Search results

This study aims to focus on the following research question: Which institutional characteristics are associated with sustainability reporting by UK higher education institutions?

To answer the aforementioned research question, this study uses logistic regression.

The results show that 17 per cent of the UK higher education institutions report on their sustainability (July 2014). In line with legitimacy and stakeholder theory, logistic regressions provide evidence that the larger the size of the institution, the higher the probability of reporting. By contrast, high public funding decreases this probability.

The findings show characteristics of higher education institutions that support or hamper sustainability reporting. Overall, the findings imply a lack of institutionalisation of sustainability reporting among higher education institutions.

Although a lot of research has been done on corporate sustainability reporting, only a small number of studies have addressed the issues of sustainability reporting of higher education institutions. This study covers all sustainability reports disclosed among the 160 UK higher education institutions. It is the first study that investigates characteristics of higher education institutions that disclose a sustainability report.

The purpose of this study is to assess sustainability reports of US universities to provide findings on the relative importance of disclosure topics.

The authors conducted content analysis by using a specific university-oriented catalogue of indicators to cover the specific sustainability-related aspects of this sector.

Sustainability reporting by universities is still in its early stages. The findings show a clear focus on the environmental dimension, whereas the university and the economic dimensions see lower levels of reporting. The social dimension is rarely addressed.

Future research could use the results of this study as a basis for investigating stakeholder expectations towards universities’ sustainability reporting and developing university-specific sustainability reporting standards.

The results could be used to improve universities’ sustainability reporting, as “good” practices are now readily available.

The level of reporting on the social dimension is very low. Therefore, developing political incentives to improve universities’ social performance might be of interest.

The investigated setting is unique and contributes several findings in a less-researched area along with several practical, social and research implications.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the following research question: What are the key factors of the participatory process for establishing sustainability reporting in German universities?

To answer the research question, this study uses qualitative methodology, following the grounded theory approach and triangulation of qualitative methods for accessing data.

The findings show that universities face a high level of difficulty in introducing sustainability reporting, which has an external and an internal dimension.

This paper contributes to the understanding of sustainability reporting processes of universities from an internal perspective, specifically through experts who are involved in the preparation of sustainability reports. Furthermore, it delivers insights for a theory-based discussion, which may support universities in starting sustainability reporting activities and improving reporting processes.

This paper aims to investigate the relationship between board interlocks and monitoring effectiveness for listed German companies in a context of risk governance. While agency-theory and resource-dependence-theory suggest a positive association between board interlocks and monitoring effectiveness, reasons such as limited temporal resources of busy board members may suggest a negative association.

By using panel data regression, the authors examined the association between board interlocks and monitoring effectiveness, which was approximated by excessive management compensation, pay-for-performance-sensitivity and CEO turnover-performance-sensitivity. The data set comprises 3,998 directorships for 132 listed German companies covering the period 2015-2017.

The authors find that board interlocks are associated with not only a more excessive management pay and less performance-sensitive turnover but also a higher pay-for-performance-sensitivity.

The study examines the impact of multiple directorships based on a German panel data set that includes both multiple appointments of members to national supervisory boards and all other appointments to national and international executive and supervisory bodies. The authors compile three measures to operationalize monitoring effectiveness.

One group of risk governance actors that recently came into focus for empirical studies is the board of directors. In this context, the increasing number of directors that work on more than one board committee (committee overlap) as well as its effects on monitoring effectiveness has become a prevalent subject of discussion. In this context, this paper aims to investigate the current status of empirical research on how committee overlap affects monitoring effectiveness.

A meta-analytical approach is used, encompassing a total sample of 167,449 observations. The authors consider several determinants of monitoring effectiveness such as reporting quality, executive compensation, pay for performance-sensitivity, CEO turnover, audit fees, qualified audit opinion and investment/overinvestment.

The authors’ meta-analysis proves that research on the effects of committee overlap yielded highly controversial results. Although there is no correlation between overlap and monitoring effectiveness at the general level, the presence of their relationship is still confirmed in a few subcategories. The authors also verify that the legal requirements regarding board structure and committee overlap has a certain influence, particularly in the common law system.

The meta-analytical insights help to derive statements that are more comprehensive and go beyond the results of the investigated primary studies. Furthermore, the insights offer implications for firms, theory and new opportunities regarding future empirical research to address unresolved questions.

Higher education institutions, as influential social institutions, play an important role in promoting social responsibility and sustainable practices. However, approaches to implementing sustainable development (SD) in higher education institutions (HEIs) themselves remain fuzzy. One way to achieve holistic embedding can lie in organizational culture. This study aims to examine ways by which internal sustainability governance can promote sustainability culture by using empirical data from German HEIs.

This study uses factor analysis to identify relevant governance indicators. With a regression analysis, this study assesses the indicators’ effects on organizational sustainability culture in HEIs. A moderator analysis tests potential determinants derived from literature and their influence on sustainability governance and sustainability culture.

Operationalizing formalized sustainability governance for holistic implementation reveals a gap in sustainability management at HEIs. This study proposes a model for operationalizing sustainability governance and shows an effect on sustainability culture at the formal organizational level.

Based on the operationalization of sustainability governance, this empirical study provides evidence for the development of a holistic approach along a sustainability culture in organizations. This paper proposes a model for operationalization, analyzes multiorganizational data and shows the effects of sustainability governance on formalized organizational sustainability culture. This paper provides a transorganizational perspective for implementing SD following a top-down approach.

This research aims to understand how companies communicate their understanding of water-related challenges and their responses to identify new pathways for addressing this challenge to further advance rising interest in water sustainability strategies of corporations.

Through a content analysis of corporate disclosures, this paper identifies the actions and challenges reported by 35 FTSE 100 companies. These are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively to explore variations in the subject of disclosure and the narrative framing.

The findings identify a clear split across the types of water sustainability reporting according to the industrial sector and subject of disclosure, linking to different narratives used according to legitimacy pressures.

This paper finds that energy, materials and consumer staples sectors consistently outperform other sectors on the reporting of water issues and the scope which is covered. This has implications for the design of regulations and incentives to increase water sustainability management activities in large companies, which currently under-report.

This paper highlights the need for policy implementation to further integrate water-related topics into company reporting and identifies situations where the narrative disclosed may distort the underlying situation that is being communicated.

This paper explores the narratives used in company reporting to identify the challenges related to water sustainability and the actions taken in response. This can contribute to developing a pathway towards increased water sustainability (e.g. through new policy design).

The purpose of this paper is to systematise the research field of sustainability reporting. The authors contribute to closing this research gap and, on the basis of this systematisation, address the research question of what are the drivers of sustainability reporting.

The paper systematically reviews existing studies and analyses drivers of sustainability reporting using a qualitative approach. The authors intend to demonstrate and discuss the wide range of approaches used in literature.

The review suggests that firm size, media visibility and ownership structure are the most important drivers of the disclosure of sustainability reports, while corporate governance only seems to have an influence on the existence of audit or sustainability committees. In contrast, other determinants such as profitability, capital structure, firm age or board composition as an indicator of corporate governance do not show a clear tendency.

The authors systemise the research field related to sustainability reporting to give an overview of the current research landscape that is not influenced by environmental or social reporting and discuss the identified determinants and the related variables. This results in a comprehensive report of what is known and unknown about the questions addressed in the systematic review.