IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/medarp/medar-08-2019-0540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mandatory vs voluntary exercise on non-financial reporting: does a normative/coercive isomorphism facilitate an increase in quality?

Author

Listed:
  • Jonida Carungu
  • Roberto Di Pietra
  • Matteo Molinari

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims at investigating the quality of non-financial reporting (NFR) in light of Directive no. 2014/95/EU. Specifically, it focuses on the quality of NFR in Italian companies, as required by Legislative Decree no. 254/2016. Design/methodology/approach - The method used to develop the analysis is mainly qualitative. A content analysis of 184 non-financial reports (NFRs) was conducted on a sample of 92 companies that have been previously involved in the process of NFR on a voluntary basis. Then, a longitudinal analysis was carried out to assess the quality of the NFR conducted from a voluntary to a mandatory basis. Findings - This study shows that the quality of NFR does not increase when moving from a voluntary to a mandatory basis, especially for 25% of the companies that publish supplementary sustainability reports and/or plans. This result demonstrates that preparers may perceive mandatory NFR as a comprehensive best practice to adequately report their social, economic and environmental performance. Originality/value - The contribution of this research is threefold. Firstly, it contributes to the social and environmental accounting literature that focuses on NFR quality assessment. Secondly, it contributes to the literature that emphasizes the role of mimetic, coercive and normative isomorphism mechanisms on accounting systems and reporting practices. Thirdly, it contributes to the research gaps for academics highlighted by previous literature on mandatory corporate reporting as a consequence of normative requirements and on the relationship between regulation and mimetic, coercive and normative isomorphic mechanisms within organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonida Carungu & Roberto Di Pietra & Matteo Molinari, 2020. "Mandatory vs voluntary exercise on non-financial reporting: does a normative/coercive isomorphism facilitate an increase in quality?," Meditari Accountancy Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 29(3), pages 449-476, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:medarp:medar-08-2019-0540
    DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-08-2019-0540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2019-0540/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2019-0540/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2019-0540?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miguel Pombinho & Ana Fialho & Jorge Novas, 2023. "Readability of Sustainability Reports: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Matteo Pozzoli & Raffaela Nastari & Sabrina Pisano & Marco Venuti, 2023. "How Circular Economy Disclosure Responds to Institutional Determinants Empirical Evidences in Non-Financial European Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-20, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:medarp:medar-08-2019-0540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.