IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v16y2023i10p445-d1260638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Maturity of Sustainable Business Model and Strategy Reporting under the CSRD Shadow

Author

Listed:
  • Niki Glaveli

    (Department of Business Administration, University of the Aegean, 82132 Chios, Greece)

  • Maria Alexiou

    (CSR Hellas, 10679 Athens, Greece)

  • Apostolos Maragos

    (CSR Hellas, 10679 Athens, Greece)

  • Anastasia Daskalopoulou

    (Department of Business Administration, University of the Aegean, 82132 Chios, Greece)

  • Viktoria Voulgari

    (Department of Business Administration, University of the Aegean, 82132 Chios, Greece)

Abstract

The present work is amongst the few that attempt to critically assess the maturity of Business Model (BM) and strategy disclosures of listed firms under the shadow of the new EU reporting directive, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The novel Practices Evaluation Approach (PEA), developed recently by the Project Task Force on Reporting of Non-Financial Risks and Opportunities (PTF-RNFRO), offers the evaluation framework for this assessment. The PEA delineates and evaluates the maturity of BM and strategy disclosures against qualitative characteristics and content elements drawn from well-accepted, financial and non-financial, reporting frameworks, standards and directives (including the CSRD). Therefore, the PEA provides the advantage of a contemporary and integrated/holistic assessment tool. Specifically, the following seven evaluation criteria are used for the assessment: clarity and comprehensiveness of the overall BM, strategy disclosure, disclosure of the BM’s potential across-time horizons and its dependencies, impacts on sustainability issues, material sustainability issues that are likely to affect the company’s performance, the BM’s exposure to sustainability risks and sustainability opportunities, and sustainability strategy, targets, KPIs and their monitoring and progress. The analysis covered 30 CSR/sustainability reports and connected documents of listed companies operating in 6 key sectors of the Greek economy, i.e., information technology, construction, tourism and transportation, cosmetics, banking and energy. The results of our analysis offer evidence that BM reporting is not holistically developed (i.e., critical components are missing), and the level of development varies across the examined sectors. Moreover, sustainability risks are more stressed, in relevance to opportunities, whilst positive (rather than negative) impacts are mainly disclosed. Also, the quantification of sustainability risks and opportunities does not appear frequently, whilst the interconnections between sustainability strategy and companies’ financial objectives is relatively restricted. The paper concludes by pointing out some critical hints useful for enhancing the maturity of BM and strategy disclosures.

Suggested Citation

  • Niki Glaveli & Maria Alexiou & Apostolos Maragos & Anastasia Daskalopoulou & Viktoria Voulgari, 2023. "Assessing the Maturity of Sustainable Business Model and Strategy Reporting under the CSRD Shadow," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:10:p:445-:d:1260638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/10/445/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/10/445/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aneetha Sukhari & Charl de Villiers, 2019. "The Influence of Integrated Reporting on Business Model and Strategy Disclosures," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 29(4), pages 708-725, December.
    2. Patrizia Di Tullio & Diego Valentinetti & Christian Nielsen & Michele Antonio Rea, 2019. "In search of legitimacy: a semiotic analysis of business model disclosure practices," Meditari Accountancy Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 28(5), pages 863-887, December.
    3. Alessandro Lai & Gaia Melloni & Riccardo Stacchezzini, 2018. "Integrated reporting and narrative accountability: the role of preparers," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(5), pages 1381-1405, May.
    4. repec:eme:aaaj00:aaaj-08-2016-2674 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boguslawa Bek-Gaik & Anna Surowiec, 2022. "The Quality of Business Model Disclosure in Integrated Reporting: Evidence from Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 3-26.
    2. Nuradhi Kalpani Jayasiri & Sriyalatha Kumarasinghe & Rakesh Pandey, 2023. "12 years of integrated reporting: A review of research," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2187-2243, June.
    3. Raimo, Nicola & Zito, Marianna & Caragnano, Alessandra, 2019. "Does national culture affect integrated reporting quality? A focus on GLOBE dimensions," EconStor Conference Papers 199012, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Dimes, Ruth & de Villiers, Charl, 2024. "Hallmarks of Integrated Thinking," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(1).
    5. Silvano Corbella & Cristina Florio & Alice Francesca Sproviero & Riccardo Stacchezzini, 2019. "Integrated reporting and the performativity of intellectual capital," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(2), pages 459-483, June.
    6. Cerbone, Dannielle & Maroun, Warren, 2020. "Materiality in an integrated reporting setting: Insights using an institutional logics framework," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    7. Jannik Gerwanski, 2020. "Does it pay off? Integrated reporting and cost of debt: European evidence," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2299-2319, September.
    8. Filippo Vitolla & Nicola Raimo & Michele Rubino, 2019. "Appreciations, criticisms, determinants, and effects of integrated reporting: A systematic literature review," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 518-528, March.
    9. Walaa Wahid ElKelish*, 2023. "Accounting for Corporate Human Rights: Literature Review and Future Insights," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(2), pages 203-226, June.
    10. Corinne Ollier Bessieux & Emmanuelle Negre & Marie-Anne Verdier, 2022. "Moving from Accounting for People to Accounting with People: A Critical Analysis of the Literature and Avenues for Research," Post-Print hal-03889478, HAL.
    11. Kelli Juliane Favato & Marguit Neumann & Simone Leticia Raimundini Sanches & Manuel Castelo Branco & Daniel Ramos Nogueira, 2021. "Integrated Thinking and Reporting Process: Sensemaking of Internal Actors in the Case of Itaú Unibanco," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Mitali Panchal Arora & Sumit Lodhia & Gerard William Stone, 2022. "Preparers’ perceptions of integrated reporting: a global study of integrated reporting adopters," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1381-1420, April.
    13. Bruce K. Behn & Francesca Rossignoli & Silvano Corbella, 2019. "Beyond financial reporting disclosures," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(2), pages 5-8.
    14. Elisabeth Sinnewe & Troy Yao & Mahbub Zaman, 2021. "Informing or obfuscating stakeholders: Integrated reporting and the information environment," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(8), pages 3893-3906, December.
    15. Amir Hossain & Sudipta Bose & Abul Shamsuddin, 2023. "Diffusion of integrated reporting, insights and potential avenues for future research," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2503-2555, June.
    16. Jannik Gerwanski & Othar Kordsachia & Patrick Velte, 2019. "Determinants of materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting: Empirical evidence from an international setting," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 750-770, July.
    17. Boguslawa Bek-Gaik & Anna Surowiec, 2021. "Forward-looking Disclosures in Integrated Reporting: Evidence from Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4B), pages 952-981.
    18. Achilli, Giulia & Busco, Cristiano & Giovannoni, Elena & Granà, Fabrizio, 2023. "Exploring the craft of visual accounts through arts: Fear, voids and illusion in corporate reporting practices," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    19. Thomas Gutmayer & Dannielle Cerbone & Warren Maroun, 2022. "An Evaluation of Business Model Disclosures in Integrated Reports," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 32(2), pages 220-237, June.
    20. Abdullah Jihad Rabaya & Norman Mohd Saleh, 2022. "The moderating effect of IR framework adoption on the relationship between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure and a firm's competitive advantage," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2037-2055, February.

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:10:p:445-:d:1260638. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.