Including Sustainable Reporting Practices in Corporate Management Reports: Assessing the Impact of Transparency on Economic Performance

Abstract

In terms of sustainability, traditional disclosure does not provide the necessary information to all stakeholders, mainly addressing the company’s shareholders’ expectations. As a result, organisations need to disclose more non-financial information, which implies social and environmental issues. Many organisations currently provide sustainability reports in addition to the annual management reports containing financial and economic data. Several studies have focused on adopting practices and tools in the sustainability area and their overlap with traditional managerial techniques and tools. Nevertheless, integration involves a harmonising process, compatibility and alignment between different management practices. This study aims to assess the impact that the inclusion of sustainable reporting practices in corporate management reports has on economic performance, and to support filling the gap in the specific literature by proposing an integrated reporting model achieved through a harmonising process, compatibility and alignment.

Sustainable Corporate Governance: The Impact Factors for Top Consulting Engineering Companies in Taiwan

“…Therefore, practical principles prohibit managers from working at both listed companies and their affiliated companies concurrently. A parent company and its affiliated companies should not hire the same managers due to problems with benefit transfer [25][26][27][28].…”

“…In conclusion, the aspects and number of questions asked in this questionnaire are as follows: protecting shareholders' rights and interests (6 questions), treating shareholders equitably (8 questions), strengthening the structure and operation of the board of directors (8 questions), increasing information transparency (8 questions), implementing corporate social responsibility (8 questions), and setting up a firewall (8 questions)-46 questions in total. The relationships between the variables and their corresponding hypothesis are based on the concept of structural equation modeling (SEM), the 9 hypotheses, and the literature review suggestions discussed in Section 2.3 [7,[25][26][27][28]. For example, in Figure 1, Hypothesis 1 suggests that PR has a position with CF, using questions PR1-PR6.…”

“…For example, in Figure 1, Hypothesis 1 suggests that PR has a position with CF, using questions PR1-PR6. All questions were mainly derived from the suggestions of the articles in the Corporate Governance Best Practice Principles for TWSE/TPEx Listed Companies [7] and partially from the references [25][26][27][28]. The full names for each question in the sequence are as follows: minute disclosure (PR1), director attendance (PR2), chairperson attendance (PR3), denied motion (PR4), no dividends to board directors (PR5), less than 50% of shares held by board directors (PR6), shareholder meetings as scheduled (TE1), agenda transparency for shareholder meetings (TE2), financial statement transparency for shareholder meetings (TE3), English agendas for shareholder meetings (TE4), English financial statement transparency for shareholder meetings (TE5), execution report for previous shareholder meetings (TE6), information obstacles (TE7), single shareholder weighted over 1/3 (TE8), female directors (SO1), extra directorships (SO2), auditing availability for the board (SO3), governance availability for the board (SO4), risk management availability for the board (SO5), performance availability for the board (SO6), training availability for the board (SO7), property management availability for the board (SO8), timely disclosure of financial statements (IT1), English financial statement availability (IT2), revised edition for financial statements (IT3), financial flaws in financial statements (IT4), industrial trend statements (IT5), disclosure for major shareholders (IT6), financial information disclosure on websites (IT7), investor conferences twice a year (IT8), corporate division for social responsibility (FC1), social responsibility plan setup (FC2), disclosure for social responsibility results (FC3), disclosure for promoting employees' welfare (FC4), disclosure of waste quantities (FC5), strategy for reducing waste (FC6), disclosure of interest avoidance (FC7), disclosure of illegal and unethical matters (FC8), firewall among all departments and divisions (CF1), avoidance of professional manager concurrence (CF2), regulation of directors' personal conduct (CF3), secrecy of business knowhow among all internal departments (CF4), avoidance of benefit transfer (CF5), firewall for subsidiary companies (CF6), reporting channel for misconduct (CF7), and protection for reporters (CF8).…”

Assessment of the Mandatory Non-Financial Reporting of Romanian Companies in the Circular Economy Context

“…Non-financial reporting (NFR) transparency and credibility regarding the sustainable activities of Romanian companies have been a significant part of the analysis topics in the recent Romanian literature [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. In this context, the paper’s objective is to assess the mandatory non-financial reporting of Romanian companies for 2017–2019.…”

Mandatory ESG Reporting and XBRL Taxonomies Combination: ESG Ratings and Income Statement, a Sustainable Value-Added Disclosure

“…Corporations play a significant role in the communities in which they operate [1][2][3]. Therefore, their accountability [4,5] should be considered, measured, and systematically disclosed to ensure transparency, comparability, and stakeholders' awareness [6,7]. Attempts to measure and inform sustainability outcomes and financial performances have led to autonomous Sustainability Reports, discretionarily presented by the companies [8,9].…”