Transparency and Climate Change:A Study of Companies on the Sustainability Disclosure Forefront

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meenakshi Sinha Swami
Keyword(s):  
Sustainability Disclosure

Assurance of the Sustainability Reports from the Chemical Industry Practices and trends

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 636-641
Author(s):  
Ionela Corina Chersan ◽  
Gabriela Ignat ◽  
George Ungureanu ◽  
Ion Sandu ◽  
Carmen Luiza Costuleanu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Chemical Industry ◽  
Sustainability Disclosure ◽  
Sustainability Reports ◽  
Integrated Or ◽  
Corporate Social

This study was carried out to identify the most recent practices in the audit of the sustainability reports of the companies from the chemical industry, whether they are integrated or not. For this purpose, we analyzed the annual/sustainability reports list available on the GRI website under the name GRI Sustainability Disclosure Database. As the results of the study, we argue that, due to environmental and social hazards associated with chemical industries, a duty to report on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and to audit these reports according to specified standards would need to be introduced.

Sustainability Disclosure and the Financialization of Social Sustainability

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Woschnack ◽  
Stefanie Hiss ◽  
Sebastian Nagel ◽  
Bernd Teufel
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Financial Performance ◽  
Financial Market ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Social Sustainability ◽  
Rating Agencies ◽  
Sustainability Disclosure ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract This empirical study explores the financialization of social sustainability driven by sustainability accounting and reporting initiatives (SARIs). Since no globally accepted definition of what social sustainability encompasses exists, the paper asks how social sustainability is translated into the financial market language by SARIs as they provide standards for disclosing corporate non-financial performance and promote their concepts of social sustainability. The paper uses a two-step qualitative content analysis. First, it operationalizes social sustainability based on the empirical data of six sustainability rating agencies. Second, this operationalization is compared with the concepts created by three SARIs. The paper shows significant differences between the concepts of the SARIs and the rating agencies. While the rating agencies altogether interpret social sustainability with 83 distinct aspects, the SARIs, although differently created, use significant reduced concepts where 20% of these aspects are absent. The result of this financialization process could be a simplified and financially determined concept of social sustainability within die socially discourse. The research is limited to social sustainability and its financialization by SARIs. Individual indicators and their way or intensity to capture aspects of social sustainability were not part of the research interest. Further research should investigate the economic and the ecological pillars of sustainability as well as the usage of such financialized concepts within the society and especially by corporations. The paper unfolds the arbitrariness of operationalizing a qualitative phenomenon like social sustainability through the financial system. It discloses the need for looking at the mechanisms behind such processes and at the interests of the actors behind the frameworks. The paper reveals the financialization process driven by SARIs and demonstrates its simplifying effects on the concept of social sustainability. Furthermore, the paper shows that SARIs as metrics for non-financial aspects are troubled with a lack of transparency and a lack of convergence.

scholarly journals Approaches on the Screening Methods for Materiality in Sustainability Reporting

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 3233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susie Wu ◽  
Changliang Shao ◽  
Jiquan Chen
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Sustainability ◽  
Accounting Standards ◽  
Social Sustainability ◽  
Sustainability Reporting ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Comparison Study ◽  
Life Cycle Perspective ◽  
Sustainability Disclosure ◽  
Different Levels

Recent decades have seen a surge in corporate sustainability reports (SRs); their proliferation, however, does not ensure effective and consistent reporting on materiality. To improve the completeness, consistency and uniformity of SRs, this study aims at providing a review on the definition and identification of materiality and to propose screening methods for materiality assessments using publicly available resources. We found that most acknowledged standards and initiatives diverge in their definitions and approaches towards materiality. Four screening methods are proposed, including two that are directly usable: (1) Sustainability Accounting Standards Board Materiality Map™ and (2) Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Topics for Sectors; and two involving more desktop research: (3) GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database and (4) modeling from a life-cycle perspective. The second and third approaches are tested through a comparison study for the apparel and energy industries in selected regions using content analysis. The results indicate that the two approaches, with different levels of complexity, yield inconsistency in obtaining the most (i.e., the top three) material topics. The GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database is recommended for practitioners due to its balanced disclosure on management, economic, environmental and social sustainability themes.

scholarly journals A Reference Model of Sustainability Disclosure based on four Sustainability Stock Indexes

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Yuh Ching ◽  
Thiago Toste ◽  
Renan Tardelli
Keyword(s):  
Reference Model ◽  
Corporate Sustainability ◽  
Positive Signal ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Responsible Investment ◽  
Sustainability Index ◽  
Fund Managers ◽  
Sustainability Disclosure ◽  
Dow Jones Sustainability Index ◽  
Stock Indexes

The study proposes to develop a reference model of sustainability disclosure based on the models and requirements of four sustainability indexes - Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Corporate Sustainability Index ISE, Frankfurt STOXX and Financial Times FTSE ESG. The approach employed to develop the model is a qualitative analysis of the complementarity among the Stock indexes above mentioned alongside a literature review on sustainability disclosure frameworks. There is no consensus around what should be measured and how. Yet, there is no study in the literature that has ever discussed the models of the sustainability stock indexes and the respective data required in each one of them or compared these models and their requirements. The present study attempts to fulfill this gap by examining the initiatives and requirements of four prominent sustainability indexes. This study contributes to the sustainability responsible investment literature. The inclusion of a firm in a sustainability index can be perceived as a positive signal by investors and this can be explained by signaling theory. This analysis can help investors and/or socially responsible fund managers to screen the stocks against this reference model and determine those firms that are more adherent to it.

scholarly journals Will the EU Taxonomy Regulation Foster Sustainable Corporate Governance?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (21) ◽  
pp. 12316
Author(s):  
Alessio M. Pacces
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Institutional Investors ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Securities Regulation ◽  
Environmentally Sustainable ◽  
Financial Products ◽  
Principal Agent Problem ◽  
Sustainability Disclosure ◽  
The Eu

EU securities regulation has established a taxonomy of environmentally sustainable activities. This article discusses, from a law and economics standpoint, the potential of this taxonomy to support sustainable corporate governance. Corporate governance can be an efficient way to channel investor preferences towards sustainability because the concentration of institutional shareholding has lowered the transaction costs of shareholder action. However, there is a principal-agent problem between institutional investors and their beneficiaries, which depends on greenwashing and undermines sustainable corporate governance. This article argues that introducing environmental sustainability into EU mandatory disclosure aligns the institutional investors’ incentives with the interest of their beneficiaries and may foster the efficient inclusion of sustainability in corporate governance. The argument is threefold. Firstly, the EU taxonomy may curb greenwashing by standardizing the disclosure of environmental sustainability. Secondly, this information may become salient for the beneficiaries as the same standards define the sustainability preferences to be considered in recommending and marketing financial products. Thirdly, sustainability disclosure prompts institutional investors to compete for sustainability-minded beneficiaries. Being unable to avoid unsustainable companies altogether, institutional investors are expected to cater to beneficiaries’ preferences for environmental sustainability using voice instead of an exit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document