Abstract
The inadequacy of financial reports for meeting the information needs of stakeholders has prompted companies to adopt non-financial communication systems (also called non-financial disclosure—NFD). Comparability of NFD is an issue as it allows making sense of the information. Nevertheless, while some argue that comparability is particularly difficult to pursue in practice on a general level, it can be achieved among companies belonging to the same industry. This study aims to understand whether, at the empirical level, the comparability of NFD is achieved and to what extent (macro, meso or micro). To achieve this aim, a text analysis of the NFD was performed. The object of analysis is represented by the NFD published by the listed companies belonging to the energy and banking industries, and that is part of the Dow Jones sustainability index. The main results are the following. First, there is a de facto comparability in terms of adopted standards, but not in terms of how the standards are applied. Second, the phenomenon of label creativity represents a relevant barrier. Third, although content standardization is lacking, common information dimensions in the reports seem to emerge. This appears to be an invitation to policymakers to transpose virtuous behavior and to implement the desired harmonization of jure.
Highlights
Literature and practice have highlighted a growing need for companies to legitimize their activities and respond more appropriately to the growing information needs of stakeholders [1,2,3]
Moving from the abovementioned reflections—and considering the call for research on “the differences between de jure and de facto, as understanding their interactions can contribute to understanding whether “good quality reporting needs, good quality regulation or whether good reporting can develop without good regulation” [47] (p. 150)” [7] (p. 603)—this paper aims to investigate inter-firm comparability of non-financial disclosure (NFD) at a macro, meso and/or micro level
Regarding the number of indicators, it is possible to identify a high variability of the indicators used to describe an organizational human capital. This means, that there is a core of indicators that are adopted by most of the firms, and other indicators that can be adopted in a few situations
Summary
Literature and practice have highlighted a growing need for companies to legitimize their activities and respond more appropriately to the growing information needs of stakeholders [1,2,3]. Several national and international organizations have proposed different frameworks useful to support companies in the disclosure of non-financial information (e.g., social, environmental, governance, etc.) and in the implementation of non-financial disclosure (NFD) practice. These frameworks differ from one another in purposes, focus (on all ESG dimensions or only on some of them), approach, content, structure, dimensions considered, etc. Recent surveys and empirical analysis have highlighted the existence of a public interest in having comparable NFD [11] (p. 127) [14,15] (p. 8) [16] (p. 4)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
