Accounting report
Seyed Ali Hosseini; Shima Ahmadi; Hossein Seilsepoor
Abstract
Given the significance of sustainability reporting, there has been a notable increase in studies in this field. However, due to shortcomings in initial studies, it is not feasible to make decisions based solely on their findings. This research provides a comprehensive examination of the impact of corporate ...
Read More
Given the significance of sustainability reporting, there has been a notable increase in studies in this field. However, due to shortcomings in initial studies, it is not feasible to make decisions based solely on their findings. This research provides a comprehensive examination of the impact of corporate governance structures on sustainability reporting, based on the results of previous studies. Ownership structure, board of directors, management characteristics, corporate governance performance, and the quality of internal controls are identified as influential factors. While the research literature has reached a consensus on the impact of some factors, it has encountered contradictory findings regarding others.IntroductionIn recent years, the issue of sustainability has garnered global attention, becoming a central focus for many accounting researchers. International organizations have published sustainability reporting standards, and many stock exchanges worldwide now consider sustainability reporting a prerequisite for listing. Companies publish sustainability reports for various reasons, including transparency with stakeholders (Kuo et al., 2016), reputation (De Grosbois & Fennell, 2022), legal compliance (Harjoto et al., 2020), or alignment with emerging trends (Busco et al., 2019).However, due to the voluntary nature of sustainability reporting in many countries, concerns about the quantity and quality of this information persist. Since management often decides whether to publish sustainability reports, when to publish them, the publication platform, and the content and scope of the reports, voluntary disclosure, and impression management strategies provide significant opportunities for managers to obscure poor sustainability performance. Therefore, mechanisms are necessary to ensure that the information provided in sustainability reports is of high quality.Corporate governance mechanisms, such as ownership structure, ownership concentration, audit quality, and board composition and quality, play a critical role in reducing opportunistic behaviors by controlling and monitoring executive managers. Given the importance of corporate governance mechanisms for sustainability reporting, there has been a recent surge in studies exploring this relationship.However, early studies in this field are often limited by shortcomings such as researcher bias, small sample sizes, differences in legal frameworks, and contradictory findings. These limitations hinder the ability to make reliable decisions based on their results, highlighting the need for more comprehensive research. Accordingly, this study provides a systematic review of the impact of corporate governance structures on sustainability reporting, synthesizing findings from prior research.The main research questions are as follows:What are the most frequent keywords in the field of sustainability reporting over time?What are the most frequent keywords in the field of the relationship between corporate governance structures and sustainability reporting over time?which corporate governance mechanisms influence the adoption, quantity, and quality of sustainability reporting?MethodologyThis study is applied research and follows an interpretive paradigm. Aligned with this paradigm, a qualitative research methodology was chosen, incorporating systematic review and content analysis for data collection, as well as bibliometric analysis to identify trends in sustainability reporting research and leading authors in the field.The research sample comprises 47 international and 32 national articles published between 2013 and September 2023. Domestic studies were selected through keyword searches on the websites of journals approved by the Ministry of Science, while international studies were sourced from the ScienceDirect database. To enhance search sensitivity and comprehensiveness, various keywords, the "OR" operator, and truncations of selected keywords were employed in ScienceDirect. Both quantitative and qualitative research articles were reviewed. Following the example of other literature reviews (Han & Cohen, 2013:8), books and editorial notes were excluded, with only peer-reviewed articles considered. The latest version of the PRISMA checklist (2020) was used to guide the development of the review protocol.To identify hot research topics in sustainability reporting, research topics exploring the relationship between corporate governance structures and sustainability reporting, and the most prominent authors in the field, bibliographic analysis, and VOSviewer software were utilized.Results and DiscussionExamining the hot topics in sustainability reporting has revealed that corporate governance structures have been among the most significant areas of focus in recent years. Bibliographic analysis indicates that mechanisms such as the board of directors, assurance, and risk management have been key topics of interest for authors.A review of past studies shows that factors such as ownership structure, board of directors, management characteristics, gender diversity, corporate governance performance, assurance, monitoring and accountability, corporate risk, and internal control quality significantly affect the adoption, quantity, and quality of sustainability reports. For example, ownership structure encompasses institutional ownership, internal ownership, foreign ownership, ownership concentration, the relative power of minority shareholders, shareholder identity similarity, state ownership, capital market acceptance, family ownership, fund ownership, and ownership by other companies. Similar detailed categorizations exist for other factors.Most studies have focused on the influence of corporate governance mechanisms on the adoption of sustainability reporting, while fewer have examined their impact on report quality. There is a consensus among researchers on the impact of certain governance mechanisms, such as board size and independence, sustainability committees, managerial compensation, and gender diversity, on sustainability reporting. However, regarding the influence of other factors, the research literature contains contradictory findings. Additionally, for some factors, such as the number of managers, managers’ religious attitudes, and audit fees, the limited number of studies makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Information on measurement indicators based on sample studies is also provided, aiding researchers in measurement purposes.Given the widespread impact of corporate governance structures on sustainability reporting, governments, and regulators should implement initiatives to influence board structures and other corporate governance mechanisms. The findings suggest that investors seeking to maximize their returns should invest in companies with strong corporate governance structures. This study enhances the understanding of managers, regulators, and stakeholders regarding the role of corporate governance in sustainability reporting and provides valuable insights for regulators and policymakers concerned about achieving sustainability reporting goals.By summarizing the impact of corporate governance structures on sustainability reporting, this study identifies gaps in the research literature and mechanisms requiring further investigation. Additionally, juxtaposing findings from domestic and international studies, it highlights cultural differences in the effects of corporate governance mechanisms. Analyzing the findings of this study while considering its limitations is crucial. Existing studies in the research sample employed various measures to assess the quality and extent of sustainability reporting. The documentation reviewed as sustainability reports also varies. For instance, some researchers analyzed sustainability reports, while others examined information provided on company websites. Domestic researchers, due to the lack of sustainability reports published by companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange, have relied on analyzing board reports and financial statements to assess the extent and quality of sustainability reporting. Since measurement procedures affect the results obtained and, consequently, the findings of this study, these limitations must be considered when interpreting the results. ConclusionThe analysis of contradictory findings can be explained by considering management motives, organizational maturity levels, organizational structure, and institutional factors affecting the organization, such as industry type, country of operation, and regulations. Therefore, using standardized measures for companies operating in diverse institutional contexts is unlikely to be effective.
