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

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

Drawing on the agency and resource dependence theories, the paper assumes that the impact of corporate social responsibility on companies’ financial performance should be investigated not in a binary manner but against the backdrop of corporate governance. The analysis is based on testing the dataset retrieved from the Chinese Stock Market and Accounting Research database containing 28,200 company-year observations of 3,576 Chinese listed companies covering 2008–2019. The findings accentuate that corporate social responsibility, interacting with board size, equity concentration, and CEO duality, positively impacts a firm’s financial performance. In contrast, the study fails to substantiate the claim that board gender diversity and board independence moderate the bond between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Thus, by exploring five elements of corporate governance, this study takes a step forward in understanding exactly which elements of corporate governance best suit corporate social responsibility to enhance financial performance in China’s institutional settings. This study assists in filling the gap in corporate social responsibility research by displaying and corroborating the moderating effects of corporate governance attributes on the nexus between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in China. Therefore, this paper presents valuable information and details for companies and regulators alike to improve the impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance by focusing on corporate governance quality. AcknowledgmentThis paper is co-funded by European Union through the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) within the project “EU Best Practice Of Life Cycle Assessment, Social, Environmental Accounting And Sustainability Reporting 101047667 – EULASTING – ERASMUS-JMO-2021-HEI-TCH-RSCH” (https://bit.ly/3Bbvquw).

This paper investigates whether corporate social responsibility active (CSR active) firms operate dissimilarly from other firms in their financial reporting. Specifically, we examine whether the corporate social responsibility (CSR) attitude of a firm sways its reporting incentives, in respect of the extent of earning management. To test our predictions, we use a sample of 25,861 year-company observations, corresponding to 3538 Chinese listed companies, for the period 2009–2019. We find a significant positive association between CSR activity and earning management assessed by the level of discretionary accruals in Chinese listed companies. Moreover, we document that Chinese CSR active firms engage more in earnings management through discretionary accruals than CSR inactive firms. These findings are consistent with the opportunistic financial reporting hypothesis: advances in CSR used by managers to safeguard their position by evading scrutiny from stakeholder activists. This study contributes to the growing awareness among investors, stakeholders and researchers that we should distinguish between CSR active firms and socially responsible firms and that being the latter entail something more than just mechanically produce CSR reports.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the effect of financial performance on textual features of the CEO’s statement. Specifically, given the incentives of poorly performed companies engage in impression management, the study investigates whether companies’ reporting strategy hinges on its financial performance. The research questions are tested through analysis of a variety of textual features in the CEO’s statement of 30 good and 30 poor performed companies listed on NASDAQ OMX Stockholm. We apply a range of textual characteristics drawn mostly from prior studies in given realm to the specific research of impression management in the CEO’s report. Overall our findings do not corroborate impression management claim, as six out of seven our results run counter to assertions made by impression management research. We found although evidence that poorly performed companies more focused on future compared with good performed companies. Finally, we conclude by discussing our results and outlining some avenues for further research.

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