Authors’ elaboration
Business area/function | Length of service (years) | Motivation for the interview | Length of the interview (minutes) |
---|---|---|---|
Chief executive officer (CEO) | 9 | Gain the perspective of the top management | 40’ |
Institutional Relations – the person in charge of coordinating the sustainability reporting process (the sustainability manager, as the person in charge of the sustainability reporting process) | 32 | Gain the perspective of the person who has guided the sustainability reporting process from the very beginning and who knows the company very well | 40’ |
Corporate social responsibility (CSR Manager, as the coordinator of sustainability reporting process) | 7 | Gain the perspective of the person who is in charge of CSR, development and who has organized and taken part in the sustainability reporting process from the very beginning | 30’ |
Quality, safety and environment (QSE) area (QSE middle-manager) | 38 | Gain the perspective of a person who has actively taken part in the sustainability reporting process since 2016 | 30’ |
QSE of the main company of the group active in the natural gas distribution business area [middle-manager of the QSE of natural gas distribution (NGD)] | 33 | Gain the perspective of a person who has actively taken part in the sustainability reporting process from the very beginning, who had some previous experience in sustainability reports and who is used to collect and manage data in his daily activities | 30’ |
Source: Authors’ elaboration
Adams , C.A. and McNicholas , P. ( 2007 ), “ Making a difference: SR, accountability and organizational change ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 382 - 402 .
Albrecht , P. , Burandt , S. and Schaltegger , S. ( 2007 ), “ Do sustainability projects stimulate organizational learning in universities? ”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , Vol. 8 No. 4 , pp. 403 - 415 .
Argyris , C. and Schon , D.A. ( 1978 ), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective , Addison-Wesley , Reading, MA .
Baret , P. and Helfrich , V. ( 2018 ), “ The “trilemma” of non-financial reporting and its pitfalls ”, Journal of Management and Governance , pp. 1 - 27 .
Barter , N. and Bebbington , J. ( 2013 ), “ Actor-network theory: a briefing note and possibilities for social and environmental accounting research ”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal , Vol. 33 No. 1 , pp. 33 - 50 .
Bebbington , J. and Larrinaga , C. ( 2014 ), “ Accounting and sustainable development: an exploration ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 39 No. 6 , pp. 395 - 413 .
Bini , L. and Bellucci , M. ( 2020 ), Integrated Sustainability Reporting . Springer Books .
Brand , F.S. , Berger , V. , Hetze , K. , Schmidt , J.E. , Weber , M.C. , Winistörfer , H. and Daub , C.H. ( 2018 ), “ Overcoming current practical challenges in sustainability and integrated reporting: insights from a Swiss field study ”, Sustainability Management Forum , Vol. 26 Nos 1/4 , pp. 35 - 46 .
Brusca , I. , Labrador , M. and Larran , M. ( 2018 ), “ The challenge of sustainability and integrated reporting at universities: a case study ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 188 , pp. 347 - 354 .
Busco , C. , Frigo , M.L. , Quattrone , P. and Riccaboni , A. ( 2013 ), “ Integrated Reporting – Reflections on the Concepts, Principles, Elements and Case Studies that are redefining Corporate Accountability ”, Springer .
Busco , C. , Granà , F. and Quattrone , P. ( 2017 ), “ Integrated thinking: Aligning purpose and the business model to market opportunities and sustainable performance ”, CIMA Research Report , Vol. 3 No. 3 .
Business Roundtable ( 2019 ), Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans ’.
Callon , M. ( 1986 ), “ The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle ”, In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology , Palgrave Macmillan , London , pp. 19 - 34 .
Caputo , F. , Veltri , S. and Venturelli , A. ( 2017 ), “ Sustainability strategy and management control systems in family firms. Evidence from a case study ”, Sustainability , Vol. 9 No. 6 , p. 977 .
Carini , C. , Rocca , L. , Veneziani , M. and Teodori , C. ( 2018 ), “ Ex-Ante impact assessment of sustainability information–the directive 2014/95 ”, Sustainability , Vol. 10 No. 2 , p. 560 .
Caron , M.A. and Turcotte , M.F.B. ( 2009 ), “ Path dependence and path creation ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 22 No. 2 .
Cho , C.H. , Laine , M. , Roberts , R.W. and Rodrigue , M. ( 2015 ), “ Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and SR ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 40 , pp. 78 - 94 .
Clarkson , P. , Li , Y. , Richardson , G. and Vasvari , F. ( 2008 ), “ Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an empirical analysis ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol. 33 Nos 4/5 , pp. 303 - 327 .
Clarkson , P. , Overell , M. and Chapple , L. ( 2011 ), “ Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance ”, Abacus , Vol. 47 No. 1 , pp. 27 - 60 .
Connelly , B.L. , Certo , S.T. , Ireland , R.D. and Reutzel , C.R. ( 2011 ), “ Signaling theory: a review and assessment ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 37 No. 1 , pp. 39 - 67 .
De Villiers , C. and Alexander , D. ( 2014 ), “ The institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility reporting ”, The British Accounting Review , Vol. 46 No. 2 , pp. 198 - 212 .
De Villiers , C. , Low , M. and Samkin , G. ( 2014b ), “ The institutionalisation of mining company sustainability disclosures ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 84 , pp. 51 - 58 .
De Villiers , C. , van Staden , C. , Kaur , A. and Lodhia , S.K. ( 2014a ), The State of Disclosures on Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainability Reporting in Australian Local Councils , Pacific Accounting Review .
Deegan , C. ( 2014 ), “ An overview of legitimacy theory as applied within the social and environmental accounting literature ”, in Unerman , J. , Bebbington , J. and O’Dwyer , B. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability , Routledge , New York, NY , pp. 248 - 272 .
DiMaggio , P.J. and Powell , W.W. ( 1983 ), “ The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields ”, American Sociological Review , Vol. 48 No. 2 , p. 147e160 .
Dumay , J. , Bernardi , C. , Guthrie , J. and La Torre , M. ( 2017 ), “ Barriers to implementing the international integrated reporting framework: a contemporary academic perspective ”, Meditari Accountancy Research , Vol. 25 No. 4 , pp. 461 - 480 .
Dumay , J. , La Torre , M. and Farneti , F. ( 2019 ), “ Developing trust through stewardship ”, Journal of Intellectual Capital , Vol. 20 No. 1 .
Duran , I. and Rodrigo , P. ( 2018 ), “ Why do firms in emerging markets report? a stakeholder theory approach to study the determinants of Non-Financial disclosure in Latin America ”, Sustainability , Vol. 10 No. 9 , p. 3111 .
Feng , P. and Ngai , C.S.B. ( 2020 ), “ Doing more on the corporate sustainability front: a longitudinal analysis of CSR reporting of global fashion companies ”, Sustainability , Vol. 12 No. 6 , p. 2477 .
Freeman , R.E. ( 1984 ), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , Pitman , Boston .
Gallego-Alvarez , I. and Ortas , E. ( 2017 ), “ Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the context of national cultures: a quantile regression approach ”, International Business Review , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 337 - 353 .
Gond , J.P. and Herrbach , O. ( 2006 ), “ Social reporting as an organizational learning tool? a theoretical framework ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 65 No. 4 , pp. 359 - 371 .
Hahn , R. and Kuhnen , M. ( 2013 ), “ Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 59 , pp. 5 - 21 .
Herremans , I.M. , Nazari , J.A. and Mahmoudian , F. ( 2016 ), “ Stakeholder relationships, engagement, and SR ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 138 No. 3 , pp. 417 - 435 .
Herzig , C. and Schaltegger , S. ( 2006 ), “ Corporate sustainability reporting. An overview ”, in Schaltegger S. , Bennett M. , Burritt R.L. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Reporting , Springer , Dordrecht , pp. 301 - 324 .
Higgins , C. and Coffey , B. ( 2016 ), “ Improving how sustainability reports drive change: a critical discourse analysis ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol. 136 , pp. 18 - 29 .
Higgins , C. , Milne , M.J. and Van Gramberg , B. ( 2015 ), “ The uptake of sustainability reporting in Australia ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 129 No. 2 , pp. 445 - 468 .
Higgins , C. , Stubbs , W. and Milne , M. ( 2018 ), “ Is sustainability reporting becoming institutionalised? The role of an issues-based field ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 147 No. 2 , pp. 309 - 326 .
Higgins , C. , Tang , S. and Stubbs , W. ( 2020 ), “ On managing hypocrisy: the transparency of sustainability reports ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol. 114 , pp. 395 - 407 .
Kuruppu , S.C. , Milne , M.J. and Tilt , C.A. ( 2019 ), “ Gaining, maintaining and repairing organizational legitimacy ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 32 No. 7 .
Larrinaga , C. ( 2007 ), SR: insights from Neo-Institutional Theory , Routledge .
Latour , B. ( 1987 ), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society , Harvard university press .
McNally , M.A. , Cerbone , D. and Maroun , W. ( 2017 ), “ Exploring the challenges of preparing an integrated report ”, Meditari Accountancy Research , Vol. 25 No. 4 , pp. 481 - 504 .
Manes-Rossi , F. , Tiron-Tudor , A. , Nicolò , G. and Zanellato , G. ( 2018 ), “ Ensuring more sustainable reporting in Europe using non-financial disclosure – De facto and de jure evidence ”, Sustainability , Vol. 10 No. 4 , pp. 1162 .
Manetti , G. ( 2011 ), “ The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points ”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , Vol. 18 No. 2 , pp. 110 - 122 .
Massa , L. , Farneti , F. and Scappini , B. ( 2015 ), “ Developing a sustainability report in a small to medium enterprise: process and consequences ”, Meditari Accountancy Research , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 62 - 91 .
Mitchell , M. , Curtis , A. and Davidson , P. ( 2012 ), “ Can triple bottom line reporting become a cycle for “double loop” learning and radical change? Accounting ”, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 25 No. 6 .
Nelson , R. and Winter , S. ( 1982 ), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change , Harvard University Press , Cambridge, MA .
O’Donovan , G. ( 2002 ), “ Environmental disclosures in the annual report ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 15 No. 3 ,.
Popper , M. and Lipshitz , R. ( 2000 ), “ Organizational learning: Mechanisms, culture, and feasibility ”, Management Learning , Vol. 31 No. 2 , pp. 181 - 196 .
Porter , M.E. and Kramer , M.R. ( 2011 ), “ The big idea: creating shared value. How to reinvent capitalism – and unleash a wave of innovation and growth ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 89 , pp. 1 - 2 .
Reverte , C. ( 2009 ), “ Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 88 No. 2 , pp. 351 - 366 .
Rowbottom , N. and Locke , J. ( 2016 ), “ The emergence of ”, Accounting and Business Research , Vol. 46 No. 1 , pp. 83 - 115 .
Samkin , G. ( 2012 ), “ Changes in sustainability reporting by an African defence contractor: a longitudinal analysis ”, Meditari Accountancy Research , Vol. 20 No. 2 .
Schaltegger , S. and Wagner , M. ( 2006 ), “ Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting ”, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 19 .
Schaltegger , S. , Etxeberria , I.Á. and Ortas , E. ( 2017 ), “ Innovating corporate accounting and reporting for sustainability–attributes and challenges ”, Sustainable Development , Vol. 25 No. 2 , pp. 113 - 122 .
Sierra-Garcia , L. , Garcia-Benau , M. and Bollas-Araya , H. ( 2018 ), “ Empirical analysis of Non-Financial reporting by Spanish companies ”, Administrative Sciences , Vol. 8 No. 3 , p. 29 .
Siggelkow , N. ( 2007 ), “ Persuasion with case studies ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 50 No. 1 , pp. 20 - 24 .
Stubbs , W. and Higgins , C. ( 2014 ), “ Integrated reporting and internal mechanisms of change ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 27 No. 7 , pp. 1068 - 1089 .
Thorne , L. , Mahoney , L.S. and Manetti , G. ( 2014 ), “ Motivations for issuing standalone CSR reports: a survey of Canadian firms ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 27 No. 4 .
Tilling , M.V. and Tilt , C.A. ( 2010 ), “ The edge of legitimacy ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 23 No. 1 .
Torelli , R. , Balluchi , F. and Furlotti , K. ( 2020 ), “ The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: a content analysis of sustainability reports ”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , Vol. 27 No. 2 , pp. 470 - 484 .
Venturelli , A. , Caputo , F. , Cosma , S. , Leopizzi , R. and Pizzi , S. ( 2017 ), “ Directive 2014/95/EU: are Italian companies already compliant? ”, Sustainability , Vol. 9 No. 8 , p. 1385 .
Yin , R.K. ( 2011 ), Applications of Case Study Research , Sage Publications , Newbury Park, CA .
The authors are deeply grateful to the Estra Group for its collaboration and for having allowed us to conduct this study.
Related articles, all feedback is valuable.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
We’re here to help
Find guidance on Author Services
Open access
2. fundamental objective, 3. no aggregation, 4. no accruals, 5. value chain reporting, 6. ghg reporting, 7. targets reporting, 8. connectivity of sustainability and financial reporting.
Additional information.
This paper examines incentive effects of sustainability reporting, based on proposals for mandatory sustainability reporting standards in the EU, the US, and the IFRS Foundation, and highlights conceptual differences between sustainability and financial reporting. Sustainability reporting is an instrument of transparency regulation intended to influence management decisions. It requires disclosure of a large set of data points but does not provide aggregate measures. It is production-oriented and does not include accruals. It expands reporting to include disclosure of long-term policies and targets, and of information of firms in the value chain. Consequently, sustainability reporting is not very useful for tracking sustainability performance and for comparisons across firms. Overall, it would benefit from applying more generally accepted accounting concepts.
Consider the following financial accounting episode. Recently, both the FASB and the IASB undertook reviews of their standards on the accounting of acquired goodwill. Footnote 1 Probably the most contentious issue was, once again, the subsequent measurement of goodwill, annual amortization or impairment-only. In the end, both standard setters settled on retaining the impairment-only approach, but considered ways to make the impairment test simpler and more effective. Ideas included, among others, a so-called headroom approach, which would take into account the unrecognized goodwill of the acquirer’s existing business when testing for impairment of the acquired goodwill in the same accounting unit. As is often the case, if a topic is ‘too difficult,’ Footnote 2 accounting standard setters resort to additional disclosures. Yet, disclosure is not a substitute for the accounting, but is anchored on an accounting item, providing more information to better understand what that item purports and how it contributes to financial performance.
Viewed from a sustainability reporting perspective, discussions like this appear pretty alien. Sustainability reporting, as it is about to be mandated in many countries, rests on fundamentally different concepts from those underlying financial accounting. Discussions about how to account for a sustainability topic are absent in the sustainability reporting domain. Instead, sustainability reporting consists of the disclosure of ‘data points’ without meaningful aggregation and measurement and with little effort to allocate data to time periods, as it is done through accruals in financial accounting. Sustainability reporting also includes data from firms in the whole value chain of the reporting firm, which are outside its boundary and control. Furthermore, it includes data about the firm’s long-term strategies and targets and requires reporting progress against these targets.
This paper examines key features of sustainability reporting that are akin to financial reporting and compares the approaches with emphasis on incentive effects. Footnote 3 Sustainability reporting has recently gained strong momentum in Europe, the US, and internationally. The EU is developing the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) as part of the Green Deal that also includes other finance and governance initiatives. The sector-agnostic set includes twelve standards that will be legally enacted in 2023 and become effective in 2024. Two more sets will include sector-specific standards and standards for listed SMEs, which should become effective in subsequent years. In the US, the SEC published a proposal for climate-related disclosures for investors in 2022. And internationally, the IFRS Foundation created the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) alongside the established International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to develop a global baseline for sustainability reporting, starting with general requirements and climate-related disclosure exposure drafts in 2022.
These standard-setting initiatives take into account earlier sustainability reporting frameworks and standards, for example, those from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC); the latter three are meanwhile consolidated in the IFRS Foundation. Footnote 4 In contrast to these earlier initiatives, which were standards that are voluntarily adopted by firms, the new standards will become mandatory in many countries. In particular, mid-size and closely held firms in Europe will be subject to these disclosure requirements. Sustainability reports will also be subject to assurance.
Currently, the ESRS are the most ambitious and comprehensive general standards, Footnote 5 which is the reason to refer primarily to them as illustrative examples in the analysis. Across this paper, references to ESRS and IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards mean their drafts.
The objective of financial reporting is to provide decision useful information to capital providers of the reporting firm. For example, the IFRS Conceptual Framework (para. 1.2) defines it as follows: ‘The objective of general purpose financial reporting is to provide financial information about the reporting entity that is useful to existing and potential investors, lenders and other creditors in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.’ Implicit in this objective is that financial reporting should be ‘neutral’ (as part of the qualitative characteristic of faithful representation), that is, it should report on the firm’s economic resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of their use over the reporting period.
Despite the intention to report about the outcome of management’s decisions, but not alter them through the reporting, in reality, accounting methods do affect decisions directly or indirectly, creating real effects. Management is likely to anticipate possible effects of a financial report on capital providers’ decisions and on the market price. Provided it has an incentive to influence these decisions or the price, it may engage in accrual-based and in real earnings management (e.g. Kanodia & Sapra, Citation 2015 ). Earnings management has been shown to be prevalent in reality (e.g. Graham et al., Citation 2005 ). Accounting standard setters consider the potential for accrual-based earnings management when drafting the standards, e.g. when evaluating costs and benefits of fair-value and historical-cost measurement.
A similar issue arises in tax legislation, which takes into account firms’ incentive to minimize the net present value of income taxes when drafting income tax laws. Ideally, income taxes should not influence management decisions, but they of course do so as taxes reduce firm value. Yet in some cases, governments also use tax schemes to influence firms’ decisions, for example, to increase investment through investment tax credits.
In contrast, mandatory sustainability reporting is politically intended to influence management behavior to pursue environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. This so-called transparency regulation works indirectly through providing stakeholders with information they can use to take action or make decisions that affect the reporting firm’s profitability and value.
Particular examples are the climate-related disclosure standards ESRS E1 and IFRS S2, both of which require firms to report on their climate-related targets, which should be derived from long-term targets in international political agreements on climate change. Footnote 6 For example, by mandating disclosure of CO 2 emissions the regulator aims to arouse awareness of a greater public regarding the reporting firm’s efforts to reduce emissions.
More generally, ESRS 2 requires that firms disclose policies, actions, and resources to manage sustainability matters and disclose targets and metrics used to track the effectiveness of the actions and the progress towards the targets. The difference with other disclosures is the future-oriented content, which creates a self-commitment on the part of managers. If a firm has no such policies and targets, it must explain the reasons for that, which adds to the pressure.
Several empirical studies provide evidence of transparency regulation across various topics, e.g. mine safety (Christensen et al., Citation 2017 ), extraction payments (Rauter, Citation 2020 ), carbon reporting (Downar et al., Citation 2021 ), human rights in the supply chain (She, Citation 2022 ), and on corporate social responsibility activities generally (Fiechter et al., Citation 2022 ). While these studies show that there is an effect (measured against the assumed null hypothesis of no effect), they are less helpful to assess regulatory efficiency as it is a priori unclear how strong a particular effect ‘should’ be.
One may question if transparency regulation is the best policy instrument to induce firms to internalize ESG goals. The underlying economic problem is that the operations of firms produce externalities (in a broad sense) that are not included in their financial performance measures. Other regulatory instruments are pricing or taxing externalities (e.g. a CO 2 emission tax or trading scheme or subsidies for investment in clean technologies), use licenses and prohibitions or bans of particular activities or use of products and technologies. These regulatory instruments differ in their effectiveness, accuracy, and efficiency, and they also depend on the specific legal environment such as litigation rights. Relative to these other instruments, the efficiency of transparency regulation is probably the most difficult to assess empirically, particularly when it is used jointly with other instruments, as for example in the case of CO 2 emissions. Footnote 7
The standards that define the content of a sustainability report and a review of actual sustainability reports reveal similarities with the footnote disclosures section of a financial report and with a management report. It includes both quantitative metrics and qualitative information on various ESG topics. To get a sense of the sheer volume of the disclosures, an EFRAG count of mandatory data points in the draft ESRS from November 2022 reports 250 quantitative metrics within a total of 1,144 data points. Footnote 8
For many stakeholders, except for professional and sophisticated users, it will be difficult to get a more holistic picture of firms’ sustainability performance if they wish so. In fact, as we know from other areas, like fine print in voluminous contracts or package inserts of medications, many people will ignore most of the information contained in a sustainability report.
How can users navigate through this large amount of individual data and digest them? The ESRS and IFRS sustainability disclosure standards require that disclosures be tagged using an XBRL-based taxonomy that is currently developed. XBRL enables users to search through the report and find the data points they are interested in. The focus on disaggregated data is reminiscent of the late 1990s when XBRL was developed. There was euphoria about new opportunities for users of new information technologies. For example, suggestions included that users could customize the contents of financial reports, choose their own assumptions and accounting rules, define the frequency of the report, demand continuous reporting, and the like. Footnote 9
What is missing in a sustainability report is aggregate sustainability information equivalent to the information in a balance sheet, an income statement, and a cash flow statement. Sustainability reports do not include aggregations of data points and do not provide overall ESG outcomes and performance measures. Footnote 10 The lack of aggregates also reflects the (formal) arbitrariness of the selection of data points, which is not tied to an overall concept but is based on the opinion of the respective standard setter of what is important. However, standard setters are currently discussing whether there is a need for a conceptual framework for sustainability reporting and what a conceptual framework should address. And research should help to provide more evidence on relevance.
Probably the closest concept in financial reporting are cash flow statements. They portray real transactions in a period, but even there some measurement is needed, e.g. for foreign currency translation or the definition what is considered cash indeed. Back in the 1960s, debates of accounting theories that would underlie financial accounting standards already included the discussions about more or less aggregation, Footnote 11 and aggregation was generally found useful and is still a key feature of financial reporting.
From a financial accounting perspective, sustainability reporting misses most aspects of what makes financial accounting important, useful, interesting, and also difficult. The core of the financial accounting theories and financial reporting standards include recognition, measurement and classification principles, conservatism, along with how to deal with uncertainty, and the like. These principles are needed to aggregate the raw data into meaningful key performance measures such as period profit, equity, and many others.
For example, many quantitative data points consist of inputs into the productive processes rather than outputs from those processes (Grewal & Serafeim, Citation 2020 ). It is not clear whether these inputs produce the desired outcomes and, importantly, whether these inputs are efficient to achieve the outcomes. This approach is particularly apparent in social and governance topics. For example, disclosures comprise investments in training of employees, targets and intentions, and governance processes.
There are many institutions that produce aggregated information. Management itself must aggregate financial and sustainability data to make investment and operative decisions in the firm. Most management decisions require a tradeoff between the achievements of different objectives, for example, an investment in a cleaner production process, which reduces future profits, but may increase customer demand and decrease environmental risks. The particular aggregation reflects management’s view of the relative importance, and weights, of individual key performance indicators for financial and sustainability issues. The weighting also implies a ‘cost’ of environmental or social objectives and places an inherent ethical dilemma of explicit weighting them on management, for example, when required to trade off workers’ increased health against higher profits.
Sustainability reporting standards require management to disclose the firm’s strategy, including market position, business model, impacts, risks, and opportunities in its sustainability report (e.g. ESRS 2 more generally, IFRS S1 for investors to assess sustainability-related risks and opportunities). These disclosures provide some information about the underlying weights. More explicit information about weights can be obtained from the detailed disclosure of the incentive schemes of management and boards, as required, e.g. in ESRS 2. Incentive schemes are based on a subset of relevant measures to reduce complexity. They include functions of these measures with assumed weights that indicate the relative importance of the respective objectives to users of the sustainability report. However, there are issues with such an interpretation. Some objectives are qualitative in nature, and a quantification suggests a hard measure that does not necessarily exist. The weights are biased if the metrics are not in the same scale and range or not appropriately normalized. Footnote 12 The weights also depend on the size or importance of specific stakeholders that are interested in only few measures. Footnote 13 Optimal weights need not be constant, but may be nonlinear or step functions in particular ranges. Measures are likely correlated, which should be considered when determining the weights. As correlations are not observable by outside users, the weights themselves may be difficult to interpret as their respective importance. Footnote 14
Another important group that aggregates sustainability information and financial performance are investors, when they make investment or disinvestment decisions. Sustainability has become more relevant for many of them, either for assessing risks and opportunities with regard to sustainability or for catering investors’ intrinsic preferences besides financial returns. Information aggregators such as rating agencies and financial analysts are also relevant players. There is an increasing market for ESG ratings, for example those provided by rating agencies like MSCI, Thomson Reuters, and Sustainalytics. Christensen et al. ( Citation 2022 ) analyze agreement across ratings and find, perhaps surprisingly, that with higher amounts of sustainability disclosure available their ratings disagree more. A possible reason is that the rating agencies are more likely to select different metrics and interpret and weigh them differently. ESG ratings are also increasingly used in debt contracts, for example, for sustainability-linked loans. Footnote 15
A different approach to aggregation has been taken by the EU as a regulator in its sustainable finance initiative. The Taxonomy Regulation (EU 2020/852) establishes criteria for economic activities that qualify as environmentally sustainable and, thus, ‘green’. It defines six environmental categories, climate change mitigation and adaption, water and marine resources, circular economy, pollution, and biodiversity and ecosystems. Essentially, an activity is classified as environmentally sustainable when it contributes substantially to one of the six objectives and does not significantly harm the other objectives. Firms must disclose the proportion of their revenue from products and services of their qualifying activities and the proportion of their capital expenditures and operating expenditures. These percentages are used in finance contracts and by financial market participants that create ‘green’ financial products.
There have been several proposals and suggestions how to monetize sustainability data. Externalities that induce legal obligations by firms, such as environmental cleanup costs, are already recorded in the financial statements as provisions or contingent liabilities under IAS 37. For other externalities, the literature developed various forms of social and environmental accounting. Footnote 16 Recent work includes, for example, Barker and Mayer ( Citation 2022 ), who propose using the remediation costs of the firm’s externalities as an opportunity cost that are deducted from financial profit to arrive at a ‘sustainable profit’. Another example are impact-weighted financial accounts (Serafeim et al., Citation 2019 ), which use a variety of non-financial metrics for environmental and social impact. They are more useful for internal decision making but less so for sustainability reporting as they are subjective and, thus, soft information. So far, no approach has proved superior. Indeed, Grewal and Serafeim ( Citation 2020 ) see the measurement of corporate sustainability performance as the single biggest opportunity for researchers.
The reporting period of a sustainability report is usually the same as for financial statements (ESRS 1, IFRS S1), that is, one year. Each quantitative or qualitative data point is reported for this period. This is a strict production-specific input or output measurement and similar to cash flow accounting. A distinction into stocks and flows, as used in financial accounting, is missing. Investments into sustainability improve future ESG metrics but may negatively affect ESG metrics in the short term. For example, building a wind turbine requires cement, which has a high greenhouse gas footprint and increases emissions, but helps to reduce electricity emissions in future years. In an accrual-based system, the emissions associated with building the turbine would be recognized as an ‘asset’ and accrued to the future net emissions. Otherwise, the strong increase in emissions in the year of investment might disincentivize the investment. In financial accounting, there are also some investments that are not recognized and accrued, particularly research and some development expenditures, training of employees, and advertising, which creates similar incentive issues.
The production-based sustainability reporting is not aligned with the sales-based financial performance measurement in financial accounting. For example, reducing production volume (as a ‘real sustainability management’ activity) directly reduces emissions (in scopes 1, 2, and 3) but may not have a financial effect if sales in the same period remain unaffected (e.g. by reducing inventory). Sustainability reporting requires comparison of metrics over time, anchoring on targets and milestones in a base year for reference. With the dependence of the metric on real decisions, firms can influence the reported path towards the targets.
Finally, financial accounting follows a clean surplus relation, whereby (broadly speaking) the sum of profits equals the sum of the cash flows over periods. That is, over- or under-valuation catch up in future periods, as do earlier errors in a later period. There is no such concept in sustainability reporting.
The reporting entity in sustainability reporting is similar to that in financial reporting (ESRS 1, IFRS S1), which is based on the control concept defined in IFRS 10. This implies that associates and joint ventures are not included in the reporting entity, Footnote 17 but are part of the value chain in the firm’s sustainability report.
A key feature of sustainability reporting is an extension of disclosure requirements to the firm’s upstream and downstream value chain if this is necessary to understand impacts, risks and opportunities (see ESRS 1) and, specifically, for reporting on climate- and social-related disclosures. The intentions behind extending the scope to the value chain are twofold. First, disclosures allow for assessing compliance with desired sustainability objectives in the upstream and downstream value chain. This should motivate the reporting firm to put economic pressure on firms in the value chain to avoid undesirable behavior, due to the presumed market power of its business, as the firm has no direct control of firms in the value chain. Second, the disclosures should help users to understand reporting firms’ contribution to sustainability issues and nudge firms to consider reconfiguring their own operations to improve sustainability performance.
For social-related disclosures, the intention is primarily to increase compliance with social standards and regulations in firms in the value chain, regardless of the legal environment and jurisdictions in which they operate. This includes disclosure of processes and mechanisms to monitor compliance. Such social standards include, particularly, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work. An example is ESRS S2, which is explicitly related to workers in the value chain and mandates disclosures, including on the firm’s actions to prevent or remediate negative impacts. Other examples are ESRS S3 for disclosures on affected communities, including communities in the firm’s value chain, and ESRS S4 for disclosures on consumers and end users, particularly possible risks of the firm’s products on their health. Parallel to these sustainability reporting requirements, the EU has proposed a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), to improve corporate governance practices and accountability of firms regarding its value chain. Interestingly, the EU uses two complementary regulatory approaches to ensure compliance, direct legal requirements and transparency regulation through sustainability reporting. Footnote 18
The second intention of sustainability reporting along the value chain is to help users understand the firm’s position in the value chain and push for possible reconfiguration of activities to improve sustainability performance. This intention underlies primarily environmental issues, particularly climate change (see below). However, it is also helpful to address social concerns, for example, by substituting suppliers with high negative impact on social matters.
The value chain plays a particularly important role in environmental reporting. All five sector-agnostic ESRS environmental standards comprise the operations and the value chain of the reporting entity. The most common reporting standard is the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, consisting of the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (2004) and amended by the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard (2011) and the Scope 2 Guidance (2015). The GHG Protocol is the basis of the recommendations by Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which are embedded in ESRS 1, IFRS S2, and the SEC proposal for climate-related disclosures.
The key concept of the GHG Protocol is the definition of three scopes of emissions, scope 1 with direct emissions by the firm’s production processes, scope 2 with indirect emissions from purchased electricity, and scope 3 with other indirect emissions over the firm’s upstream and downstream value chain. Scope 2 emissions are conceptually similar to scope 3 emissions. A reason to define a special scope is that purchased electricity is often one of the largest sources of emissions (GHG Protocol, Citation 2004 , p. 27). A practical reason is that it is easy to measure these emissions. Footnote 19 In fact, the difficulty to measure scope 3 emissions explains why the GHG Protocol does not mandate reporting of scope 3 emissions, but leaves it optional to the reporting firm. In contrast, the new sustainability reporting standards mandate scope 3 reporting.
The GHG Protocol is designed to provide time-consistent information for internal use by firms to manage their part in the value chain and as a basis for considering a reconfiguration of the value chain. The GHG Protocol ( Citation 2011 , p. 6) explicitly states: ‘Use of this standard is intended to enable comparisons of a company’s GHG emissions over time. It is not designed to support comparisons between companies based on their scope 3 emissions.’ In contrast, the objective of sustainability reporting standards is to provide information for external users, who will make comparisons between firms. This change of the primary use is problematic and creates difficulties for users interpreting the data and compare firms with their peers and within their industry (Jia et al., Citation 2022 ).
The GHG Protocol is an accounting and reporting standard, and it refers to accounting concepts on several occasions. One such concept is the allocation of emissions to different products, which is similar to conventional cost accounting methods. Footnote 20 In other cases it violates fundamental accounting concepts. The reporting anchors on the period of production as the cause for past and expected future emissions by the firm itself and along the value chain. Production is a useful measurement base for scope 1 and 2 emissions, but not for scope 3 emissions, which depend on sourcing based on planned production (scope 3 upstream) and on sale of the products (scope 3 downstream), respectively. Hence, as the standard acknowledges, ‘reported emissions may have occurred in previous years’ or ‘emissions are expected to occur in future years’ (p. 32). A related issue is that ESRS E1 requires disclosure of the GHG intensity, defined as GHG emissions per net revenue, which mingles production- and sales-based metrics.
While actual data on scope 2 and many upstream scope 3 emissions can be collected, downstream scope 3 emissions must rely on expectations and rough estimates of the future use of the products, estimated over perhaps many years, which the firm does not control. Footnote 21 To emphasize, this is not a problem if the data are used for internal decision making by the firm. It becomes an issue if the report is addressed to external users and should allow for meaningful interpretation and assurance.
Scope 3 includes emissions that arise from the use of purchased materials and long-term capacity in the production. Albeit they are disclosed separately according to the GHG Protocol, the emissions from the latter are reported in the period of the investment into the capacity and are not allocated (like depreciation or amortization) over the useful life of the asset. The same holds for self-produced capital goods.
Scope 3 emissions raise another concern. Long-lived products are disadvantaged in the reported scope 3 emissions relative to those of shorter-lived products with the same functionality. Suppose one product can be used 6 years and another only 3 years. Then the scope 3 downstream emissions of the first product are twice those of the second product. In fact, taken over 6 years of usage, two products would have to be produced, so that scope 1 and upstream scope 2 emissions of this product double and it performs actually worse.
Perhaps the most salient feature of GHG accounting and reporting is the double, triple and so on, accounting of the same emissions over the value chain. Each firm in the value chain reports its own emissions as scope 1 emissions, and emissions from upstream and downstream firms as scope 2 and scope 3. The GHG Protocol aims to prevent double-counting of scope 1 and 2 emissions between firms but, by design, not of scope 3 emissions. Footnote 22 Scope 1 emissions of a firm will show up as scope 2 or 3 emissions of other firms perhaps multiple times. If users attempted to add up total emissions of firms in a value chain, double-counting arises and may convey a wrong picture.
A peculiar feature of the GHG Protocol from a financial accounting perspective is the reporting by a firm of scope 3 emissions in firms within its downstream value chain. The reporting firm has no control over them. The reported emissions are based on the firm’s expectations of later uses of the products by other firms and consumers over the full expected life cycle of the products. These future emissions may realize many years later or never. The data are very difficult to estimate and to assure by a third party, and they do not catch up with real uses later as they would in an accrual system. As emphasized earlier, this does not matter for the internal use of such a planning tool by the firm to support its decision making, but it is an issue for external reporting.
Kaplan and Ramanna ( Citation 2021 ) propose an accounting for upstream emissions (‘cradle-to-gate’) with an E-liability that accumulates the emissions in each stage in the upstream value chain plus the firm’s own emissions. These are actual prior emissions and not hypothetical future ones. The firm transfers the E-liability with the sale of the associated products or services along the downstream value chain. Allocation to products and services could apply methods from activity-based costing. Reichelstein ( Citation 2022 ) describes a full accounting method for emissions in an accrual accounting system. Such a system would be understandable and auditable.
Another feature of sustainability reporting, which is uncommon in financial reporting, is that firms are required to report on long-term targets related to sustainability topics and to track their future performance towards these targets. Footnote 23 Under ESRS, firms must disclose the metrics and targets for each material sustainability matter and the overall progress towards the targets starting with a base year. ESRS 1 defines three time horizons, a short-term (one year, consistent with financial reporting), a medium-term (generally one to five years), and a long-term (generally over five years) horizon. In climate-related reporting the targets should be emission reductions for scope 1, 2, and 3 for an even longer period of up to 2050. These periods are significantly longer than those for required disclosures in financial reporting, although for measurement of long-term assets and liabilities information over such periods is necessary.
In financial reporting, firms are reluctant to disclose targets, and if they do, these targets are mostly short-term. Footnote 24 Reasons for a reluctance to disclose financial targets is possible commercial sensitivity of such disclosures, for example, to avoid damaging competitor reactions, and shareholder litigation in case they are not met (provided there are no safe harbor rules). Footnote 25 In fact, litigation is a major cost of sustainability reporting according to a study commissioned by the EU. Footnote 26 It remains to be seen how ambitious firms will set their targets and what are the risks not achieving them in the future.
The proposed sustainability reporting standards include requirements related to the connection to financial reporting (ESRS 1, IFRS S1). Sustainability reporting provides information about impacts of environmental, social, and governance topics and thus on financial risks and opportunities, which are often long-term. These impacts need to be considered in financial accounting and disclosure. In particular, financial accounting incorporates many assumptions made about the future, which are aggregated into measurement. The assumptions should be consistent and coherent across sustainability and financial reports.
Relevant accounting themes include impairment of property, plant and equipment, and intangibles, for example, because of expected reductions in the useful life or lower future cash flows and residual values; lower fair values of assets due to higher cost of capital; loss on financial instruments due to increasing risks that counterparties cannot fulfill their contractual duties; higher provisions and contingent liabilities due to expected environmental damages or levies or of missing reported net-zero targets; and measurement of insurance contracts. Footnote 27 Notably, financial reporting is mainly concerned with risks but not with opportunities, whereas sustainability reporting has no such conservatism principle, but reports on positive and negative impacts generally, although negative impacts are presumably in the focus of standard setting.
An interesting issue is how to incorporate endogenous real effects of sustainability reports in financial reporting. Recall the underlying mechanism of mandatory sustainability reporting that is designed to put pressure on firms due to possible adverse reactions by stakeholders or regulatory risk. It will be difficult to assess such potential risks, and the mandatory reporting on those risks may well amplify the risks.
The reverse direction, the influence of financial reporting on sustainability reporting, is less apparent. The reason is the disclosure of data points without aggregation in sustainability reporting, which do generally not depend on financial information. Yet, consistency is required for disclosures that directly contain financial information, for example, training costs or the use of net revenue as a basis for environmental metrics, and financial effects from physical and transition risks over different time horizons (e.g. ESRS E1).
A formal link between sustainability reporting and financial reporting exists through the qualitative characteristics of useful financial information in the IFRS Conceptual Framework (chapter 2), which are also referred to in sustainability reporting standards. IFRS S1 Appendix C lists the same qualitative characteristics as for financial reporting, and ESRS 1 includes quite similar characteristics (also in an Appendix C). They include, among others, comparability and verifiability, both of which are by construction or nature difficult to achieve for many sustainability disclosures. Standard setters, including in particular EFRAG and IASB/ISSB, continue to work on the topic of connectivity between financial and sustainability reporting Footnote 28 and on conceptual frameworks.
Besides these immediate connectivity matters, there have been discussions of a more holistic corporate reporting. According to the CSRD, the sustainability report is a dedicated, and distinct, section of the management report. In the longer run, financial and sustainability reports may be unified in a corporate report, with the same level of assurance. The IFRS Foundation has consolidated the Value Reporting Foundation and with it the International Integrated Reporting Council that issued the International < IR > Framework (IIRC, Citation 2021 ), which is a possible way to integrate financial and sustainability reporting.
This paper compares sustainability reporting, as mandated by upcoming sustainability reporting standards, such as the ESRS, the ISSB Sustainability Disclosure Standards, and SEC regulation, with concepts fundamental to financial reporting. Sustainability reporting standards require firms to produce an enormous amount of data points, whose utility for users is not clear, but imposes high costs on firms. In many areas, the data points comprise of inputs rather than outputs, which should be the ultimate information of interest. Sustainability reports do not aggregate data points and therefore do not measure sustainability performance, effectiveness, and efficiency. In other words, there is no such concept equivalent to profit and equity of a firm, which are the key aggregate financial measures. The reported data points will be aggregated by others outside the firm, such as individual user groups and rating agencies, in different ways, hindering comparability of aggregate evaluations.
Sustainability reporting includes data from firms in the value chain, over which the reporting firm has no control. Such information is mandated to allow users to better monitor compliance with standards, for example, in social and governance topics. The value chain information is useful to firms to reconfigure its place in the value chain, for example, to improve on environmental concerns. However, it is not helpful in comparing firms with respect to their environmental engagements.
Overall, it would be a good idea to resort to generally accepted principles and concepts in financial accounting, which have a long tradition of aggregating data and providing useful financial information to compare firms and also dealing with incentives of firms.
The paper has benefited from comments by Gilad Livne (editor), Andrea Sternisko, Theresa Wittreich, and from participants of a presentation in the initiative Business Valuation Accounting & Auditing at the University of Linz.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
1 See FASB ( Citation 2019 ), IASB ( Citation 2020a ).
2 See Schipper ( Citation 2022 ) for reasons of such difficulties.
3 For an overview of distinguishing features between sustainability and financial reporting see also Christensen et al. ( Citation 2021 ) and EFRAG ( Citation 2023 ).
4 For an overview of sustainability reporting standards and frameworks see, e.g. Stolowy and Paugam ( Citation 2023 ).
5 In terms of industry-specific standards, the SASB has published 77 standards.
6 See IFRS S2, para. 23, and ESRS E1, para. 32. In an EFRAG Conference on December 7, 2022, Sven Gentner, Head of Corporate reporting at the European Commission, described the ESRS as ‘not policy-agnostic.’
7 See also Christensen ( Citation 2022 ).
8 While this is a large quantity, it should be noted that IFRS disclosure checklists that are available from big audit firms also comprise 100–200 pages, but these are all disclosures of information underlying the preparation of the financial statements.
9 See, e.g. Lymer et al. ( Citation 1999 ), Xiao et al. ( Citation 2002 ). Many of these analyses would require more granular tagged data than is available in an annual report.
10 An exception is the aggregate measure of CO2 equivalents, which is based on physical properties of six greenhouse gases.
11 See, e.g. Sorter ( Citation 1969 ) with an events approach.
12 El Gibari et al. ( Citation 2019 ) review methods of forming composite measures from individual data.
13 See Bebchuk and Tallarita ( Citation 2022 ).
14 This also holds for a balanced scorecard. See, e.g. Rotaru et al. ( Citation 2020 ).
15 See, e.g. Loumioti and Serafeim ( Citation 2022 ).
16 For surveys see, e.g. Frost and Jones ( Citation 2015 ) and Sellhorn and Wagner ( Citation 2023 ).
17 The GHG Protocol ( Citation 2004 ) offers an option between the control and the equity share and approach.
18 It should be noted that the scope of sustainability reporting is broader than that of the CSDDD, as sustainability reporting is mandated for a larger set of firms.
19 See Kaplan and Ramanna ( Citation 2021 ), p. 123.
20 For examples, see GHG Protocol ( Citation 2011 ), ch. 8.
21 Note that information technologies allow to collect actual data on customer usage of products, these are unhelpful to forecast future usage, particularly for long useful lives of products.
22 The definition of scope 2 emissions has been amended in the revised GHG Protocol ( Citation 2004 ) to exclude emissions from electricity purchased for resale.
23 A firm that has not adopted targets needs to explain the reasons for that and whether it tracks effectiveness otherwise (ESRS 2, para. 79). The implicit assumption is that pressure on firms by stakeholders would induce it to set acceptable targets.
24 For example, in the exposure draft on amending the accounting of business combinations mentioned in the Introduction (IASB, Citation 2020a ) there was strong opposition by preparers to require disclosure of targets and their achievements for business combinations.
25 For example, the SEC ( Citation 2022 ) climate-related disclosure proposal includes a safe harbor for scope 3 emissions disclosure. Article 19a (3) of the CSRD offers a limited member state option for not disclosing information that is seriously prejudicial to the firm’s commercial position.
26 CEPS and Milieu ( Citation 2022 ), pp. 55-57. Litigation is also mentioned as a major risk in GHG reporting (GHG Protocol, Citation 2015 , p. 12).
27 See, for example, IASB ( Citation 2020b ). In March 2023, the IASB added a narrow-scope project on climate-related risks in the financial statements.
28 See, e.g. EFRAG ( Citation 2023 ).
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.
Download citation, your download is now in progress and you may close this window.
Register now or learn more
Project report-organizational reporting for sustainability, stakeholder utilization of annual report and accounts, popular essay topics.
Advertisement
1455 Accesses
Explore all metrics
The growing relevance of sustainability reporting (SR) has dramatically surged advocacy and interest among both academicians and practitioners. However, few studies have attempted to holistically encapsulate global research on sustainability reporting. The present study employed scientometric analysis on sustainability reporting based 1434 articles extracted from the Web of Science database, published between 1992 and 2022, to comprehensively map the intellectual structure of this field. Domain visualizations were constructed using CiteSpace software to identify networks of co-authorship, keywords, subject categories, institutions, and countries engaged in publishing on SR along with co-citation and cluster analysis. The findings revealed that significant contributions in SR research have originated primarily from developed countries, underscoring the necessity for more research in the context of developing and emerging countries. SR field was found characterized by cohesive research sub-communities but lacked global cooperation. Existing studies in the SR research domain focused mainly on subject categories of business, management, environmental studies, green and sustainable science technology, environmental sciences, and business finance. Analysis of most co-cited authors and content analysis of highly co-cited articles were performed, detailing pioneer works in the field. The principal topics in the body of literature were identified via clusters of co-citations between documents and keywords. Future research focus areas include exploring the link between circular economy and SR, the role of social media, blockchain, artificial intelligence, and other digital technologies in SR, attention on the MSME sector, mandatory reporting, assessment of real impact of SR on investor sentiments and financial analysts’ valuations, assurance, standardization, financial-sector inclusive research, materiality issues, and understanding niche themes of SR, inclusive of monothematic reporting. Implications of the study for policymakers, companies, society, and academia were examined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Data availability.
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbas YA, Mehmood W, Lazim YY, Aman-Ullah A (2022a) Sustainability reporting and corporate reputation of Malaysian IPO companies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(52):78726–78738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21320-9
Article Google Scholar
Abbas YA, Mehmood W, Manhal Aliessa MH, Aman-Ullah A (2022b) Level of sustainability reporting of Malaysian IPO companies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(46):69527–69539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20727-8
Abbas YA, Mehmood W, Ali A, Aman-Ullah A (2023) Sustainability reporting and corporate financial performance of IPOs: witnessing emerging market. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28446-4
Adams CA (2015) The International Integrated Reporting Council: a call to action. Crit Perspect Account 27:23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.07.001
Adams CA, Larrinaga C (2019) Progress: engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Account, Audit Account J 32(8):2367–2394. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2018-3399
Adams CA, Larrinaga-González C (2007) Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Account, Audit Account J 20(3):333–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748535
Alazzani A, Wan-Hussin WN (2013) Global Reporting Initiative’s environmental reporting: a study of oil and gas companies. Ecol Ind 32:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.019
Aldrich HE, Pfeffer J (1976) Environments of organizations. Ann Rev Sociol 2:79–105. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.000455
Alewine HC (2010) A model for conducting experimental environmental accounting research. Sustain Account, Manag Policy J 1(2):256–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/20408021011089275
Ali W, Frynas JG, Mahmood Z (2017) Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in developed and developing countries: a literature review: determinants of CSR disclosure. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 24(4):273–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1410
Al-Tuwaijri SA, Christensen TE, Hughes KE (2004) The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations approach. Acc Organ Soc 29(5–6):447–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00032-1
Anwar R, Malik JA (2020) When does corporate social responsibility disclosure affect investment efficiency? A New answer to an old question. SAGE Open 10(2):215824402093112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020931121
Aryadoust V, Tan HAH, Ng LY (2019) A scientometric review of Rasch measurement: the rise and progress of a specialty. Front Psychol 10:2197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02197
Ascui F, Lovell H (2011) As frames collide: making sense of carbon accounting. Account, Audit Account J 24(8):978–999. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571111184724
Assaf AG, Josiassen A, Cvelbar LK (2012) Does triple bottom line reporting improve hotel performance? Int J Hosp Manag 31(2):596–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.08.005
Bakarich KM, Castonguay J“Jack”, O’Brien PE (2020) The use of blockchains to enhance sustainability reporting and assurance*. Account Perspect 19(4):389–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12241
Baker M, Schaltegger S (2015) Pragmatism and new directions in social and environmental accountability research. Account, Audit Account J 28(2):263–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2012-01079
Bebbington J (1997) Engagement, education and sustainability: a review essay on environmental accounting. Account, Audit Account J 10(3):365–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579710178115
Bebbington J, Brown J, Frame B, Thomson I (2007) Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach. Account, Audit Account J 20(3):356–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748544
Bebbington J, Russell S, Thomson I (2017) Accounting and sustainable development: reflections and propositions. Crit Perspect Account 48:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.06.002
Bebbington J, Unerman J, O'Dwyer B (eds) (2014) Sustainability accounting and accountability (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315848419
Benlemlih M, Shaukat A, Qiu Y, Trojanowski G (2018) Environmental and social disclosures and firm risk. J Bus Ethics 152(3):613–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3285-5
Benvenuto M, Aufiero C, Viola C (2023) A systematic literature review on the determinants of sustainability reporting systems. Heliyon 9(4):e14893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14893
Berthelot S, Cormier D, Magnan M (2003) Environmental disclosure research: review and synthesis. J Account Lit 22:1–44
Google Scholar
Bewley K, Li Y (2000) Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: a voluntary disclosure perspective. In: Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, vol. 1. Emerald (MCB UP), pp. 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3598(00)01011-6
Bosi MK, Lajuni N, Wellfren AC, Lim TS (2022) Sustainability reporting through environmental, social, and governance: a bibliometric review. Sustainability 14(19):12071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912071
Botosan CA (1997) Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. Account Rev 72:323–249
Botosan CA, Plumlee MA (2002) A re-examination of disclosure level and the expected cost of equity capital. J Account Res 40(1):21–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00037
Brammer S, Pavelin S (2008) Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Bus Strateg Environ 17:120–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.506
Brooks C, Oikonomou I (2018) The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: a review of the literature in accounting and finance. Br Account Rev 50(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.11.005
Brown HS, de Jong M, Levy DL (2009) Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. J Clean Prod 17(6):571–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.12.009
Burritt RL, Schaltegger S (2010) Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? Account, Audit Account J 23(7):829–846. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011080144
Carvalho MM, Fleury A, Lopes AP (2013) An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): contributions and trends. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80(7):1418–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.11.008
Ceulemans K, Molderez I, Van Liedekerke L (2015) Sustainability reporting in higher education: a comprehensive review of the recent literature and paths for further research. J Clean Prod 106:127–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.052
Chen C (2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 57(3):359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317
Chen JC, Roberts RW (2010) Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization–society relationship: a theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research. J Bus Ethics 97(4):651–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0531-0
Chen C, Song M (2019) Visualizing a field of research: a methodology of systematic scientometric reviews. Plos One 14(10):e0223994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223994
Article CAS Google Scholar
Chen C, Ibekwe-SanJuan F, Hou J (2010) The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a multiple perspective cocitation analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci 61(7):1386–1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
Chen C, Dubin R, Kim MC (2014) Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: a scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opin Biol Ther 14(9):1295–1317. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2014.920813
Chen C (2014) The CiteSpace manual. http://cluster.ischool.drexel.edu/~cchen/citespace/CiteSpaceManual.pdf
Cho CH, Patten DM (2007) The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: a research note. Acc Organ Soc 32(7–8):639–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009
Christ KL, Burritt RL (2017) Supply chain-oriented corporate water accounting: a research agenda. Sustain Account, Manag Policy J 8(2):216–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2016-0029
Churet C, Eccles RG (2014) Integrated reporting, quality of management, and financial performance. J Appl Corp Financ 26(1):56–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12054
Clarkson MBE (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluation of corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20:92–117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994
Clarkson PM, Li Y, Richardson GD, Vasvari FP (2008) Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an empirical analysis. Acc Organ Soc 33(4–5):303–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
Clarkson PM, Overell MB, Chapple L (2011) Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance. Abacus 47(1):27–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2011.00330.x
Comoli M, Tettamanzi P, Murgolo M (2023) Accounting for ‘ESG’ under disruptions: a systematic literature network analysis. Sustainability 15(8):6633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086633
Conca L, Manta F, Morrone D, Toma P (2020) The impact of direct environmental, social, and governance reporting: empirical evidence in European-listed companies in the agri-food sector. Bus Strateg Environ 30(2):1080–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2672
Connelly BL, Hoskisson RE, Tihanyi L, Certo ST (2010) Ownership as a form of corporate governance: ownership as a form of corporate governance. J Manag Stud 47(8):1561–1589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00929.x
Cooper SM, Owen DL (2007) Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: the missing link. Acc Organ Soc 32(7–8):649–667
Daub C-H (2007) Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: an alternative methodological approach. J Clean Prod 15(1):75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.08.013
de Villiers C, Rinaldi L, Unerman J (2014) Integrated reporting: insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Account, Audit Account J 27(7):1042–1067. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2014-1736
Deegan C (2002) Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Account, Audit Account J 15(3):282–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435852
Deegan C (2017) Twenty five years of social and environmental accounting research within critical perspectives of accounting: hits, misses and ways forward. Crit Perspect Account 43:65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2016.06.005
Deegan C, Gordon B (1996) A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Account Bus Res 26(3):187–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1996.9729510
Dhaliwal DS, Li OZ, Tsang A, Yang YG (2011) Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: the initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. Account Rev 86(1):59–100. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.00000005
Di Vaio A, Palladino R, Hassan R, Alvino F (2020) Human resources disclosure in the EU Directive 2014/95/EU perspective: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 257:120509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120509
Dienes D, Sassen R, Fischer J (2016) What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustain Account, Manag Policy J 7(2):154–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2014-0050
DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2):147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dumay J, Bernardi C, Guthrie J, Demartini P (2016) Integrated reporting: a structured literature review. Account Forum 40(3):166–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2016.06.001
Dunning T (1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Comput Linguist 19(1):61–74
Dye R (1985) Disclosure of nonproprietary information. J Account Res 23(1):123–145
Eccles R, Krzus M (2010) One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J.
Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone
Epstein M, Flamholtz E, McDonough JJ (1976) Corporate social accounting in the United States of America: state of the art and future prospects. Acc Organ Soc 1(1):23–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(76)90005-2
Farisyi S, Musadieq MA, Utami HN, Damayanti CR (2022) A systematic literature review: determinants of sustainability reporting in developing countries. Sustainability 14(16):10222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610222
Farooq MB, de Villiers C (2018) The shaping of sustainability assurance through the competition between accounting and non-accounting providers. Account, Audit Account J 32(1):307–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2016-2756
Ferrer E, López-Arceiz FJ, Rio C (2020) Sustainability disclosure and financial analysts’ accuracy: the European case. Bus Strateg Environ 29(8):2939–2952. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2549
Fifka MS (2013) Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective - a review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis: corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants. Bus Strateg Environ 22(1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.729
Flower J (2015) The International Integrated Reporting Council: a story of failure. Crit Perspect Account 27:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.07.002
Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman
Fuoli M (2018) Building a trustworthy corporate identity: a corpus-based analysis of stance in annual and corporate social responsibility reports. Appl Linguis 39(6):846–885. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw058
Garrido-Miralles P, Zorio-Grima A, García-Benau MA (2016) Sustainable development, stakeholder engagement and analyst forecasts’ accuracy: positive evidence from the Spanish setting: CSR reporting impact on analyst forecasts’ accuracy. Sustain Dev 24(2):77–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1607
Gerged AM, Matthews L, Elheddad M (2020) Mandatory disclosure, greenhouse gas emissions and the cost of equity capital: UK evidence of a U-shaped relationship. Bus Strateg Environ 30(2):908–930. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2661
Gilsbach L, Schütte P, Franken G (2022) Water reporting in mining: are corporates losing sight of stakeholder interests? J Clean Prod 345:131016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131016
Gray R (2001) Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: what (if anything) have we learnt? Bus Ethics: A Eur Rev 10(1):9–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00207
Gray R (2002) The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique? Acc Organ Soc 27(7):687–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00003-9
Gray R (2010) Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Acc Organ Soc 35(1):47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.006
Gray R, Kouhy R, Lavers S (1995) Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Account, Audit Account J 8(2):47–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579510146996
Gray R, Owen D, Adams CA (1996) Accounting & Accountability: changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Prentice Hall
Greco G, Sciulli N, D’onza G (2012) From Tuscany to Victoria: some determinants of sustainability reporting by local councils. Local Gov Stud 38(5):681–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2012.679932
GRI (2016) GRI 101 Foundation. Global Reporting Initiative. https://www.globalreporting.org/media/55yhvety/gri-101-foundation-2016.pdf?page=23
Guidry RP, Patten DM (2012) Voluntary disclosure theory and financial control variables: an assessment of recent environmental disclosure research. Account Forum 36(2):81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.03.002
Guix M, Font X, Bonilla-Priego MJ (2019) Materiality: stakeholder accountability choices in hotels’ sustainability reports. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31(6):2321–2338. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0366
Gulluscio C, Puntillo P, Luciani V, Huisingh D (2020) Climate change accounting and reporting: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 12(13):5455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135455
Hąbek P (2014) Evaluation of sustainability reporting practices in Poland. Qual Quant 48(3):1739–1752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9871-z
Hahn R, Kühnen M (2013) Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J Clean Prod 59:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
Hamrouni A, Boussaada R, Ben Farhat Toumi N (2019) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and debt financing. J Appl Acc Res 20(4):394–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-01-2018-0020
Hogner RH (1982) Corporate social reporting: eight decades of development at U.S. Steel.Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 4, Preston LE, ed. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT 243–250
Hongming X, Ahmed B, Hussain A, Rehman A, Ullah I, Khan FU (2020) Sustainability reporting and firm performance: the demonstration of Pakistani firms. SAGE Open, July-September, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020953180
Hooghiemstra R (2000) Corporate communication and impression management—new perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. J Bus Ethics 27:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4311-0_7
Huang C-L, Kung F-H (2010) Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: evidence from Taiwan. J Bus Ethics 96(3):435–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0476-3
Huizing A, Carel Dekker H (1992) The environmental issue on the Dutch political market. Acc Organ Soc 17(5):427–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90039-U
Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership Structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jones MJ, Solomon JF (2013) Problematising accounting for biodiversity. Account, Audit Account J 26(5):668–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1255
Junior FH (2017) Strategic aspects in sustainability reporting in oil & gas industry: the comparative case-study of Brazilian Petrobras and Spanish Repsol. Ecol Ind 72:203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.007
Kareiva PM, McNally BW, McCormick S, Miller T, Ruckelshaus M (2015) Improving global environmental management with standard corporate reporting. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(24):7375–7382. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408120111
Kennedy Nyahunzvi D (2013) CSR reporting among Zimbabwe’s hotel groups: a content analysis. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 25(4):595–613. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111311322943
Klarin A, Suseno Y (2023) An integrative literature review of social entrepreneurship research: mapping the literature and future research directions. Bus Soc 62(3):565–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503221101611
Kleindorfer PR, Singhal K, Wassenhove LNV (2005) Sustainable operations management. Prod Oper Manag 14(4):482–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00235.x
Kordsachia O (2020) A risk management perspective on CSR and the marginal cost of debt: empirical evidence from Europe. RMS. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00392-2
KPMG (2020) The time has come: the KPMG survey of sustainability reporting 2020. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf
Lamberton G (2005) Sustainability accounting—a brief history and conceptual framework. Account Forum 29(1):7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.11.001
Lee TM, Hutchison PD (2005) The decision to disclose environmental information: a research review and agenda. Adv Account 21:83–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6110(05)21004-0
Lehman G, Kuruppu SC (2017) A framework for social and environmental accounting research. Account Forum 41(3):139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2017.07.001
Li Y, Rong Y, Ahmad UM, Wang X, Zuo J, Mao G (2021) A comprehensive review on green buildings research: bibliometric analysis during 1998–2018. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(34):46196–46214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12739-7
Lindblom CK (1983) The concept of organizational legitimacy and its implications for corporate social responsibility disclosure. American Accounting Association Public Interest Section, Working paper
Lindblom CK (1994) The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In: Critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York
Lodhia S, Hess N (2014) Sustainability accounting and reporting in the mining industry: current literature and directions for future research. J Clean Prod 84:43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.094
Lodhia S, Kaur A, Stone G (2020) The use of social media as a legitimation tool for sustainability reporting: a study of the top 50 Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) listed companies. Meditari Account Res 28(4):613–632. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-09-2019-0566
Mahadeo JD, Oogarah-Hanuman V, Soobaroyen T (2011) A longitudinal study of corporate social disclosures in a developing economy. J Bus Ethics 104(4):545–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0929-3
Mahoney JT, Qian L (2013) Market frictions as building blocks of an organizational economics approach to strategic management: market frictions as building blocks. Strateg Manag J 34(9):1019–1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2056
Marquis C, Qian C (2014) Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: symbol or substance? Organ Sci 25(1):127–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0837
Martin-Ortega O, Hoekstra J (2019) Reporting as a means to protect and promote human rights? The EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive. Eur Law Rev 44(5):622–645. http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/25494
Mata C, Fialho A, Eugénio T (2018) A decade of environmental accounting reporting: what we know? J Clean Prod 198:1198–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.087
Mathews MR (1984) A suggested classification for social accounting research. J Account Public Policy 3(3):199–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4254(84)90017-6
Mathews MR (1997) Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Account, Audit Account J 10(4):481–531
Mehmood W, Ahmad A, Aman-Ullah A, Mohd-Rashid R (2023a) Modern slavery: a literature review using bibliometric analysis and the nexus of governance. J Public Affairs 23(1):e2832. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2832
Mehmood W, Mohd-Rashid R, Abdullah Y, Patwary AK, Aman-Ullah A (2023b) Inclusive mapping of initial public offerings: a bibliometric and literature review study. Qual Quant 57(1):655–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01387-9
Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutional organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am J Sociol 83(2):340–363
Michelon G, Pilonato S, Ricceri F (2015) CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: an empirical analysis. Crit Perspect Account 33:59–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.003
Michelon G, Pilonato S, Ricceri F, Roberts RW (2016) Behind camouflaging: traditional and innovative theoretical perspectives in social and environmental accounting research. Sustain Account, Manag Policy J 7(1):2–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2015-0121
Milne MJ (2002) Positive accounting theory, political costs and social disclosure analyses: a critical look. Crit Perspect Account 13(3):369–395. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2001.0509
Milne MJ, Gray R (2013) W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J Bus Ethics 118(1):13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8
Minutiello V, Tettamanzi P (2022) The quality of nonfinancial voluntary disclosure: a systematic literature network analysis on sustainability reporting and integrated reporting. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2195
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, for the PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339(jul 21 1):b2535–b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Niazi M, Hussain A (2011) Agent-based computing from multi-agent systems to agent-based models: a visual survey. Scientometrics 89(2):479–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0468-9
Olawumi TO, Chan DWM (2018) A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. J Clean Prod 183:231–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.162
Opferkuch K, Caeiro S, Salomone R, Ramos TB (2021) Circular economy in corporate sustainability reporting: a review of organisational approaches. Bus Strateg Environ 30(8):4015–4036. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2854
Owen D (2008) Chronicles of wasted time?: a personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research. Account, Audit Account J 21(2):240–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854428
Parker LD (2005) Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the commentary box. Account, Audit Account J 18(6):842–860. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570510627739
Parker LD (2011) Twenty-one years of social and environmental accountability research: a coming of age. Account Forum 35(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2010.11.001
Pasko O, Chen F, Oriekhova A, Brychko A, Shalyhina I (2021) Mapping the literature on sustainability reporting: a bibliometric analysis grounded in Scopus and Web of Science core collection. Eur J Sustain Dev 10(1):303. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2021.v10n1p303
Patten DM (1992) Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory. Acc Organ Soc 17(5):471–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90042-Q
Patten DM (2019) Seeking legitimacy. Sustain Account, Manag Policy J 11(6):1009–1021. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2018-0332
Patten DM, Shin H (2019) Sustainability accounting, management and policy journal’s contributions to corporate social responsibility disclosure research: a review and assessment. Sustain Account, Manag Policy J 10(1):26–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-01-2018-0017
Pedroso TMA, Benvindo-Souza M, de Araújo Nascimento F, Woch J, dos Reis FG, de Melo e Silva D (2022) Cancer and occupational exposure to pesticides: a bibliometric study of the past 10 years. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(12):17464–17475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17031-2
Perego P, Kennedy S, Whiteman G (2016) A lot of icing but little cake? Taking integrated reporting forward. J Clean Prod 136:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.106
Permatasari P, Gunawan J (2023) Sustainability policies for small medium enterprises: who are the actors? Clean Responsib Consum 9:100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100122
Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Harper and Row, New York, NY
Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (2003) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
Prado-Lorenzo J-M, Gallego-Alvarez I, Garcia-Sanchez IM (2009) Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership structure effect. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 16(2):94–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.189
Prencipe A (2004) Proprietary costs and determinants of voluntary segment disclosure: evidence from Italian listed companies. Eur Account Rev 13(2):319–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818042000204742
Preston LE, Post JE (1975) Private management and public policy. Prentice-Hall, USA
Pucheta-Martínez MC, Bel-Oms I, Olcina-Sempere G (2018) The association between board gender diversity and financial reporting quality, corporate performance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: a literature review. Academia Revista Latinoamericana De Administración 31(1):177–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-04-2017-0110
Radhouane I, Nekhili M, Nagati H, Paché G (2018) The impact of corporate environmental reporting on customer-related performance and market value. Manag Decis 56(7):1630–1659. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2017-0272
Rahman S, Khan T, Siriwardhane P (2019) Sustainable development carbon pricing initiative and voluntary environmental disclosures quality. Bus Strateg Environ 28(6):1072–1082. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2302
Reverte C (2009) Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. J Bus Ethics 88(2):351–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9968-9
Rinaldi L, Unerman J, de Villiers C (2018) Evaluating the integrated reporting journey: insights, gaps and agendas for future research. Account, Audit Account J 31(5):1294–1318. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2018-3446
Roberts RW (1992) Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an application of stakeholder theory. Acc Organ Soc 17(6):595–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90015-K
Salton G, Wong A, Yang CS (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Commun ACM 18(11):613–620. https://doi.org/10.1145/361219.361220
Savić M, Ivanović M, Jain LC (2019) Co-authorship networks: an introduction. In: Savić M, Ivanović M, Jain LC, Complex networks in software, knowledge, and social systems, vol. 148. Springer International Publishing. pp. 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91196-0_5
Sengupta P (1998) Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt. Account Rev 73(4):459–474. https://doi.org/10.2307/248186
Siew RYJ (2015) A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). J Environ Manag 164:180–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.010
Simnett R, Vanstraelen A, Chua WF (2009) Assurance on sustainability reports: an international comparison. Account Rev 84(3):937–967. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937
Singhania M, Chadha G, Prasad R (2023a) Sustainable finance research: review and agenda. Int J Finance Econ, Early View. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2854
Singhania M, Gupta S, Chadha G, Braune E, Dana LP, Idowu SO (2023b) Mapping 26 years of climate change research in finance and accounting: a systematic scientometric analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30(35):83153–83179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27828-y
Skouloudis A, Evangelinos K, Kourmousis F (2010) Assessing non-financial reports according to the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines: evidence from Greece. J Clean Prod 18(5):426–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.11.015
Sotorrío LL, Sánchez JLF (2010) Corporate social reporting for different audiences: the case of multinational corporations in Spain. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 17(5):272–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.215
Spence M (1973) Job market signaling. Q J Econ 87(3):355. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
Spence C, Husillos J, Correa-Ruiz C (2010) Cargo cult science and the death of politics: a critical review of social and environmental accounting research. Crit Perspect Account 21:76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.09.008
Stechemesser K, Guenther E (2012) Carbon accounting: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 36:17–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.021
Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Tague-Sutcliffe J (1992) An introduction to informetrics. Inform Process Manag 28(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-G
Thun TW, Zülch H (2023) The effect of chief sustainability officers on sustainability reporting—a management perspective. Bus Strateg Environ 32(4):2093–2110. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3238
Traxler AA, Schrack D, Greiling D (2020) Sustainability reporting and management control – a systematic exploratory literature review. J Clean Prod 276:122725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122725
Tschopp D, Huefner RJ (2015) Comparing the evolution of CSR reporting to that of financial reporting. J Bus Ethics 127(3):565–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2054-6
Ullmann AA (1985) Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. Acad Manag Rev 10(3):540–557. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4278989
Velte P (2023) Automated text analyses of sustainability & integrated reporting. A literature review of empirical-quantitative research. J Glob Responsib. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-09-2022-0090
Velte P, Stawinoga M, Lueg R (2020) Carbon performance and disclosure: a systematic review of governance-related determinants and financial consequences. J Clean Prod 254:120063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120063
Veltri S, Silvestri A (2020) The value relevance of corporate financial and nonfinancial information provided by the integrated report: a systematic review. Bus Strateg Environ, bse.2556. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2556
Verrecchia R (1983) Discretionary disclosure. J Account Econ 5:179–194
Verrecchia R (1990) Information quality and discretionary disclosure. J Account Econ 12(4):365–380
Vitolla F, Raimo N, Rubino M (2019) Appreciations, criticisms, determinants, and effects of integrated reporting: a systematic literature review. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26(2):518–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1734
Woodward DG, Edwards P, Birkin F (1996) Organizational legitimacy and stakeholder information provision1. Br J Manag 7(4):329–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00123.x
Yakar Pritchard G, Çalıyurt KT (2021) Sustain Rep Coop Risks 9(6):117. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9060117
Yang HH, Craig R, Farley A (2015) A review of Chinese and English language studies on corporate environmental reporting in China. Crit Perspect Account 28:30–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.10.001
Zhao X (2017) A scientometric review of global BIM research: analysis and visualization. Autom Constr 80:37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.04.002
Download references
We would like to thank the University Grants Commission (UGC) of India (under the NET-JRF scheme) for sponsoring/supporting this research project.
Authors and affiliations.
Faculty of Management Studies (FMS), University of Delhi, New Delhi, India
Monica Singhania & Gurmani Chadha
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing were performed by Gurmani Chadha. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to Gurmani Chadha .
Ethical approval.
Both authors confirm compliance with ethical standards during the conduct of research.
Consent for publication, conflict of interest.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
See Table 11
See Table 12
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Singhania, M., Chadha, G. Thirty years of sustainability reporting research: a scientometric analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30 , 102047–102082 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29452-2
Download citation
Received : 03 February 2023
Accepted : 18 August 2023
Published : 08 September 2023
Issue Date : October 2023
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29452-2
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers
This study highlights the influence of sustainability reporting on investor sentiments in the China Stock Exchange. The study starts by utilizing an Ordinary Least Squares regression model to test the hypotheses. Advanced econometric techniques are then applied to identify the existence of heteroskedasticity. To address potential endogeneity concerns, the analysis incorporates fixed-effect, two-stage least squares, and two-step generalized method of moments regression models. Findings suggest that sustainability reporting has a positive influence on investor sentiments. Conversely, environmental, social, and governance sustainability reporting also positively associations with investor sentiment in fixed-effect, two-stage least squares, and two-step generalized method of moments results. The findings suggest that companies prioritizing transparent and responsible practices enhance their market standing and contribute significantly to sustainable and ethical investing. The research indicates the importance of context-specific sustainability reporting. It provides insights into sustainability's impact on investor sentiments, promoting responsible practices for a sustainable global economy.
2022 was the year that generative artificial intelligence (AI) exploded into the public consciousness, and 2023 was the year it began to take root in the business world. 2024 thus stands to be a pivotal year for the future of AI, as researchers and enterprises seek to establish how this evolutionary leap in technology can be most practically integrated into our everyday lives.
The evolution of generative AI has mirrored that of computers, albeit on a dramatically accelerated timeline. Massive, centrally operated mainframe computers from a few players gave way to smaller, more efficient machines accessible to enterprises and research institutions. In the decades that followed, incremental advances yielded home computers that hobbyists could tinker with. In time, powerful personal computers with intuitive no-code interfaces became ubiquitous.
Generative AI has already reached its “hobbyist” phase—and as with computers, further progress aims to attain greater performance in smaller packages. 2023 saw an explosion of increasingly efficient foundation models with open licenses, beginning with the launch of Meta’s LlaMa family of large language models (LLMs) and followed by the likes of StableLM, Falcon, Mistral, and Llama 2 . DeepFloyd and Stable Diffusion have achieved relative parity with leading proprietary models. Enhanced with fine-tuning techniques and datasets developed by the open source community, many open models can now outperform all but the most powerful closed-source models on most benchmarks, despite far smaller parameter counts.
As the pace of progress accelerates, the ever-expanding capabilities of state-of-the-art models will garner the most media attention. But the most impactful developments may be those focused on governance, middleware, training techniques and data pipelines that make generative AI more trustworthy , sustainable and accessible, for enterprises and end users alike.
Here are some important current AI trends to look out for in the coming year.
Gpu shortages and cloud costs, model optimization is getting more accessible, customized local models and data pipelines, more powerful virtual agents, regulation, copyright and ethical ai concerns, shadow ai (and corporate ai policies).
When generative AI first hit mass awareness, a typical business leader’s knowledge came mostly from marketing materials and breathless news coverage. Tangible experience (if any) was limited to messing around with ChatGPT and DALL-E. Now that the dust has settled, the business community now has a more refined understanding of AI-powered solutions.
The Gartner Hype Cycle positions Generative AI squarely at “Peak of Inflated Expectations,” on the cusp of a slide into the “Trough of Disillusionment” [1] —in other words, about to enter a (relatively) underwhelming transition period—while Deloitte’s “State of Generated AI in the Enterprise “ report from Q1 2024 indicated that many leaders “expect substantial transformative impacts in the short term.” [2] The reality will likely fall in between: generative AI offers unique opportunities and solutions, but it will not be everything to everyone.
How real-world results compare to the hype is partially a matter of perspective. Standalone tools like ChatGPT typically take center stage in the popular imagination, but smooth integration into established services often yields more staying power. Prior to the current hype cycle, generative machine learning tools like the “Smart Compose” feature rolled out by Google in 2018 weren’t heralded as a paradigm shift, despite being harbingers of today’s text generating services. Similarly, many high-impact generative AI tools are being implemented as integrated elements of enterprise environments that enhance and complement, rather than revolutionize or replace, existing tools: for example, “Copilot” features in Microsoft Office, “Generative Fill” features in Adobe Photoshop or virtual agents in productivity and collaboration apps .
Where generative AI first builds momentum in everyday workflows will have more influence on the future of AI tools than the hypothetical upside of any specific AI capabilities. According to a recent IBM survey of over 1,000 employees at enterprise-scale companies , the top three factors driving AI adoption were advances in AI tools that make them more accessible, the need to reduce costs and automate key processes and the increasing amount of AI embedded into standard off-the-shelf business applications.
That being said, the ambition of state-of-the-art generative AI is growing. The next wave of advancements will focus not only on enhancing performance within a specific domain, but on multimodal models that can take multiple types of data as input. While models that operate across different data modalities are not a strictly new phenomenon—text-to-image models like CLIP and speech-to-text models like Wave2Vec have been around for years now—they’ve typically only operated in one direction, and were trained to accomplish a specific task.
The incoming generation of interdisciplinary models, comprising proprietary models like OpenAI’s GPT-4V or Google’s Gemini, as well as open source models like LLaVa, Adept or Qwen-VL, can move freely between natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision tasks. New models are also bringing video into the fold: in late January, Google announced Lumiere, a text-to-video diffusion model that can also perform image-to-video tasks or use images for style reference.
The most immediate benefit of multimodal AI is more intuitive, versatile AI applications and virtual assistants. Users can, for example, ask about an image and receive a natural language answer, or ask out loud for instructions to repair something and receive visual aids alongside step-by-step text instructions.
On a higher level, multimodal AI allows for a model to process more diverse data inputs, enriching and expanding the information available for training and inference. Video, in particular, offers great potential for holistic learning. “There are cameras that are on 24/7 and they’re capturing what happens just as it happens without any filtering, without any intentionality,” says Peter Norvig, Distinguished Education Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). [3] “AI models haven’t had that kind of data before. Those models will just have a better understanding of everything.”
In domain-specific models—particularly LLMs—we’ve likely reached the point of diminishing returns from larger parameter counts. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI (whose GPT-4 model is rumored to have around 1.76 trillion parameters), suggested as much at MIT’s Imagination in Action event last April: “I think we’re at the end of the era where it’s going to be these giant models, and we’ll make them better in other ways,” he predicted. “I think there’s been way too much focus on parameter count.”
Massive models jumpstarted this ongoing AI golden age, but they’re not without drawbacks. Only the very largest companies have the funds and server space to train and maintain energy-hungry models with hundreds of billions of parameters. According to one estimate from the University of Washington, training a single GPT-3-sized model requires the yearly electricity consumption of over 1,000 households; a standard day of ChatGPT queries rivals the daily energy consumption of 33,000 U.S. households. [4]
Smaller models, meanwhile, are far less resource-intensive. An influential March 2022 paper from Deepmind demonstrated that training smaller models on more data yields better performance than training larger models on fewer data. Much of the ongoing innovation in LLMs has thus focused on yielding greater output from fewer parameters. As demonstrated by recent progress of models in the 3–70 billion parameter range, particularly those built upon LLaMa, Llama 2 and Mistral foundation models in 2023, models can be downsized without much performance sacrifice.
The power of open models will continue to grow. In December of 2023, Mistral released “Mixtral,” a mixture of experts (MoE) model integrating 8 neural networks, each with 7 billion parameters. Mistral claims that Mixtral not only outperforms the 70B parameter variant of Llama 2 on most benchmarks at 6 times faster inference speeds, but that it even matches or outperforms OpenAI’s far larger GPT-3.5 on most standard benchmarks. Shortly thereafter, Meta announced in January that it has already begun training of Llama 3 models, and confirmed that they will be open sourced. Though details (like model size) have not been confirmed, it’s reasonable to expect Llama 3 to follow the framework established in the two generations prior.
These advances in smaller models have three important benefits:
The trend toward smaller models will be driven as much by necessity as by entrepreneurial vigor, as cloud computing costs increase as the availability of hardware decrease.
“The big companies (and more of them) are all trying to bring AI capabilities in-house, and there is a bit of a run on GPUs,” says James Landay, Vice-Director and Faculty Director of Research, Stanford HAI. “This will create a huge pressure not only for increased GPU production, but for innovators to come up with hardware solutions that are cheaper and easier to make and use.” 1
As a late 2023 O’Reilly report explains, cloud providers currently bear much of the computing burden: relatively few AI adopters maintain their own infrastructure, and hardware shortages will only elevate the hurdles and costs of setting up on-premise servers. In the long term, this may put upward pressure on cloud costs as providers update and optimize their own infrastructure to effectively meet demand from generative AI. [5]
For enterprises, navigating this uncertain landscape requires flexibility, in terms of both models–leaning on smaller, more efficient models where necessary or larger, more performant models when practical–and deployment environment. “We don’t want to constrain where people deploy [a model],” said IBM CEO Arvind Krishna in a December 2023 interview with CNBC , in reference to IBM’s watsonx platform. “So [if] they want to deploy it on a large public cloud, we’ll do it there. If they want to deploy it at IBM, we’ll do it at IBM. If they want to do it on their own, and they happen to have enough infrastructure, we’ll do it there.”
The trend towards maximizing the performance of more compact models is well served by the recent output of the open source community.
Many key advancements have been (and will continue to be) driven not just by new foundation models, but by new techniques and resources (like open source datasets) for training, tweaking, fine-tuning or aligning pre-trained models. Notable model-agnostic techniques that took hold in 2023 include:
Alongside parallel advances in open source models in the 3–70 billion parameter space, these evolving techniques could shift the dynamics of the AI landscape by providing smaller players, like startups and amateurs, with sophisticated AI capabilities that were previously out of reach.
Enterprises in 2024 can thus pursue differentiation through bespoke model development, rather than building wrappers around repackaged services from “Big AI.” With the right data and development framework , existing open source AI models and tools can be tailored to almost any real-world scenario, from customer support uses to supply chain management to complex document analysis.
Open source models afford organizations the opportunity to develop powerful custom AI models—trained on their proprietary data and fine-tuned for their specific needs—quickly, without prohibitively expensive infrastructure investments. This is especially relevant in domains like legal, healthcare or finance, where highly specialized vocabulary and concepts may not have been learned by foundation models in pre-training.
Legal, finance and healthcare are also prime examples of industries that can benefit from models small enough to be run locally on modest hardware. Keeping AI training, inference and retrieval augmented generation (RAG) local avoids the risk of proprietary data or sensitive personal information being used to train closed-source models or otherwise pass through the hands of third parties. And using RAG to access relevant information rather than storing all knowledge directly within the LLM itself helps reduce model size, further increasing speed and reducing costs.
As 2024 continues to level the model playing field, competitive advantage will increasingly be driven by proprietary data pipelines that enable industry-best fine-tuning.
With more sophisticated, efficient tools and a year’s worth of market feedback at their disposal, businesses are primed to expand the use cases for virtual agents beyond just straightforward customer experience chatbots .
As AI systems speed up and incorporate new streams and formats of information, they expand the possibilities for not just communication and instruction following, but also task automation. “2023 was the year of being able to chat with an AI. Multiple companies launched something, but the interaction was always you type something in and it types something back,” says Stanford’s Norvig. “In 2024, we’ll see the ability for agents to get stuff done for you . Make reservations, plan a trip, connect to other services.”
Multimodal AI, in particular, significantly increases opportunities for seamless interaction with virtual agents. For example, rather than simply asking a bot for recipes, a user can point a camera at an open fridge and request recipes that can be made with available ingredients. Be My Eyes, a mobile app that connects blind and low vision individuals with volunteers to help with quick tasks, is piloting AI tools that help users directly interact with their surroundings through multimodal AI in lieu of awaiting a human volunteer.
Explore IBM watsonx™ Assistant: market-leading conversational AI with seamless integration for the tools that power your business →
Elevated multimodal capabilities and lowered barriers to entry also open up new doors for abuse: deepfakes, privacy issues, perpetuation of bias and even evasion of CAPTCHA safeguards may become increasingly easy for bad actors. In January of 2024, a wave of explicit celebrity deepfakes hit social media; research from May 2023 indicated that there had been 8 times as many voice deepfakes posted online compared to the same period in 2022. [6]
Ambiguity in the regulatory environment may slow adoption, or at least more aggressive implementation, in the short to medium term. There is inherent risk to any major, irreversible investment in an emerging technology or practice that might require significant retooling—or even become illegal—following new legislation or changing political headwinds in the coming years.
In December 2023, the European Union (EU) reached provisional agreement on the Artificial Intelligence Act . Among other measures, it prohibits indiscriminate scraping of images to create facial recognition databases, biometric categorization systems with potential for discriminatory bias, “social scoring” systems and the use of AI for social or economic manipulation. It also seeks to define a category of “high-risk” AI systems, with potential to threaten safety, fundamental rights or rule of law, that will be subject to additional oversight. Likewise, it sets transparency requirements for what it calls “general-purpose AI (GPAI)” systems—foundation models—including technical documentation and systemic adversarial testing.
But while some key players, like Mistral, reside in the EU, the majority of groundbreaking AI development is happening in America, where substantive legislation of AI in the private sector will require action from Congress—which may be unlikely in an election year. On October 30, the Biden administration issued a comprehensive executive order detailing 150 requirements for use of AI technologies by federal agencies; months prior, the administration secured voluntary commitments from prominent AI developers to adhere to certain guardrails for trust and security. Notably, both California and Colorado are actively pursuing their own legislation regarding individuals’ data privacy rights with regard to artificial intelligence.
China has moved more proactively toward formal AI restrictions, banning price discrimination by recommendation algorithms on social media and mandating the clear labeling of AI-generated content. Prospective regulations on generative AI seek to require the training data used to train LLMs and the content subsequently generated by models must be “true and accurate,” which experts have taken to indicate measures to censor LLM output.
Meanwhile, the role of copyrighted material in the training of AI models used for content generation, from language models to image generators and video models, remains a hotly contested issue. The outcome of the high-profile lawsuit filed by the New York Times against OpenAI may significantly affect the trajectory of AI legislation. Adversarial tools, like Glaze and Nightshade —both developed at the University of Chicago—have arisen in what may become an arms race of sorts between creators and model developers.
Learn how IBM® watsonx.governance™ accelerates responsible, transparent and explainable AI workflows →
For businesses, this escalating potential for legal, regulatory, economic or reputational consequences is compounded by how popular and accessible generative AI tools have become. Organizations must not only have a careful, coherent and clearly articulated corporate policy around generative AI, but also be wary of shadow AI: the “unofficial” personal use of AI in the workplace by employees.
Also dubbed “shadow IT” or “BYOAI,” shadow AI arises when impatient employees seeking quick solutions (or simply wanting to explore new tech faster than a cautious company policy allows) implement generative AI in the workplace without going through IT for approval or oversight. Many consumer-facing services, some free of charge, allow even nontechnical individuals to improvise the use of generative AI tools. In one study from Ernst & Young, 90% of respondents said they use AI at work. [7]
That enterprising spirit can be great, in a vacuum—but eager employees may lack relevant information or perspective regarding security, privacy or compliance. This can expose businesses to a great deal of risk. For example, an employee might unknowingly feed trade secrets to a public-facing AI model that continually trains on user input, or use copyright-protected material to train a proprietary model for content generation and expose their company to legal action.
Like many ongoing developments, this underscores how the dangers of generative AI rise almost linearly with its capabilities. With great power comes great responsibility.
As we proceed through a pivotal year in artificial intelligence, understanding and adapting to emerging trends is essential to maximizing potential, minimizing risk and responsibly scaling generative AI adoption.
1 “Gartner Places Generative AI on the Peak of Inflated Expectations on the 2023 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies,” Gartner, 16 August 2023
2 ”Deloitte’s State of Generative AI in the Enteprrise Quarter one report,” Deloitte, January 2024
3 ”What to Expect in AI in 2024,” Stanford University, 8 December 2023
4 ”Q&A: UW researcher discusses just how much energy ChatGPT uses,” University of Washington, 27 July 2023
5 “Generative AI in the Enterprise,” O’Reilly, 28 November 2023
6 ”Deepfaking it: America’s 2024 election coincides with AI boom,” Reuters, 30 May 2023
7 ”How organizations can stop skyrocketing AI use from fueling anxiety,” Ernst & Young, December 2023
Self-service that delights customers: how the ibm partner ecosystem is harnessing generative ai assistants in the banking and financial sectors.
4 min read - Thanks to the transformative benefits promised by generative artificial intelligence (AI), the banking and financial sectors are at a turning point. From redefining a bank’s competitive edge in customer relationships to streamlining core banking operations and strengthening cyber-resiliency, AI technologies can unlock numerous new capabilities. Institutions are already seizing the opportunity. The 2024 Global Outlook for Banking and Financial Markets from the IBM Institute for Business Value (IBM IBV) revealed that 78% of the 600 executives surveyed tactically deploy generative…
7 min read - On Tuesday, July 23, Meta announced the launch of the Llama 3.1 collection of multilingual large language models (LLMs). Llama 3.1 comprises both pretrained and instruction-tuned text in/text out open source generative AI models in sizes of 8B, 70B and—for the first time—405B parameters. The instruction-tuned Llama 3.1-405B, which figures to be the largest and most powerful open source language model available today and competitive with the best proprietary models on the market, will be available on IBM® watsonx.ai™ today where…
2 min read - In June, IBM invited ecosystem partners in Europe, the Middle East and Africa to participate in an IBM watsonx™ Challenge, a hands-on experience designed to bring the watsonx platform capabilities to some of the most important members of the IBM ecosystem. These ecosystem partners, who sell, build or service IBM technologies, enthusiastically embraced the challenge. Participants formed teams and focused on quickly crafting a solution to one of three selected challenges. The challenges included using prompt engineering to analyze…
The purpose of cooperate social responsibility (csr), true sustainability in the corporate sector, multinational corporations in sustainable development, reference list.
The assertion that the global corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities of many Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are failing to make a sufficient contribution towards Sustainable Development (SD) is true. Some people argue that the above statement is true because businesses’ social and environmental activities are often not connecting legitimately with the societies they operate in. ISO 26000:2010 was developed to help MNCs achieve sustainable development through a multi-tier reporting channel (United Nations, 2015; Hahn, 2013).
Financial performance and overall success in corporate institutions are among the most influential factors for investors seeking to pump their money into new opportunities (Whiteman et al., 2015, p. 307; WCED, 1987). Over the years, corporate have registered groundbreaking profits and losses, which depend on their management practices and policies. The performance of business cooperation is influenced by several factors, including leadership, research, and development, monopoly practices, community engagement, social responsibility, and strategic planning, to mention a few.
Today, global warming and climate change are big challenges facing the world. Experts agree that human activities mainly cause climate change, mainly focused on energy and transportation (Banerjee, 2008, p. 1541). Most companies depend on national power grids or fossil fuels to run their operations which contributes immensely to the emission of greenhouse gases. The companies contribute to national development and environmental conservation through the payment of taxes and social activities. However, it does not tally with the impact of their activities on the environment (Browne & Nuttall, 2013). The social contribution of MNCs begins with the ways they handle their employees, customers, and the host community. Communication and reporting among employees and management are key driving factors to the positive performance of an organization. Also, the nature of working conditions determines whether employees feel motivated or demotivated and significantly affects their output at the personal, team, and cooperate levels. Corporations have adopted multi-tier reporting strategies to assess their sustainability in different ways ( GRI, 2013; GRI, 2017). Financial reporting is the conventional way of measuring business performance and presents its pros and cons.
CSR was proposed several decades down the line and used to improve the company’s image before the general public. Due to the dynamic landscape of the current competitive markets, companies need to take approaches to improve their grip on their market share (Browne et al., 2015). As a result, companies adapt to work in a manner that adds value acceptable to the community ethics and environment preservation standards (ISO 2011; ISO 2013; ISO 2016). Thus, the company pays close attention to community needs and culture, human rights, and its immediate environment. Ethical practices give companies an upper hand over their rivals, helping them gain a more significant share of particular market segments. An ethical company performs better, grows more prominent, and gains more profits to achieve its business goals.
Scholars and market experts disagree on a single definition of suitability. However, they agree on the impact of corporate organizations on natural resources such as forests, wetlands, soil, water, and air. Usually, all companies rely on natural resources to produce their products. The dependence on natural resources is either direct or indirect but affects the ecological balance in one way or another. Mason and Simmons (2017, p. 77) note that sustainability is heavily cussed on environmental balance. Since the global population grows faster than regulators can put rehabilitative measures, natural resource acquisition and exploitation are significant challenges. Williams et al. (2017) argue that true sustainability is achievable but at a high cost. For instance, most technology companies own millions of computers that consume vast amounts of power generated from fossil fuels. The companies contribute to climate change by relying on fossil fuels to generate electric power for their operations (Bravo, 2014).
Multinational corporations are not compatible with sustainable development, although the United Nations have provided international guidelines to achieve the latter. Usually, corporates are not designed to commit themselves to a place or community but rather the target financial and market gains. Although most MNCs have declared their commitment to reverse the environmental damage resulting from their actions, it is not achievable on most occasions. Even in cases where the damage is reversible, the corporations do not invest proportionate resources, time, incentives, or commitment to compensate affected communities. Cooperates make tough decisions such as downsizing or adopting new technologies without consulting with their employees or evaluating environmental impact (Carrel, 2016). Such decisions have a devastating impact on the environmental and economic stability of the given community.
MNCs have short-term goals that span across a few leadership cycles at the expense of future generations (Milne & Gray, 2013, p. 13). It implies the corporations’ plan and investment in individuals who see the investors’ vision and not sustainable development. However much harm the corporations pose to the environment and society in the future, they consider themselves sustainable as long as they are financially stable to lobby for laws and regulations (Polman, 2014).
The concept of demography in multinational corporations is democracy. Usually, the organizations create specific communities that respond to the company. Simplex communication is mistaken for real dialogue between the company, its workers, and host communities, discouraging the participation of stakeholders in company operations (Scherer & Palazzo, 2010). Minority groups are highly segregated and incorporate dialogues, if they happen at all, limiting the chances for sustainable development (Schwartz & Tiling, 2009, p. 289; Summit, 1992). It becomes difficult for minorities to air their grievances or report on any issues affecting or associated with its operations.
Financial equity is an essential part of sustainable development, but it is not embraced in most multinational corporations. There is a huge and consonantly growing gap between employee and CEO salaries. For instance, in 1980, CEOs of the largest environmentally polluting companies were paid 41 times an average employee’s salary. The figure grew to 149 by 1993, while the toxic levels produced or caused by corporations grew 230 times (Leung et al., 2009,p. 85). By any definition, MNCs do not sufficiently contribute to sustainable development. The financial policies and disparities challenge sustainability in all dimensions (Unruh, 2014). Most plants emit toxic waste in their neighborhoods, affecting the ecological balance (Kanagaraj et al., 2015, p. 5). Corporations that do not dump their waste in their surroundings, like technology companies, consume much energy generated from fossil fuels.
It is unfortunate to note that MNCs are not dedicated to fighting poverty. Experts argue that poverty will fade away with economic growth but do not explain how (Dicken, 2015). Since the end of the second world war, there has been positive economic growth, accompanied by an increase in poverty levels. At the same time, the MNCs have automated their processes, killing millions of jobs worldwide (Shehu & Abba, 2019). The employees who previously helped the jobs can no longer provide for their families, resulting in increased poverty (Vermeulen et al., 2018, p. 16). Although automation increases productivity, it does not embrace true sustainability, inducing poverty among the masses (Carbonero et al., 2020). There is no substantive argument on whether the positive impacts of automation outweigh its disadvantages.
Most MNCs are dominant market players and engage in non-competitive behavior, inhibiting the growth and development of startups. They compete unfairly in market control, acquisition of raw materials, and the supply chain at large. Most of the MNCs do not focus on necessities but rather acquire excessive resources. The behavior among the already established organizations is contrary to social and environmental sustainability. Although it propels the companies to achieve their financial goals and obligations, the social and environmental impacts are devastating, inhibiting their ability to achieve true sustainability.
There is a significant conflict between community and markets which demands that MNCs must focus on one. Markets call for zealous investors and a dynamic workforce targeting work incentives, competition, redundancies, and money (Adkins, 1999, p. 119). on the other hand, community economies are focused on the welfare of all, job security, corporation, and common goal. MNCs prefer market economies that have more cons than community economies (Marglin, 2008). The desires of corporations are contrary to the ideal standards for truly sustainable development, which is primarily fueled by their activities.
Most greedy MNCs do not benefit local communities are they ship away all the profits. Although the corporations invest in infrastructural development such as schools, roads, bridges, hospitals, and electricity, the end profits are spent in other areas (Meadows et al.,1992).On most occasions, there is the little or negative net impact of MNC investments on the local communities. It implies that the resourcefulness of the given area does not benefit the host community, contrary to sustainable development.
in conclusion, the global corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities of many Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are failing to make sufficient contributions toward Sustainable Development (SD). As discussed, the corporate structure, goals, activities, and practices focus more on their finances than social and environmental sustainability. Even in cases where the corporate is determined to cancel out the environmental impacts of its activities, the commitment or investment can not match the damage already done. The greed for money makes most organizations design demographic communities which respond to the organization, killing the need and room for dialogue. Lastly, MNCs leave little or no profit for the local communities after importing skilled labor, promoting poverty.
Adkins, L., 1999. Community and economy: A retraditionalization of gender?. Theory, culture & society , 16 (1), pp.119-139.
Bobby Banerjee, S., 2008. Necrocapitalism. Organization Studies , 29 (12), pp.1541-1563.
Browne, J. and Nuttall, R. (2013) ‘Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: Integrated External Engagement.’
Browne, J. and Nuttall, R., 2013. Beyond corporate social responsibility: Integrated external engagement. McKinsey & Company , pp.1-11.
Carbonero, F., Ernst, E. and Weber, E., 2020. Robots worldwide: The impact of automation on employment and trade.
Carrel, A. (2016), Is your social license expiring, three imperatives for executives in Australia, Ernst and Young, Australia
Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S. and Spence, L., 2019. Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization . Oxford University Press, USA.
Dicken, P., 2007. Global shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy . SAGE Publications Ltd.
GRI (2013) G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam
GRI (2017) ‘GRI Standards.’ 6-11-17
Hahn, R., 2013. ISO 26000 and the standardization of strategic management processes for sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment , 22 (7), pp.442-455.
ISO (2011), Social Responsibility, ISO 26000 tells it like it is, ISO Focus+,2(3) March 2011.
ISO (2014), GRI G4 Guidelines and ISO26000: 2010 How to use the GRI4 Guidelines and ISO26000 in conjunction.
ISO (2016) ‘Discovering ISO26000.’ 5-11-16. Web.
Kanagaraj, J., Senthilvelan, T., Panda, R.C. and Kavitha, S., 2015. Eco-friendly waste management strategies for greener environment towards sustainable development in leather industry: a comprehensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production , 89 , pp.1-17.
Leung, K., Zhu, Y. and Ge, C., 2009. Compensation disparity between locals and expatriates: Moderating the effects of perceived injustice in foreign multinationals in China. Journal of World Business , 44 (1), pp.85-93.
Marglin, S.A., 2008. The dismal science: How thinking like an economist undermines community . Harvard University Press.
Mason, C. And Simmons, J. (2014), Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Systems Approach, Journal of Business Ethics 119:77-86, Meadows.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W., 1972. The Limits to Growth. New American Library. New York .
Milne, M.J. and Gray, R., 2013. W (h) ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of business ethics , 118 (1), pp.13-29.
Polman, P., 2014. Business, society, and the future of capitalism. McKinsey Quarterly
Scherer, A.G. and Palazzo, G., 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of management studies , 48 (4), pp.899-931.
Schwartz, B. and Tilling, K., 2009. ‘ISO‐lating’corporate social responsibility in the organizational context: a dissenting interpretation of ISO 26000. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 16 (5), pp.289-299.
Shehu, N. and Abba, N., 2019. The Role Of Automation And Robotics In Builtings For Sustainable Development. work , 6 (2).
Summit, E. (1992) Agenda 21. The United Nations programme for action from Rio.
United Nations (2015) ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.’ 22-11-17
Unruh, G. (2014) ‘Leading the Sustainability Insurgency.’ 6-6-16.
Vermeulen, B., Kesselhut, J., Pyka, A. and Saviotti, P.P., 2018. The impact of automation on employment: just the usual structural change?. Sustainability , 10 (5), p.16-61.
WCED, U. (1987), Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B. and Perego, P., 2013. Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of management studies , 50 (2), pp.307-336.
IvyPanda. (2023, January 21). Ethics and Sustainability Reporting. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-sustainability-reporting/
"Ethics and Sustainability Reporting." IvyPanda , 21 Jan. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-sustainability-reporting/.
IvyPanda . (2023) 'Ethics and Sustainability Reporting'. 21 January.
IvyPanda . 2023. "Ethics and Sustainability Reporting." January 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-sustainability-reporting/.
1. IvyPanda . "Ethics and Sustainability Reporting." January 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-sustainability-reporting/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Ethics and Sustainability Reporting." January 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethics-and-sustainability-reporting/.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
When it comes to sustainability reporting, there are various approaches that companies can consider. These include: Established sustainability reporting frameworks - Companies can utilize widely recognized sustainability reporting frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative or the Carbon Disclosure Project ().These frameworks provide structured guidelines to assess and disclose ...
s, more organizations use GRI and SASB standards together than separately. Of the 132 respon-d. nts, 39% (52) used both the GRI Standards and the SASB Standard. together. The next largest group was the GRI-only reporters, ted using neither, and 10% (13) SASB only.GRI only BothSASB only NeitherThere were respo.
The concept of CSR has gained importance as the concept of sustainability has increased in the world (Şenal and Aslantaş Ateş 2012, p. 85). According to Özdemir ( 2007 ), CSR takes into account every decision taken by the business world and the effects of each activity on its social stakeholders (p.1).
Overselling Sustainability Reporting. We're confusing output with impact. For two decades progressive thinkers have argued that a more sustainable form of capitalism would arise if companies ...
The research successfully summarizes the barriers from 37 influential sustainability report papers by employing a thorough systematic literature review. It was based on 6 well-known databases with the limitation of exclusion criteria such as 11 years of research (2012-2023), used English, and more than 4 pages articles. ...
Sustainability reporting. A report distributed by an organization or association about the financial, operations, and social effects brought about by its regular exercises is called a sustainability report (CSR). The report shows the association's qualities, administrative model, and exhibits the connection between its procedure and its ...
Sustainability reporting is measuring, disclosing, and being accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance toward sustainable development. Using the Systematic ...
A report provides an excellent opportunity for a school to engage in further sustainability efforts and to discuss its initiatives with the whole community. But a school must put in the time and effort to get the report right. As Bogie puts it, "A good sustainability report is not created from a big budget and a great design.
Research on sustainability reporting is becoming increasingly important. Despite the growing body of literature on sustainability reporting, little is known about its past trends and how research areas might evolve in the future. Recognizing and understanding the research trend related to sustainability reporting will enable future researchers to plan and conduct research that is of high ...
Sustainability report. This report is a document containing a set of sustainability disclosures from an organization for a period of time. It can be a stand-alone document or a component of the annual report. Sustainability-reporting requirement. This requirement is a mandate from an authority (such as a regulator, a stock exchange, or a civil ...
Unique and Effective Approaches. Holistic approach: Amazon's report covers a comprehensive range of topics, from carbon emissions and renewable energy to human rights and product sustainability, providing a 360-degree view of their sustainability efforts. Quantifiable metrics: The report offers clear, quantifiable metrics, such as a 7% decrease in carbon intensity and 90% of electricity from ...
One of the elements of sustainability reporting is strategies and analysis. This contains statement from managers that are given the mandate to make final decisions in an organization (White, 2009, p. 125). The statement outlines relevance of sustainability reporting to the organization and measures put in place to ensure sustainability.
The viewpoint is based on the selection of papers presented at the 2017 Australasian Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research hosted by the University of the South Pacific and held from 7 to 9 December 2017 at Denarau, Nadi, Fiji. ... Sustainability reporting in the Asian region is also a growing area of research interest. To ...
Sustainability reporting has become a universal practice and continues to grow worldwide. According to KPMG ( 2020 ), 80% of the N100 1 and 96% of the G250 2 now report on sustainability. However, research in this field shows that the growth of sustainability reporting still encounters various challenges.
This study reviewed 44 research papers related to ESG; they have been classified into three main themes, i.e., ESG investment and financial performance, CSR and sustainability disclosure. This review analysis outlines the factors influencing firms' ESG investment and sustainability reporting critically to assess other studies' findings.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the challenges that companies could face over time when dealing with sustainability reporting (SR) and focusses on potential mechanisms they may adopt to cope with them.,The investigation is conducted adopting the theoretical framework proposed by Baret and Helfrich (2018) and using a longitudinal ...
The reporting period of a sustainability report is usually the same as for financial statements (ESRS 1, IFRS S1), that is, one year. Each quantitative or qualitative data point is reported for this period. This is a strict production-specific input or output measurement and similar to cash flow accounting.
New research by Oxford Analytica and EY, The future of sustainability reporting standards, makes the following five recommendations: 1. Don't wait for sustainability reporting to be mandated. Companies have a great opportunity now to prepare for new regulations around sustainability reporting, and commit to transparency and accountability.
This essay critically reviews Gray's (2010) statement by focusing on sustainability reporting of Ford. It draws upon relevant academic literature and discusses a theoretical framework that could be used to support the argument.
Sustainability Reporting Essays. Project Report-Organizational Reporting for Sustainability. Background to the organization Born on September 2, 1929, Unilever is a global fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) company based in London, UK (Unilever, 2024). The company, listed on the London Stock Exchange, offers a range of products including baby ...
The growing relevance of sustainability reporting (SR) has dramatically surged advocacy and interest among both academicians and practitioners. However, few studies have attempted to holistically encapsulate global research on sustainability reporting. The present study employed scientometric analysis on sustainability reporting based 1434 articles extracted from the Web of Science database ...
reporting: a formal sustainability governance structure that aligns with the business's overall strategy and goals. This structure—the people, processes, and technology involved in setting, monitoring, and reporting against sustainability priorities— needs to be established before they can meet newly-rigorous and extensive requirements.
Sustainability refers to preserving the environment and protecting the earth's resources from the extraction of raw materials. One important feature of sustainability is its "long-term protection and health of the natural environment" (McFarlane & Ogazon, 2011, p. 85). Get a custom essay on Sustainability Report and Its Purpose. CSR's ...
DOI: 10.15444/gfmc2024.02.07.01 Corpus ID: 271034608; SUSTAINABILITY MATERIALITY AND ESG REPORTING FRAMEWORKS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW @article{Lam2024SUSTAINABILITYMA, title={SUSTAINABILITY MATERIALITY AND ESG REPORTING FRAMEWORKS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW}, author={Magnum Lam and Christina W.Y. Wong and Fenfang Qiu}, journal={Global Fashion Management Conference}, year={2024 ...
This study highlights the influence of sustainability reporting on investor sentiments in the China Stock Exchange. The study starts by utilizing an Ordinary Least Squares regression model to test the hypotheses. Advanced econometric techniques are then applied to identify the existence of heteroskedasticity. To address potential endogeneity concerns, the analysis incorporates fixed-effect ...
Meta releases new Llama 3.1 models, including highly anticipated 405B parameter variant . 7 min read - On Tuesday, July 23, Meta announced the launch of the Llama 3.1 collection of multilingual large language models (LLMs). Llama 3.1 comprises both pretrained and instruction-tuned text in/text out open source generative AI models in sizes of 8B, 70B and—for the first time—405B parameters.
True Sustainability in The Corporate Sector. Scholars and market experts disagree on a single definition of suitability. However, they agree on the impact of corporate organizations on natural resources such as forests, wetlands, soil, water, and air. Usually, all companies rely on natural resources to produce their products.