A bibliometric analysis of the impact of theoretical frameworks on EU Directives: The case of sustainability reporting and non-financial reporting

• Authors: Mysaka Hanna , Derun Ivan

Title variants

PL

Bibliometryczna analiza wpływu ram teoretycznych na dyrektywy UE: przypadek sprawozdawczości zrównoważonego rozwoju i sprawozdawczości niefinansowej

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: The paper aims to demonstrate that the sustainability reporting (SR) theoretical framework dominates over the non-financial reporting (NFR) theoretical framework in the transformation of the European Union's (EU) regulatory system of corporate reporting (CR). Methodology/approach: We apply bibliometric analysis and keyword clustering to samples of 88 articles on SR and 14 articles on NFR that were indexed in SCOPUS between 2000 and 2023. Based on these samples, we determine development trends of SR and NFR research domains were the basis for official implementation. Findings: We demonstrate that the SR theoretical framework dominates over the NFR theoretical framework in terms of quantitative and qualitative parameters despite NFR's official status in the EU. Since the NFR theoretical framework was underdeveloped, it hurt the legal mechanism for reporting practice. The EU's transformation of the regulatory system of CR corresponds to the direction of development of this area in favor of SR. Research limitations/implications: Ignoring the levels of development of SR and NFR theoretical frameworks could lead to the collapse of the official doctrine of NFR in the EU. Originality/value: This study is the first to compare bibliometric characteristics of SR and NFR publications to determine the use of SR and NFR theoretical frameworks for implementing CR in the form of EU Directives.

PL

Cel: Celem artykułu jest wykazanie, że teoretyczne ramy sprawozdawczości zrównoważonego rozwoju (SR) dominują nad teoretycznymi ramami sprawozdawczości niefinansowej (NFR) w transformacji systemu regulacyjnego sprawozdawczości korporacyjnej (CR) w Unii Europejskiej (UE). Metodyka/podejście badawcze: Zastosowano metody analizy bibliometrycznej i grupowania słów kluczowych do zbiorów 88 i 14 artykułów dotyczących odpowiednio SR i NFR, indeksowanych w SCOPUS w latach 2000–2023. Biorąc pod uwagę te zbiory, określono trendy rozwojowe domen badawczych SR i NFR jako podstawę do oficjalnego wdrożenia. Wyniki: Potwierdzono, że ramy teoretyczne SR dominują nad ramami teoretycznymi NFR pod względem parametrów ilościowych i jakościowych, pomimo oficjalnego statusu NFR w UE. Ponieważ ramy teoretyczne NFR były słabo rozwinięte, zaszkodziło to mechanizmowi prawnemu dla praktyki raportowania. Obecna transformacja systemu regulacyjnego CR przez UE odpowiada kierunkowi rozwoju tego obszaru na korzyść SR. Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: Ignorowanie poziomu rozwoju teoretycznych ram SR i NFR może doprowadzić do upadku oficjalnej doktryny NFR w UE. Oryginalność/wartość: Niniejsze badanie jest pierwszym, w którym porównano charakterystykę bibliometryczną publikacji SR i NFR, aby określić przydatność ram teoretycznych SR i NFR do wdrażania CR w formie dyrektyw UE.

Keywords

EN

bibliometric analysis; CSRD; NFRD; non-financial reporting; sustainability reporting

PL

analiza bibliometryczna; CSRD; NFRD; raportowanie niefinansowe; raportowanie zrównoważonego rozwoju

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2024
• Issue: 48(4)
• Pages: 75-96

Contributors

author

Mysaka Hanna

• Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Faculty of Economics, Ukraine

author

Derun Ivan

• Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Faculty of Economics, Ukraine

References

• Ahunov H. (2023), Non-financial reporting in hybrid organizations – A systematic literature review, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 31 (6), pp. 1757–1797; https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2022-1558.
• Amran A., Haniffa R. (2011), Evidence in development of sustainability reporting: A case of a developing country, “Business Strategy and the Environment”, 20 (3), pp. 141–156; https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.672.
• Bellucci M., Simoni L., Acuti D., Manetti G. (2019), Stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting: Empirical evidence in sustainability reporting, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 32 (5), pp. 1467–1499; https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2017-3158.
• Benameur K.B., Mostafa M.M., Hassanein A., Shariff M.Z., Al-Shattarat W. (2023), Sustainability reporting scholarly research: A bibliometric review and a future research agenda, “Management Review Quarterly”, pp. 1–44; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00319-7.
• Bosi M.K., Lajuni N., Wellfren A.C., Lim T.S. (2022), Sustainability reporting through environmental, social, and governance: A bibliometric review, “Sustainability”, 14 (19), 12071; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912071.
• Brennan N.M., Solomon J. (2008), Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: An overview, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 21 (7), pp. 885–906; https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810907401.
• Buallay A., Al-Ajmi J. (2020), The role of audit committee attributes in corporate sustainability reporting: Evidence from banks in the Gulf Cooperation Council, “Journal of Applied Accounting Research”, 21 (2), pp. 249–264; https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2018-0085.
• Busco C., Giovannoni E., Granà F., Izzo M.F. (2018), Making sustainability meaningful: Aspirations, discourses and reporting practices, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 31 (8), pp. 2218–2246; https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2017-2917.
• Christensen H. B., Hail L., Leuz C. (2021), Mandatory SR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review, “Review of Accounting Studies”, 26 (3), pp. 1176–1248; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5.
• Cooper I.D. (2015), Bibliometrics basics, “Journal of the Medical Library Association”, 103 (4), pp. 217–218; https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.013.
• Cortez M.A.A. (2012), The Japanese multinational enterprise influence on sustainability reporting practices of Philippine subsidiaries: A theoretical review, “DLSU Business & Economics Review”, 21 (2), pp. 37–46.
• Crous C., Battisti E., Leonidou E. (2022), Non-financial reporting and company financial performance: a systematic literature review and integrated framework, “EuroMed Journal of Business”, 17 (4), pp. 652–676; https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-12-2020-0134.
• De Micco P., Rinaldi L., Vitale G., Cupertino S., Maraghini M.P. (2021), The challenges of sustainability reporting and their management: The case of Estra, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 29 (3), pp. 430–448; https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-09-2019-0555.
• De Villiers C., Sharma U. (2020), A critical reflection on the future of financial, intellectual capital, sustainability and integrated reporting, “Critical Perspectives on Accounting”, 70, 101999; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.05.003.
• Di Vaio A., Palladino R., Hassan R., Alvino F. (2020), Human resources disclosure in the EU Directive 2014/95/EU perspective: A systematic literature review, “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 257, 120509; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120509.
• Dimes R., Molinari M. (2023), Non-financial reporting and corporate governance: A conceptual framework, “Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal”, 15 (5), pp. 1067–1093; https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2022-0212.
• Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups.
• Directive 2022/2464/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting.
• Diwan H., Amarayil Sreeraman B. (2023), From financial reporting to ESG reporting: A bibliometric analysis of the evolution in corporate sustainability disclosures, “Environment, Development and Sustainability”, pp. 1–37; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03249-2.
• Dumitru M., Dyduch J., Gușe R.G., Krasodomska J. (2017), Corporate reporting practices in Poland and Romania – An ex-ante study to the new non-financial reporting European directive, “Accounting in Europe”, 14 (3), pp. 279–304; https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2017.1378427.
• Eccles R.G., Krzus M.P. (2010), One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
• Effah N.A.A., Wang Q., Owusu G.M.Y., Otchere O.A.S., Owusu B. (2023), Contributions toward sustainable development: A bibliometric analysis of sustainability reporting research, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”, 30 (1), pp. 104–126; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24010-8.
• Fiandrino S., Tonelli, A. (2021), A text-mining analysis on the review of the non-financial reporting directive: Bringing value creation for stakeholders into accounting, “Sustainability”, 13 (2), 763; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020763.
• Gray R. (2006), Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 19 (6), pp. 793–819; https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570610709872.
• Grueso-Gala M., Zornoza C.C. (2022), A bibliometric analysis of the literature on non-financial information reporting: Review of the research and network visualization, “Cuadernos de Gestión”, 22 (1), pp. 175–192; https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.211545mg.
• Hyk V., Vysochan O., Vysochan O. (2023), Sustainability reporting trends: A systematic literature network analysis, “Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe”, 26 (2), pp. 7–31; https://doi.org/10.18778/1508-2008.26.10.
• Lai A., Stacchezzini R. (2021), Organisational and professional challenges amid the evolution of sustainability reporting: A theoretical framework and an agenda for future research, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 29 (3), pp. 405–429; https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2021-1199.
• Laine M. (2021), Methodological openness, theoretical diversity and societal relevance. A review of Jeffrey Unermanʼs contributions to the corporate sustainability reporting research, “Social and Environmental Accountability Journal”, 41 (3), pp. 208–218; https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.1986089.
• Li H., Arslan H.M., Mousa G.A., Bilal Abbas A., Dwyer R.J. (2023), Exploring sustainability disclosures in family firms: A bibliometric analysis, “Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja” 36 (3), 2188238; https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2023.2188238.
• Manes-Rossi F., Nicolò G., Argento D. (2020), Non-financial reporting formats in public sector organizations: A structured literature review, “Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management”, 32 (4), pp. 639–669; https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-03-2020-0037.
• Manetti G., Bellucci M. (2016), The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 29 (6), pp. 985–1011; https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2014-1797.
• Maroun W. (2015), Culture, profitability, non-financial reporting and a meta-analysis: Comments and observations, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 23 (3), pp. 322–330; https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-04-2015-0020.
• Mongeon P., Paul-Hus A. (2016), The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis, “Scientometrics”, 106 (1); pp. 213–228; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
• Mustafa Khan N. J., Mohd Ali H. (2023), Regulations on non-financial disclosure in corporate reporting: A thematic review, “Sustainability”, 15 (3), 2793; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032793.
• Nyantakyi G., Atta Sarpong F., Adu Sarfo P., Uchenwoke Ogochukwu N., Coleman W. (2023), A boost for performance or a sense of corporate social responsibility? A bibliometric analysis on sustainability reporting and firm performance research (2000-2022), “Cogent Business & Management”, 10 (2), 2220513; https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2220513.
• Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D. [show all] Moher D. (2021), The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews, “International Journal of Surgery”, 88, 105906; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906.
• Pao M. L. (1985), Lotkaʼs law: A testing procedure, “Information processing & Management”, 21 (4), pp. 305–320; https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(85)90055-X.
• Pasko O., Chen F., Oriekhova A., Brychko A., Shalyhina I. (2021), Mapping the literature on sustainability reporting: A bibliometric analysis grounded in Scopus and Web of Science core collection, “European Journal of Sustainable Development”, 10 (1), pp. 303–303; https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2021.v10n1p303.
• Prashar A. (2023), Moderating effects on sustainability reporting and firm performance relationships: A meta-analytical review, “International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management”, 72 (4), pp. 1154–1181; https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2021-0183.
• Raman R., Nair V. K., Shivdas A., Bhukya R., Viswanathan P.K., Subramaniam N., Nedungadi P. (2023), Mapping sustainability reporting research with the UN’s sustainable development goal, “Heliyon”, 9 (8), e18510; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18510.
• Rezaee Z. (2016), Business sustainability research: A theoretical and integrated perspective, “Journal of Accounting Literature”, 36 (1), pp. 48–64; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2016.05.003.
• Rom A., Rohde C. (2007), Management accounting and integrated information systems: A literature review, “International Journal of Accounting Information Systems”, 8 (1), pp. 40–68; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2006.12.003.
• Saini N., Singhania M., Hasan M., Yadav M.P., Abedin M.Z. (2022), Non-financial disclosures and sustainable development: A scientometric analysis, “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 381, 135173; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135173.
• Schreck P., Raithel S. (2018), Corporate social performance, firm size, and organizational visibility: Distinct and joint effects on voluntary sustainability reporting, “Business & Society”, 57 (4), pp. 742–778; https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315613120.
• Sharfman M.P., Fernando C.S. (2008), Environmental risk management and the cost of capital, “Strategic Management Journal”, 29 (6), pp. 569–592; https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.678.
• Simnett R., Vanstraelen A., Chua W.F. (2009), Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison, “The Accounting Review”, 84 (3), pp. 937–967; https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937.
• Small H. (1973), Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents, “Journal American Society for Information Sciences”, 24; pp. 265–269, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406.
• Ştefănescu C.A., Tiron-Tudor A., Moise E.M. (2021), EU non-financial reporting research – Insights, gaps, patterns and future agenda, “Journal of Business Economics and Management”, 22 (1), pp. 257–276; https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13479.
• Turzo T., Marzi G., Favino C., Terzani S. (2022), Non-financial reporting research and practice: Lessons from the last decade, “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 345, 131154; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131154.
• Vormedal I., Ruud, A. (2009), Sustainability reporting in Norway – An assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio-political drivers, “Business Strategy and the Environment”, 18 (4), pp. 207–222; https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.560.
• Wagner M. (2010), The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects, “Ecological Economics”, 69 (7), pp. 1553–1560; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.017.
• Wallage P. (2000), Assurance on sustainability reporting: An auditor’s view, “Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory”, 19 (s-1), pp. 53–65; https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2000.19.s-1.53.
• PRISMA (2020), PRISMA 2020 Checklist, http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_checklist.pdf (access 12.12.2023).
• Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. (2022), VOSviewer manual: Manual for VOSviewer version 1.6.18, https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.18.pdf (access 17.10.2023).