originality/value The originality in this paper is the use of Bourdieu’s concept of field to theoretically highlight how a new standard setter may disrupt the sustainability standard-setting field and act as a distraction from efforts to address sustainability issues and concerns that the world faces.
{"title":"Critical reflections on sustainability reporting standard setting","authors":"Irshad Ali, Peni Fukofuka, A. Narayan","doi":"10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-01-2022-0054","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Purpose\u0000The aim of this paper is to provide critical reflections on the role of standard setters and the endeavours of various organisations to provide sustainability reporting standards.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design/methodology/approach\u0000The authors’ critical reflections are informed by the literature and websites of IASB, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), global reporting initiative (GRI) and other relevant organisations. The authors use Bourdieu’s concept of field to support their analysis and critique.\u0000\u0000\u0000Findings\u0000The authors highlight how a disrupted standard-setting field will be a distraction from efforts to address real sustainability issues and concerns. Determining the “legitimate” sustainability reporting standards is likely to be an outcome of struggles between occupants in the sustainability standard-setting field. Accordingly, the shape of legitimate standards will be defined by those with power. The concern is the priority and the motive underpinning the endeavours of those with power. The authors propose that it is important for both the ISSB and GRI to serve the interest of a broad range of actors, including those who are not likely to have a say in sustainability reporting standard setting.\u0000\u0000\u0000Practical implications\u0000This paper contributes to sustainability reporting practice by putting forward a case for strengthening current sustainability reporting practices with appropriate changes to overcome some of the criticisms of the GRI.\u0000\u0000\u0000Social implications\u0000The authors highlight that there is a much broader group of stakeholders who require sustainability information and that it is important that the sustainability reporting standards serve the information needs of all stakeholders and not just those of the dominant actors. However, the ISSB with its economic focus will inevitably focus on the concern of investors and market participants.\u0000\u0000\u0000Originality/value\u0000The originality in this paper is the use of Bourdieu’s concept of field to theoretically highlight how a new standard setter may disrupt the sustainability standard-setting field and act as a distraction from efforts to address sustainability issues and concerns that the world faces.\u0000","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41615059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：