Sustainability reporting has become an increasingly common practice among companies around the globe as around 90% of the world’s 250 largest companies from Fortune 500 prepare and publish its sustainability reporting. Aiming to help researchers to grasp the intellectual landscape of global research on sustainable reporting, we conducted a bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace software by applying evaluative and relational techniques to 928 articles published in 480 different journals in Scopus and 698 articles published in 374 different journals in Web of Science Core Collection from 1981 to 2020. Our findings indicate that the number of articles published in the field has increased rapidly, especially since 2009. We identified the leading countries (the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Canada, the Netherlands and Italy), the most prolific journals (Journal of Cleaner Production, Business Strategy and the Environment, Journal of Business Ethics), main journals categories (Business, Economics, Management and Finance, Environmental and Ecology and Science, Technology and Engineering), and the major research directions in the near future (sustainability reporting, corporate social responsibility, sustainable development, disclosure). From our findings we infer that the sustainability reporting research has just recently (2013-2019) gained traction in the literature. Moreover, our findings testify that a kind of bifurcation point has occurred is 2011 that manifests the maturity of the field of sustainability reporting. All this provides the reader with a high-view look at sustainable reporting as these quantitative findings complementing qualitative and providing valuable insights into the field.

Purpose. The paper aims at finding out how significantly stakeholders are consulted and involved by preparers, Ukrainian publicly-listed agricultural companies, while compiling sustainability reporting (SR) and by assurance providers, during assurance processes of SR. The paper’s main research question may be formulated as follows ‘How deeply stakeholders are involved at Ukrainian agricultural companies in the preparation of their sustainability reporting and assurance?’ Methodology / approach. The study utilizes widely used techniques in this field content analysis of sustainability reports based on suggested coding rules which in turn grounded in the leading literature. Authors use a multidimensional coding system (with a maximum score of 12 points) which consists of three elements and offers an aggregate assessment of the information disclosure of the involvement of stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Also authors base on frameworks for classification of the stakeholders’ engagement level into three levels (information, response and involvement strategies). The paper’s sample although tiny, only five years/company observations, is comprehensive since it includes all Ukrainian agricultural companies presented in GRI SDD database one of the largest databases of its kind. To analyze only the latest relevant experience, authors have limited the report type to the latest GRI modification – GRI Standards. As a result of five steps in the sample formation process, it is equal to 3 companies that produced 5 reports in the period between 2017 and 2019 years. Results. While the used coding structure allowed for a maximum of 12 points, the analysed reports were able to reach only half of this as one report earned 7, one – 6 and the rest was marked with 5 points. From the three companies from our sample frontrunner is Astarta Holding. Astarta Holding excels in materiality relevance (4 points) and is the only company assured its sustainability report. Authors find that the engagement strategy of the companies being analyzed mostly consists of action intended to inform (level 1) as well as consult and support stakeholders (level 2), whilst deep involvement strategy (level 3) is being almost neglected. In regards to focus, we find that the most cited stakeholders in engagement actions are on level 1 employees, consumers and suppliers. Consumers also alongside authorities and local communities are the most cited stakeholders on the level of response strategy, whereas the authorities are the single stakeholders' group being honoured to be treated on the highest third level. The authors’ general impression is that for the most part legitimacy theory is the best theory to explain the behaviour of compilers of reports from the sample because mostly management uses rhetorical tools to cover its activities, while the reporting itself lacks specifics about negative externalities. For authors, it looks like an exercise in self-legitimization. It appears that the companies studied has not yet fully performed the transfer from ‘stakeholder management’ to ‘stakeholder engagement’. It is the authors’ understanding that all this has roots in the very perverted perception of sustainability reporting as a continuation of financial reporting although it is not. In financial reporting, materiality is defined internally as a percentage of some indicators in the balance sheet and/or statement of financial performance, in sustainable reporting, materiality is not only important in the assurance, but it is a cornerstone in the preparation of SR itself. Originality / scientific novelty. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first that extends the analysis the stakeholders’ engagement in the sustainability reporting to the Ukrainian agricultural companies, thus shedding some light on that unexplored (underexplored) practice. Practical value / implications. First, sustainability reporting practices in Ukraine is in its infancy, and therefore any shortcomings identified will be a guide to action to adjust these approaches in the future. Secondly, our analysis can also be seen as the dissemination of best practices. The companies we have chosen are pioneers in this matter, so they can at the same time be considered as role models for others, but taking into account the experience gained by them. Besides, in addition to companies, our findings can be useful for regulators and public authorities alike in terms of adjusting the approach to regulating this area.

The paper explores how companies from Central and Eastern Europe adopt assurance practices to provide accountability for sustainability. Drawing on modified coding rules from prior research, a conventional content analysis of 36 assurance statements companies from nine countries was conducted. The results imply differences in the content of reports, processes, and implementation of the standards. Exclusively large and multinational enterprises from the energy sectors domiciled in Poland and Hungary are a typical portrait of a company from the study’s sample, striving to issue and assure sustainability reporting. Of the nine countries represented in the study, sustainability assurance statements of companies from Poland, Hungary, and Romania tend to excel in terms of quality. The vast majority of assurance providers belong to the Big Four, who use ISAE3000 as opposed to AA1100AS. Yet, irrespective of the assurance provider type, stakeholders are neglected. It is argued that just transferring the experience of financial auditing to the field of sustainability, which, by and large, has taken place, is not an option. Authors state that following this route, we are heading in the wrong direction, and in technical terms, the wider proliferation of AA1100AS and its principles, with greater emphasis on reasonable assurance as opposed to the limited and enhanced role of stakeholders, are vital to get back on track. The paper contributes to the emerging literature on accountability standards and stresses the need to enhance sustainability-related assurance.

The paper explores the association between corporate governance attributes and the extent of accounting conservatism apparent in Chinese listed companies’ financial reporting. The findings demonstrate that significant positive association exists between board independence, board size and accounting conservatism in Chinese information technology companies. Conversely, CEO duality, management shareholding and the shareholding ratio of the largest shareholder significantly negatively correlated with accounting conservatism. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is one of the first empirical papers revealing the evidence on the relationship between corporate governance attributes and accounting conservatism in China. Overall, the author’s findings match up with the assertion that accounting conservatism assists directors in reducing agency costs of firms.

Adopting agency and stakeholders theories, this study aims to investigate the relationship between corporate governance attributes (board size, board independence, female directors, and CEO duality) and sustainability reporting conduct in China. The empirical analysis is based on a sample of 10,330 firm-year observations of Chinese listed companies over the period from 2015 to 2018. Data are supplied by WIND and CSMAR databases, whilst regression analysis is applied to test the hypotheses. Results indicate that board size and board independence were found to be positively associated with the sustainability reporting conduct, while female directors and CEO duality both do not have a significant effect on sustainability reporting conduct in the Chinese institutional settings. This paper advances on arguments of the agency and stakeholders theories with these findings. The larger and more independent board facilitates better monitoring of the managers, what leads to decision-making based on a more appreciation of stakeholders’ perspectives. The study is premised on the presence/absence of sustainability reporting, and it does not take into consideration the quality aspect, which can result in erroneous interpretation. The results should not be generalized as the sample was based on China’s companies for 2015–2018. This study has policy implications for managers and policymakers alike concerning designing board composition conducive to sustainability reporting conduct.

No abstract

Sustainability reporting has become a practice of the majority and is decided by boards of directors as the supreme governing body in the decision-making process of companies. The paper provides a high-view picture and visualizes research to portray the historical shifts in sustainability reporting nexus to corporate governance through an analysis utilizing CiteSpace software on 935 articles published in Web of Science Core Collection from 2009 to 2021.The number of papers in the area has expanded, especially since 2013 (a branching point), while the study determines a type of bifurcation spot (the year 2017) that evinces the SR-CG field maturity. The study determined the dominant countries through affiliated to them researchers (the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, China and Australia), the most esteemed journals (Journal of Business Ethics, Business Strategy and the Environment and Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal), and the major co-occurrence of hot keywords (carbon disclosure project, environmental disclosure quality, integrated reporting, financial performance, foreign director, environmental reporting, public sector, sustainability assurance statement). The paper identifies principal issues where SR-CG research lags (dearth of those research in developing economies and geographical limitation of research) and unravels uncharted so far domains (jurisdictions-related studies) in the realm. Future research in the realm is likely to focus on ESG, disclosures and governance performance, as well as on specific areas (geography, industry, etc.), and will explore in depth the role of multiple factors together. This papers indicate the growing convergence between SR and CG in literature, and given predominance of ‘SR as a function of CG’ approach a more stalwart and sound CG framework could bring about more tenable SR practices. The paper puts forward an agenda for advancing forthcoming research in the realm of SR-CG interdependence. AcknowledgmentThis paper is co-funded by European Union through the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) within the project “EU BEST PRACTICE OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOUNTING AND SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING” 101047667 — EULASTING — ERASMUS-JMO-2021-HEI-TCH-RSCH https://bit.ly/3Bbvquw

This paper examines the difference that the assurance brings to the quality of CSR reports in the Chinese institutional setting, in particular, the difference in quality (proxy – RKS ranking) of assured and unassured CSR reports, as well as whether the high ownership concentration and corresponding to it “entrenchment effect” obstruct the positive impact the assurance exerts on the quality of CSR reports. The paper examines CSR reports on 2,292 firm-year observations of large Chinese companies over three years (2015–2018). The hypothesis development process predicates on the signaling and stakeholder theories, whilst this study applies regression analysis to test the hypotheses. Consistent with the predictions of signaling and stakeholder theories, the paper finds that assurance contributes to the higher quality of CSR reports. Moreover, the study finds that assured CSR reports have higher sub-scores in all four aspects of RKS ranking. However, as ownership concentration exceeds 50 per cent and reaches the majority, it thwarts the advancement in the quality of CSR reports through its assurance. The paper provides an initial empirical account of the role of assurance in the emerging CSR reporting practice in China. The paper contributes to the modest body of empirical research on the function of external assurance in the CSR area by explicating the role played both by the accounting (external assurance) and corporate governance (ownership concentration) infrastructure to ensure high quality of CSR reporting. The paper briefs local, international regulatory authorities and the business community about the importance of external assurance for the CSR reporting quality.