This paper presents the case for the sustainability reporting field as a contested arena and examines the behavior and the influence of the various actors, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), and the European Commission, including the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation in influencing the shape of the regulation in the arena. Drawing on the arena concept and documentary analysis, this study explores the dynamic in which each actor is attempting to change the rules within the arena and how this contributes to the harmonization and future direction of sustainability reporting. The findings of this study show that the actions and behavior of the various actors are premeditated and strategically calculated to maintain their influence, relevance, and defend their technical authority in the arena. The findings also suggest that sustainability reporting regulation is still far away from harmonization due to the perceived hegemony in the arena, and diversity in the overarching objective of the various actors and the inability of each actor to renounce its particular perspective and orientation. Insights are provided for policy makers on the urgent need to decide and reclassify the specific rules required in upholding the sustainability reporting arena.

Purpose: The authors explore the behaviour and perspectives of SMEs' owners towards a greener economy and its implications for net zero carbon emissions target.Design/methodology/approach: The authors draw on the mirroring concept and 26 semi-structured interviews with SMEs' owners and managers to provide insights and explore the misalignment between SMEs' actions and perceptions and the technical architecture (and requirements) of achieving net zero carbon emissions in the UK.Findings: The authors find that SMEs lack trust and are sceptical about the government's net zero emissions agenda. The authors also find that lack of understanding and perceived benefits, and supply chain complexities (end-to-end emissions) are the key factors hindering SMEs interests in engaging with better carbon emissions management and environmental management system (EMS). Moreover, pressure from external stakeholders, particularly banks and customers, is a strong driver to draw SMEs more effectively with sustainability and environmental impact disclosure.Research limitations/implications: The sample is limited to 26 SMEs' owners operating in seven industries. Future research could explore the result in other industries. Further research could also investigate how the sustainability reports produced by SMEs are useful for different user groups' decision-making. This study reinforces the social constructionist approach to advance our understanding of SMEs' actions towards carbon emission management and EMS.Practical implications: This study shows how government policies and SMEs' interests can be aligned to achieve the net zero carbon emissions target.Originality/value: This is the first study to examine the perceptions and behaviour of SMEs towards the ongoing pursuit of a greener economy in the UK, including the key factors driving their actions and reasoning.

Large multi-national corporations commonly comprise many separate legal entities, which commonly also present a complexity of intragroup relationships. The related accounting requirements offered through the International Accounting Standards Board standards are equally complicated, resulting in financial statements for an artificial "group" which provide little transparency into the workings or risks of individual legal entities within that construct. This chapter utilizes various investigative mechanisms to question the utility of group accounting. Our approach includes empirical scrutiny of some recent large group annual reports, along with three deeper case studies of recent corporate failings and collapses. Our results suggest a range of common non-compliances and deficiencies in group-related accounting standards, which collectively reflect and enable evasion of effective accountability. Key deficiencies identified include allowing risks and critical transactions to be hidden within highly aggregated disclosures and allowing for limited disclosures of related party transactions and goodwill impairment. We call on accounting standard setters, regulators, academics and financial statement users to engage meaningfully with both the technical and political challenges reflected in these deficiencies.