利益相关者参与 ISSB 准则制定过程:就可持续性报告的第一批征求意见稿进行磋商

IF 5.2 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal Pub Date : 2023-11-29 DOI:10.1108/sampj-05-2023-0314
Alessandra Kulik, Michael Dobler
{"title":"利益相关者参与 ISSB 准则制定过程:就可持续性报告的第一批征求意见稿进行磋商","authors":"Alessandra Kulik, Michael Dobler","doi":"10.1108/sampj-05-2023-0314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose This paper aims to provide empirical evidence on formal stakeholder participation (or “lobbying”) in the early phase of the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB’s) standard-setting. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on a rational-choice framework, this paper conducts a content analysis of comment letters (CLs) submitted to the ISSB in response to its first two exposure drafts (published in 2022) to investigate stakeholder participation across different groups and jurisdictional origins. The analyses examine participation in terms of frequency (measured using the number of participating stakeholders) and intensity (measured using the length of CLs). Findings Preparers and users of sustainability reports emerge as the largest participating stakeholder groups, while the accounting/sustainability profession participates with high average intensity. Surprisingly, preparers do not outweigh users in terms of participation frequency and intensity; and large preparers outweigh smaller ones in terms of participation intensity but not participation frequency. Internationally, stakeholders from countries with a private financial accounting standard-setting system participate more frequently and intensively than others. In addition, country-level economic wealth and sustainability performance are positively associated with more participating stakeholders. Practical implications This study is of interest for organizations and stakeholders involved in or affected by standard-setting in the field of sustainability reporting. The finding of limited participation by investors and from developing countries suggests the ISSB take actions to enhance the voice of those stakeholders. Social implications The imbalances in stakeholder participation that were found pose potential threats to an important aspect of the input legitimacy of the ISSB’s standard-setting process. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to explore stakeholder participation by means of CLs with the ISSB in terms of frequency and intensity.","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stakeholder participation in the ISSB’s standard-setting process: the consultations on the first exposure drafts on sustainability reporting\",\"authors\":\"Alessandra Kulik, Michael Dobler\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sampj-05-2023-0314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose This paper aims to provide empirical evidence on formal stakeholder participation (or “lobbying”) in the early phase of the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB’s) standard-setting. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on a rational-choice framework, this paper conducts a content analysis of comment letters (CLs) submitted to the ISSB in response to its first two exposure drafts (published in 2022) to investigate stakeholder participation across different groups and jurisdictional origins. The analyses examine participation in terms of frequency (measured using the number of participating stakeholders) and intensity (measured using the length of CLs). Findings Preparers and users of sustainability reports emerge as the largest participating stakeholder groups, while the accounting/sustainability profession participates with high average intensity. Surprisingly, preparers do not outweigh users in terms of participation frequency and intensity; and large preparers outweigh smaller ones in terms of participation intensity but not participation frequency. Internationally, stakeholders from countries with a private financial accounting standard-setting system participate more frequently and intensively than others. In addition, country-level economic wealth and sustainability performance are positively associated with more participating stakeholders. Practical implications This study is of interest for organizations and stakeholders involved in or affected by standard-setting in the field of sustainability reporting. The finding of limited participation by investors and from developing countries suggests the ISSB take actions to enhance the voice of those stakeholders. Social implications The imbalances in stakeholder participation that were found pose potential threats to an important aspect of the input legitimacy of the ISSB’s standard-setting process. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to explore stakeholder participation by means of CLs with the ISSB in terms of frequency and intensity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-05-2023-0314\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-05-2023-0314","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本文旨在为利益相关者在国际可持续发展标准委员会(ISSB)标准制定早期阶段的正式参与(或 "游说")提供经验证据。 设计/方法/途径 本文借鉴理性选择框架,对提交给国际可持续发展标准委员会的评论信(CL)进行了内容分析,以回应其最初的两份征求意见稿(于 2022 年发布),从而调查不同群体和不同辖区的利益相关者的参与情况。分析从频率(使用参与利益相关者的数量衡量)和强度(使用意见书的长度衡量)两个方面考察了参与情况。 研究结果 可持续发展报告的编制者和使用者是最大的参与利益相关者群体,而会计/可持续发展专业人士的平均参与强度较高。令人惊讶的是,在参与频率和参与强度方面,编制者并没有超过用户;在参与强度方面,大型编制者超过了小型编制者,但在参与频率方面却没有超过小型编制者。在国际上,拥有私营财务会计标准制定体系的国家的利益相关者的参与频率和强度高于其他国家。此外,国家层面的经济财富和可持续发展表现与更多利益相关者的参与呈正相关。 实践意义 本研究对参与可持续发展报告领域准则制定工作或受其影响的组织和利益相关者具有重要意义。发现投资者和发展中国家的参与有限,建议国际社会科学理事会采取行动,提高这些利益相关者的发言权。 社会影响 在利益相关者参与方面发现的不平衡现象对 ISSB 标准制定过程的投入合法性的一个重要方面构成了潜在威胁。 独创性/价值 据作者所知,本文是第一篇探讨利益相关者通过与国际标准化委员会合作的方式参与频率和强度的文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Stakeholder participation in the ISSB’s standard-setting process: the consultations on the first exposure drafts on sustainability reporting
Purpose This paper aims to provide empirical evidence on formal stakeholder participation (or “lobbying”) in the early phase of the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB’s) standard-setting. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on a rational-choice framework, this paper conducts a content analysis of comment letters (CLs) submitted to the ISSB in response to its first two exposure drafts (published in 2022) to investigate stakeholder participation across different groups and jurisdictional origins. The analyses examine participation in terms of frequency (measured using the number of participating stakeholders) and intensity (measured using the length of CLs). Findings Preparers and users of sustainability reports emerge as the largest participating stakeholder groups, while the accounting/sustainability profession participates with high average intensity. Surprisingly, preparers do not outweigh users in terms of participation frequency and intensity; and large preparers outweigh smaller ones in terms of participation intensity but not participation frequency. Internationally, stakeholders from countries with a private financial accounting standard-setting system participate more frequently and intensively than others. In addition, country-level economic wealth and sustainability performance are positively associated with more participating stakeholders. Practical implications This study is of interest for organizations and stakeholders involved in or affected by standard-setting in the field of sustainability reporting. The finding of limited participation by investors and from developing countries suggests the ISSB take actions to enhance the voice of those stakeholders. Social implications The imbalances in stakeholder participation that were found pose potential threats to an important aspect of the input legitimacy of the ISSB’s standard-setting process. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to explore stakeholder participation by means of CLs with the ISSB in terms of frequency and intensity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Investigating the barriers and strategies for establishing desalination plants to mitigate water scarcity in Sri Lankan dry zones Environmental sustainability balanced scorecard: a strategic map for joint action by municipalities Advancing fiscal transparency in Latin American countries: new findings in reports on tax sustainability in Chile Forward-looking information: does IIRC framework adoption matter? Environment court, shareholder conflict and corporate governance: evidence from market reactions to bank loan announcements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1