IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v48y2024i3p374-400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consequences of sustainability reporting mandates: evidence from the EU taxonomy regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Katrin Hummel
  • Karina Bauernhofer

Abstract

This paper analyses the consequences of the EU Taxonomy Regulation which provides a classification system for sustainable economic activities and requires firms to disclose their activities according to this system. We examined the taxonomy-related disclosures of 45 Austrian nonfinancial companies for the first reporting year 2021 and conducted 19 semi-structured interviews with representatives of four groups of stakeholders: companies subject to the EU Taxonomy Regulation, financial companies, auditing companies, and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). We structured our data around three topics: (i) consequences on reporting, (ii) capital-market consequences, and (iii) consequences on corporate actions and firms’ outcomes. Our results suggest that for the first reporting year, firms respond to the reporting mandate in an endeavour to comply; firms disclose the required key performance indicators (KPIs) but lack the necessary reporting infrastructure to provide detailed information. Regarding capital-market consequences, all interviewees emphasised the usefulness of clearly defined KPIs and the important role of lenders, expecting banks to integrate the taxonomy-related information in their financing decisions. Regarding corporate actions and firms’ outcomes, we found that the implementation of the EU Taxonomy Regulation has triggered internal discussions on companies’ strategic positioning with respect to sustainability and a race to the top among firms. HIGHLIGHTSWe examine the consequences of the EU Taxonomy Regulation on firms' reporting, capital-market effects and corporate actions and firms' outcomes.We describe firms' reporting response in the first year of the new reporting mandate as an endeavour to comply.Regarding capital-market consequences, all stakeholders highlighted the usefulness of clearly defined KPIs and the important role of lenders.Regarding changes in corporate actions, companies have experienced internal discussions on their sustainability-related strategic positioning and a stronger competitive thinking in response to the implemementation of the new reporting requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Katrin Hummel & Karina Bauernhofer, 2024. "Consequences of sustainability reporting mandates: evidence from the EU taxonomy regulation," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 374-400, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:48:y:2024:i:3:p:374-400
    DOI: 10.1080/01559982.2024.2301854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01559982.2024.2301854
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01559982.2024.2301854?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. Sandra Chrzan & Christiane Pott, 2024. "Limiting environmental reporting flexibility: investor judgment based on the EU taxonomy," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 63(4), pages 1511-1548, November.
    2. Ali Asghar Bataleblu & Erwin Rauch & David S. Cochran, 2024. "Resilient Sustainability Assessment Framework from a Transdisciplinary System-of-Systems Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-19, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:accfor:v:48:y:2024:i:3:p:374-400. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    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.