随着可持续发展报告立法的不断增加,确定重要性的做法是否也在发生变化?从欧盟制药公司的报告中得出的结论

Mirella Miettinen
{"title":"随着可持续发展报告立法的不断增加,确定重要性的做法是否也在发生变化?从欧盟制药公司的报告中得出的结论","authors":"Mirella Miettinen","doi":"10.1108/ijlma-09-2023-0221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This paper aims to contribute to the development of the European Union (EU) regulatory environment for sustainability reporting by analyzing how materiality is defined in the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and by examining the added value and challenges of legalizing reporting and materiality requirements from both regulatory and practical company perspectives. It provides insights on whether this is reflected by EU pharmaceutical companies and to what extent companies report information on their materiality analysis process.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Doctrinal analysis was used to examine regulatory instruments. Qualitative document analysis was used to analyze companies’ reports. The added value and challenges were examined using a governance approach. It focused on legalizing reporting and materiality requirements, with a brief extension to corporate management and organization studies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Materiality has evolved from a vague concept in the NFRD toward double materiality in the CSRD. This was reflected by the industry, but reports revealed inconsistencies in materiality definitions and reported information. Challenges include lack of self-reflection and company-centric perceptions of materiality. Companies should explain how they identify relevant stakeholders and how input is considered in decision-making.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>Managers must consider how they conduct materiality assessments to meet society’s expectations. The underlying processes should be explained to increase the credibility of reports. Sustainability reporting should be seen as a corporate governance tool.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This work contributes to the literature on materiality in sustainability reporting and to the debate on the need for a holistic, society-centric approach to enhance the sustainability of companies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":46125,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are materiality determination practices evolving in the wake of increasing legislation on sustainability reporting? Findings from EU pharmaceutical companies’ reports\",\"authors\":\"Mirella Miettinen\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijlma-09-2023-0221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>This paper aims to contribute to the development of the European Union (EU) regulatory environment for sustainability reporting by analyzing how materiality is defined in the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and by examining the added value and challenges of legalizing reporting and materiality requirements from both regulatory and practical company perspectives. It provides insights on whether this is reflected by EU pharmaceutical companies and to what extent companies report information on their materiality analysis process.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>Doctrinal analysis was used to examine regulatory instruments. Qualitative document analysis was used to analyze companies’ reports. The added value and challenges were examined using a governance approach. It focused on legalizing reporting and materiality requirements, with a brief extension to corporate management and organization studies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>Materiality has evolved from a vague concept in the NFRD toward double materiality in the CSRD. This was reflected by the industry, but reports revealed inconsistencies in materiality definitions and reported information. Challenges include lack of self-reflection and company-centric perceptions of materiality. Companies should explain how they identify relevant stakeholders and how input is considered in decision-making.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\\n<p>Managers must consider how they conduct materiality assessments to meet society’s expectations. The underlying processes should be explained to increase the credibility of reports. Sustainability reporting should be seen as a corporate governance tool.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>This work contributes to the literature on materiality in sustainability reporting and to the debate on the need for a holistic, society-centric approach to enhance the sustainability of companies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":46125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law and Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlma-09-2023-0221\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlma-09-2023-0221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本文旨在通过分析《非财务报告指令》(NFRD)和《企业可持续发展报告指令》(CSRD)中对重要性的定义,以及从监管和实际公司的角度研究报告和重要性要求法律化的附加值和挑战,为欧盟(EU)可持续发展报告监管环境的发展做出贡献。本报告深入探讨了欧盟制药公司是否反映了这一点,以及公司在多大程度上报告了其实质性分析过程的信息。定性文件分析用于分析公司报告。采用治理方法研究了附加值和挑战。研究重点是报告和重要性要求的法律化,并简要扩展到企业管理和组织研究。研究结果重要性已从《国家报告和披露准则》中的模糊概念演变为《企业社会责任准则》中的双重重要性。这一点得到了业界的反映,但报告显示,重要性定义和报告信息并不一致。面临的挑战包括缺乏自我反思和以公司为中心的重要性观念。公司应解释他们如何确定相关的利益相关者,以及在决策时如何考虑他们的意见。应解释基本流程,以提高报告的可信度。可持续发展报告应被视为一种公司治理工具。原创性/价值这项工作为有关可持续发展报告中的实质性问题的文献以及有关是否需要一种全面的、以社会为中心的方法来提高公司的可持续性的讨论做出了贡献。
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
Are materiality determination practices evolving in the wake of increasing legislation on sustainability reporting? Findings from EU pharmaceutical companies’ reports

Purpose

This paper aims to contribute to the development of the European Union (EU) regulatory environment for sustainability reporting by analyzing how materiality is defined in the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and by examining the added value and challenges of legalizing reporting and materiality requirements from both regulatory and practical company perspectives. It provides insights on whether this is reflected by EU pharmaceutical companies and to what extent companies report information on their materiality analysis process.

Design/methodology/approach

Doctrinal analysis was used to examine regulatory instruments. Qualitative document analysis was used to analyze companies’ reports. The added value and challenges were examined using a governance approach. It focused on legalizing reporting and materiality requirements, with a brief extension to corporate management and organization studies.

Findings

Materiality has evolved from a vague concept in the NFRD toward double materiality in the CSRD. This was reflected by the industry, but reports revealed inconsistencies in materiality definitions and reported information. Challenges include lack of self-reflection and company-centric perceptions of materiality. Companies should explain how they identify relevant stakeholders and how input is considered in decision-making.

Practical implications

Managers must consider how they conduct materiality assessments to meet society’s expectations. The underlying processes should be explained to increase the credibility of reports. Sustainability reporting should be seen as a corporate governance tool.

Originality/value

This work contributes to the literature on materiality in sustainability reporting and to the debate on the need for a holistic, society-centric approach to enhance the sustainability of companies.

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
3.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law and Management is a leading journal addressing all aspects of regulation and law as they impact on organisational development, operations and leadership. Organisations and their leaders operate in an increasingly complex world of emerging regulation across national and international boundaries. The International Journal of Law and Management seeks to acknowledge the dynamics of that environment and provide a platform for articles and contributions to stimulate scholarly debate in the development of law and practice. The International Journal of Law and Management seeks to present the latest research on policy, practice and theoretical perspectives and their impact on the development and leadership of organisations. Contributions of a multi-disciplinary nature are welcome. Coverage includes, but is not limited to: -Employment and industrial law- Corporate governance and social responsibility- Intellectual property- Corporate law and finance- Insolvency- Commercial law and consumer protection- Environmental law- Taxation- Competition law- Regulatory theory
期刊最新文献
Foreign direct investment and the protection of garment workers' rights in Bangladesh From revelation to modern Islamic finance: Islamic commercial law in the UAE as a case study Three decades of WTO dispute settlement: insights from bibliometric literature review and future research agenda Inflated energy prices and capital structure: firm level evidence from Indian manufacturing sector Corporate carbon emissions, science-based targets initiatives and firm performance: evidence from India
×
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