可持续发展报告法规的制度逻辑和利益相关者立场。来自欧盟公众咨询的见解

IF 12.5 1区管理学 Q1 BUSINESS

Business Strategy and The Environment Pub Date : 2025-06-06 DOI:10.1002/bse.70016

Rodolfo Damiano, Giuseppe Valenza

{"title":"可持续发展报告法规的制度逻辑和利益相关者立场。来自欧盟公众咨询的见解","authors":"Rodolfo Damiano, Giuseppe Valenza","doi":"10.1002/bse.70016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines how market and nonmarket logics influence the European sustainability reporting regulation revision. Drawing on institutional logics, we analyse the consultation that informed the Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD) to Directive 2022/2464/EU (CSRD) shift. We performed correspondence analysis of closed‐ended and close reading of open‐ended responses to explore contrasting stakeholder stances and whether these reflect competing logics. We found that business representatives (organisations and associations) are more conservative than nonbusiness (e.g., NGOs and citizens) on the proposed revisions due to market logics adherence. Furthermore, the CSRD regulatory stance aligns more with progressives, pushing conservatives towards reporting requirements they perceive as risky. This study contributes to the institutional logics and sustainability reporting literature, extending it to the regulation phenomenon. It provides theoretical insights on the competing logics roots of dissatisfaction with regulated sustainability reporting. It advocates for a regulatory design fostering dialogue and helping organisations develop capabilities for effective compliance.","PeriodicalId":9518,"journal":{"name":"Business Strategy and The Environment","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional Logics and Stakeholder Stances on Sustainability Reporting Regulation. Insights From the European Union Public Consultation\",\"authors\":\"Rodolfo Damiano, Giuseppe Valenza\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bse.70016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study examines how market and nonmarket logics influence the European sustainability reporting regulation revision. Drawing on institutional logics, we analyse the consultation that informed the Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD) to Directive 2022/2464/EU (CSRD) shift. We performed correspondence analysis of closed‐ended and close reading of open‐ended responses to explore contrasting stakeholder stances and whether these reflect competing logics. We found that business representatives (organisations and associations) are more conservative than nonbusiness (e.g., NGOs and citizens) on the proposed revisions due to market logics adherence. Furthermore, the CSRD regulatory stance aligns more with progressives, pushing conservatives towards reporting requirements they perceive as risky. This study contributes to the institutional logics and sustainability reporting literature, extending it to the regulation phenomenon. It provides theoretical insights on the competing logics roots of dissatisfaction with regulated sustainability reporting. It advocates for a regulatory design fostering dialogue and helping organisations develop capabilities for effective compliance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Business Strategy and The Environment\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Business Strategy and The Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70016\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Strategy and The Environment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究探讨市场和非市场逻辑如何影响欧洲可持续发展报告法规修订。根据制度逻辑，我们分析了通知指令2014/95/EU （NFRD）向指令2022/2464/EU （CSRD）转变的咨询。我们对封闭式和封闭式回应的细读进行了对应分析，以探索利益相关者的不同立场，以及这些立场是否反映了相互竞争的逻辑。我们发现，由于遵守市场逻辑，企业代表（组织和协会）比非企业代表（如非政府组织和公民）对拟议的修订更为保守。此外，CSRD的监管立场更倾向于进步派，将保守派推向他们认为有风险的报告要求。本研究对制度逻辑和可持续发展报告文献有所贡献，并将其扩展到监管现象。它提供了对受监管的可持续发展报告不满的竞争逻辑根源的理论见解。它倡导一种促进对话的监管设计，并帮助组织发展有效合规的能力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Institutional Logics and Stakeholder Stances on Sustainability Reporting Regulation. Insights From the European Union Public Consultation

This study examines how market and nonmarket logics influence the European sustainability reporting regulation revision. Drawing on institutional logics, we analyse the consultation that informed the Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD) to Directive 2022/2464/EU (CSRD) shift. We performed correspondence analysis of closed‐ended and close reading of open‐ended responses to explore contrasting stakeholder stances and whether these reflect competing logics. We found that business representatives (organisations and associations) are more conservative than nonbusiness (e.g., NGOs and citizens) on the proposed revisions due to market logics adherence. Furthermore, the CSRD regulatory stance aligns more with progressives, pushing conservatives towards reporting requirements they perceive as risky. This study contributes to the institutional logics and sustainability reporting literature, extending it to the regulation phenomenon. It provides theoretical insights on the competing logics roots of dissatisfaction with regulated sustainability reporting. It advocates for a regulatory design fostering dialogue and helping organisations develop capabilities for effective compliance.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Business Strategy and The Environment Multiple-

CiteScore

22.50

自引率

19.40%

发文量

336

期刊介绍： Business Strategy and the Environment (BSE) is a leading academic journal focused on business strategies for improving the natural environment. It publishes peer-reviewed research on various topics such as systems and standards, environmental performance, disclosure, eco-innovation, corporate environmental management tools, organizations and management, supply chains, circular economy, governance, green finance, industry sectors, and responses to climate change and other contemporary environmental issues. The journal aims to provide original contributions that enhance the understanding of sustainability in business. Its target audience includes academics, practitioners, business managers, and consultants. However, BSE does not accept papers on corporate social responsibility (CSR), as this topic is covered by its sibling journal Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. The journal is indexed in several databases and collections such as ABI/INFORM Collection, Agricultural & Environmental Science Database, BIOBASE, Emerald Management Reviews, GeoArchive, Environment Index, GEOBASE, INSPEC, Technology Collection, and Web of Science.