Peer-reviewed articles 17,970 +


Title: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE EFFECTIVE ?? TRENDS IN SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN NEW ZEALAND LISTED COMPANIES
THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE EFFECTIVE ?? TRENDS IN SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN NEW ZEALAND LISTED COMPANIES

PlumX Article Metrics by Elsevier
Michaela Balzarova; Kathryn Bell
10.5593/sgem2023V/4.2/s19.40
10.5593/sgem2023v/4.2
1314-2704
978-619-7603-65-1
English
23
4.2
•    Prof. DSc. Oleksandr Trofymchuk, UKRAINE 
•    Prof. Dr. hab. oec. Baiba Rivza, LATVIA
Air Pollution and Climate Change
This paper examines sustainability reporting trends of 50 NZX-listed companies, focusing on their effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. As sustainability reporting remains largely voluntary, unregulated, and inconsistent, this study investigates the current status quo in ESG/sustainability reporting in New Zealand. As a result, it provides managerial advice on what currently constitutes effective sustainability reporting. This paper of qualitative nature explores reporting practices across five key criteria: report type, adopted reporting frameworks, type of adopted governance within an organisation, type of adopted assurance and trends in social disclosures. The findings point to improvements in the quality of sustainability reporting in New Zealand, however, find that most organisations fall short of international standards. The study underscores the necessity for a balanced disclosure of material issues, suggesting the adoption of the GRI and integrated reporting frameworks need to deliver a comprehensive picture of a company's value creation. Additionally, it offers key recommendations for making sustainability reporting more meaningful. This includes disclosure of both positive and negative impacts, data sources, methodologies, and key assumptions used. Furthermore, it identifies the importance of stakeholder engagement to assess and address organisational material impacts, the necessity to adopt clear measurable sustainability goals, and the use of third-party verification for the enhanced reports’ credibility.
[1] W. C. Adams, “Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews,” in Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015, pp. 492–505. doi: 10.1002/9781119171386.ch19.
[2] M. Montecalvo, F. Farneti, and C. de Villiers, “The potential of integrated reporting to enhance sustainability reporting in the public sector,” Public Money & Management, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 365– 374, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1080/09540962.2018.1477675.
[3] R. Hahn and M. Kuhnen, “Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 59, pp. 5–21, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005.
[4] R. G. Eccles and M. P. Krzus, One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[5] S. Jorgensen, A. Mjos, and L. J. T. Pedersen, “Sustainability reporting and approaches to materiality: tensions and potential resolutions,” Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 341–361, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-01-2021-0009.
[6] O. Boiral and I. Heras-Saizarbitoria, “Sustainability reporting assurance: Creating stakeholder accountability through hyperreality?,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 243, p. 118596, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118596.
[7] “Corporate Sustainability Performance and Assurance on Sustainability Reports: Diffusion of Accounting Practices in the Realm of Sustainable Development - Braam - 2018 - Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management - Wiley Online Library.” Accessed: Nov. 10, 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/csr.1447
[8] K. Furlotti, T. Mazza, V. Tibiletti, and S. Triani, “Women in top positions on boards of directors: Gender policies disclosed in Italian sustainability reporting,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 57–70, 2019, doi: 10.1002/csr.1657.
[9] A. Cardoni, E. Kiseleva, and S. Terzani, “Evaluating the Intra-Industry Comparability of Sustainability Reports: The Case of the Oil and Gas Industry,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 4, Art. no. 4, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11041093.
[10] M. Hossain, Md. T. Islam, M. A. Momin, S. Nahar, and Md. S. Alam, “Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT),” in Business and the Ethical Implications of Technology, K. Martin, K. Shilton, and J. Smith, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022, pp. 257–280. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-18794-0_14.
[11] Universiti Utara Malaysia, N. Rahim, N. Omar, and Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kedah, “Online Communication and Sustainability Reporting: The Managerial Issues,” JKMJC, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 231–249, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.17576/JKMJC-2017-3303-14.
[12] A. Calabrese, R. Costa, N. L. Ghiron, and T. Menichini, “Materiality Analysis in Sustainability Reporting: A Method for Making it Work in Practice,” European Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2017.v6n3p439.
[13] M. Guix, M. J. Bonilla-Priego, and X. Font, “The process of sustainability reporting in international hotel groups: an analysis of stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality and responsiveness,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1063–1084, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2017.1410164.
[14] “Materiality Assessment Is an Art, Not a Science: Selecting ESG Topics for Sustainability Reports - Jilde Garst, Karen Maas, Jeroen Suijs, 2022.” Accessed: Nov. 10, 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00081256221120692
[15] D. Meech and T. Bayliss, “International developments in sustainability reporting,” Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand), Report, Jun. 2021. Accessed: Nov. 10, 2023.
[Online]. Available: https://apo.org.au/node/312998
[16] A. Nilipour, T.-A. D. Silva, and X. Li, “The Readability of Sustainability Reporting in New Zealand over time,” Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 86–107, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.14453/aabfj.v14i3.7.
[17] M. Momin and S. Chong, “An analysis of the use of visual elements in workplace diversity disclosure,” Pacific Accounting Review, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 336–363, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1108/PAR- 06-2022-0089.
[18] M. B. Farooq and C. de Villiers, “Understanding how managers institutionalise sustainability reporting: Evidence from Australia and New Zealand,” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1240–1269, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-06-2017-2958.
[19] H. Al-Shaer and M. Zaman, “CEO Compensation and Sustainability Reporting Assurance: Evidence from the UK,” J Bus Ethics, vol. 158, no. 1, pp. 233–252, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10551-017- 3735-8.
[20] P.-C. K. Hsiao, T. Scott, and Z. Zang, “A snapshot of sustainability assurance market in New Zealand,” Pacific Accounting Review, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 669–686, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1108/PAR-08- 2021-0142.
[21] H. Hartikainen, M. Jarvenpaa, and A. Rautiainen, “Sustainability in executive remuneration - A missing link towards more sustainable firms?,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 324, p. 129224, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129224.
[22] C. Santos, A. Coelho, and A. Marques, “The greenwashing effects on corporate reputation and brand hate, through environmental performance and green perceived risk,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, vol. ahead-of-print, no. ahead-of-print, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1108/APJBA-05- 2022-0216.
[23] G. Mion and C. R. Loza Adaui, “Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure and Its Consequences on the Sustainability Reporting Quality of Italian and German Companies,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 17, Art. no. 17, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11174612.
[24] C. Higgins, S. Tang, and W. Stubbs, “On managing hypocrisy: The transparency of sustainability reports,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 114, pp. 395–407, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.041.
conference
https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2023V/4.2/s19.40
Download PDF
Proceedings of 23rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2023
23rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2023, 28-30 November, 2023
Proceedings Paper
STEF92 Technology
International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference-SGEM
SWS Scholarly Society; Acad Sci Czech Republ; Latvian Acad Sci; Polish Acad Sci; Russian Acad Sci; Serbian Acad Sci and Arts; Natl Acad Sci Ukraine; Natl Acad Sci Armenia; Sci Council Japan; European Acad Sci, Arts and Letters; Acad Fine Arts Zagreb Croatia; Croatian Acad Sci and Arts; Acad Sci Moldova; Montenegrin Acad Sci and Arts; Georgian Acad Sci; Acad Fine Arts and Design Bratislava; Russian Acad Arts; Turkish Acad Sci.
329-336
28-30 November, 2023
website
9466
ESG reporting, sustainability reporting, New Zealand