消除可持续性报告中的可比性概念

IF 5.2 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Blerita Korca, Ericka Costa, Lies Bouten
{"title":"消除可持续性报告中的可比性概念","authors":"Blerita Korca, Ericka Costa, Lies Bouten","doi":"10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nAs the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nTo inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThis study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR.\n\n\nSocial implications\nBy taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nIn this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.\n","PeriodicalId":22143,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disentangling the concept of comparability in sustainability reporting\",\"authors\":\"Blerita Korca, Ericka Costa, Lies Bouten\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nAs the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nTo inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThis study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nBy taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nIn this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":22143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0284\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-05-2022-0284","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

可比性概念最近在可持续发展报告(SR)领域引起了政策制定者和标准制定者的越来越多的关注,本文旨在在此背景下提供这一概念的反思性观点。设计/方法/方法为了阐明作者的观点并将可比性概念分解为不同的方面,作者回顾了政策制定者和标准制定者(包括全球报告倡议)的可比性原则,以及该领域的相关研究。为了深入了解可接近的可比性方面的不同方法,作者使用了多角度反射实践,并关注报告可以服务的多种目的。为了从经验上激发作者对这些方面的反思,作者分析了两家意大利银行在三年内的可持续性披露。本研究揭示了三个方面为扩展可比性概念在社会关系领域的意义理解提供了有价值的起点。这些方面是重要性和可比性,基准/监测和可比性,操作性和可比性。实践意义本研究旨在引出政策制定者和标准制定者对可比性原则在社会责任中的作用及其复杂性的思考。社会意义作者通过批判性和反思性的方法,鼓励政策制定者和标准制定者重新考虑可比性原则,从而有效地嵌入社会责任问责的目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disentangling the concept of comparability in sustainability reporting
Purpose As the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context. Design/methodology/approach To inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years. Findings This study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability. Practical implications This study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR. Social implications By taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR. Originality/value In this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.
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
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信