(1) Background: As digital technologies become integral to business operations, risks associated with artificial intelligence (AI), data governance, and cybersecurity are emerging as material concerns in the context of corporate sustainability. This article examines the extent to which current sustainability reporting standards (CSRD/ESRS, GRI, ISSB, and SASB) address risks associated with AI and broader digital transitions. (2) Methods: This study employs a qualitative content analysis of twenty corporate sustainability reports across digitally intensive sectors, complemented by a doctrinal legal analysis of the relevant normative instruments governing sustainability and digital risk reporting. (3) Results: This study finds that while references to AI risks are increasingly present, they often lack depth, standardisation, and connection to legal accountability mechanisms. Key gaps include underreporting human rights impacts linked to algorithmic decision-making and limited disclosure on internal AI governance structures. (4) Conclusions: The article argues that to uphold the principles of transparency, due diligence, and stakeholder accountability, sustainability reporting frameworks must evolve to capture the risks associated with AI transitions explicitly. The findings call for regulatory and standard-setting bodies to establish more explicit guidance on AI risk disclosures, and for corporate directors to integrate these dimensions into their risk governance and reporting duties.

V zadnjih letih so EU in nacionalni organi sprejeli zakonodajo o trajnosti z namenom povečanja trajnostnega vedenja med gospodarskimi družbami, zaščite narave in varovanja ljudi. Z uveljavitvijo predpisov, kot so Direktiva o poročanju o trajnostnosti podjetij (CSRD), Uredba o razkritjih na področju trajnostnega financiranja (SFDR) in Uredba o taksonomiji, so deležniki v gospodarstvu vse bolj prisiljeni sprejemati trajnostno miselnost in jo vključevati v svoje poslovanje. Ta integracija vpliva in oblikuje korporativno upravljanje ter preoblikuje njihove poslovne modele. Pričakuje se, da se bodo z uvajanjem trajnostne zakonodaje poslovni modeli vse bolj inovativno spreminjali, da bi vključili in izvajali trajnostna načela v svoje poslovanje in upravljanje. V tem članku želimo preučiti trenutno zakonodajo na področju trajnosti in njen vpliv na poslovne modele. Raziskali bomo, kako ti zakoni oblikujejo poslovno prakso, spodbujajo trajnostni razvoj in vodijo k spremembam v korporativnih strategijah in strukturah upravljanja. V raziskavi bo uporabljena analiza vsebine za analizo poročanja izbranih gospodarskih družb. Ugotovitve raziskave kažejo, da trajnostna zakonodaja vpliva na korporativno upravljanje in spodbuja gospodarske družbe k trajnostnemu razvoju njihovih poslovnih modelov in upravljanja. Zakonodaja na področju trajnosti predstavlja enega ključnih dejavnikov, ki vplivajo na sooblikovanje korporativnega upravljanja in na razvoj inovativnih, trajnostno usmerjenih poslovnih modelov.

In 2014, the EU adopted the NFRD. This directive mandates that certain public limited companies disclose their non-financial performance, including risks associated with environmental, social, human rights, anti-corruption, and anti-bribery policies. By reporting on how they address these risks, companies can enhance their preparedness for the challenges. Although the EU took an important step towards sustainability reporting with the adoption of the NFRD, the revision of the NFRD revealed some shortcomings. Consequently, the CSRD was adopted at the end of 2022 to address such shortcomings. This chapter outlines the legislative framework of the NFRD and CSRD concerning the level of non-financial information reporting and risk mitigation. Furthermore, it reviews how NFRD has been transposed into national law by the following selected countries: Slovenia, Germany, and France. The research results indicate the differences between the national legislations of the selected member countries and which provisions they contain for reducing risks and uncertainty between stakeholders.

Aim: This research paper focuses on the identification and comparison of stakeholder reporting in practice. It covers the recognition of key stakeholders, identification of channels of dialogue, and the integration of stakeholder interests into corporate governance. Methodology: A content analysis methodology has been used to conduct research on stakeholder reporting by selected companies. Based on the research results, a comparative analysis has been carried out to examine which ESG reporting areas contain the most detailed stakeholder-related disclosures and to what extent companies include the interests of their key stakeholders in their corporate governance. Findings: Based on the research results, it can be concluded that companies include the interests of key stakeholders in the process of sustainable management and corporate governance. The inclusion of key stakeholders is particularly evident in terms of their identification, the gathering of information, and the formation of groups of key activities relevant to the company. Value: The main value of this research paper lies in gaining additional insights into the inclusion of key stakeholders in corporate governance and sustainability reporting in practice. It provides further understanding of the areas related to key stakeholder engagement and offers potential recommendations for the continued inclusion of stakeholders.

Aim: The research paper focuses on the analysis of sustainability regulation and its impact on corporate sustainability reporting in practice. In particular, it examines in detail the extent to which the CSRD influences corporate sustainability reporting in practice and the impact that the upcoming Omnibus regulation will have on corporate sustainability reporting. Methodology: To analyze the level of sustainability reporting in practice, multiple case studies will be conducted based on selected companies, using the content analysis method. Findings: The research results indicate that companies report sustainability information in line with the requirements set by the CSRD. It is observable that the most detailed reporting is found in the social domain. Based on the research findings, it can be concluded that the existing NFRD and CSRD have influenced the level of sustainability reporting in practice. With the upcoming Omnibus regulation, which is expected to ease reporting requirements in practice, an impact on sustainability reporting is anticipated. Value: The main value of this research paper lies in the investigation of the impact of sustainability reporting legislation on sustainability reporting in practice. More specifically, the research examines the upcoming CSRD and the Omnibus regulation, analyzing how legislation influence is reported.

Governance innovation is widely assumed to depend on demonstrable board-level competence, yet how firms construct and justify such claims in corporate reporting remains under-examined. This exploratory study examines how selected listed companies assert that their management and supervisory bodies possess expertise in environmental and digital matters and whether this expertise is presented as integrated or separate. Using qualitative content analysis informed by a legitimation-strategy framework, we examine governance disclosures and board-competence matrices in the 2024 reports of twenty companies across Germany, Slovenia, France and Spain. German and Slovenian companies operate two-tier boards and the French and Spanish companies one-tier boards, so board structure coincides with country grouping. Competence claims are coded for attribution, legitimating warrant, connection to governance practice, and digital–environmental integration. Attribution is collective in the sampled two-tier boards and mainly individualised in the sampled one-tier boards. Competence is legitimated predominantly through appeals to authority and is rarely linked to governance practice. Among the companies with verifiable disclosures, none presented digital and environmental competence as an integrated capability. We interpret this as a disclosure-level combinative-capability gap. Companies possess a language for individual competences but lack a disclosure grammar for explaining how these competences are combined.