Corporate reporting is generally perceived as a type of accounting fit for purpose for the 21 century, taking into consideration not only the traditional shareholders’ needs and views but also stakeholders’. Academic literature tends to over-appreciate the non-financial nature of corporate reporting, forgetting that numbers can have their own narratives, which can be read in between the lines. It is true that numbers present certain uncertainties and an extra level of reporting can provide a better interpretation, in a complementary or continuous manner. The present research looks at the current European Union binding legislation and academic and professional judgements towards it. The ultimate questions to be answered is if corporate reporting is improved information? and whose needs are really served: shareholders, the traditional users of accounts, or stakeholders, always hidden, but intuitively taken into account. Findings of the research show that public good is largely perceived as the duty of private interest, as regulated by the public authorities. This mainly happens as shareholders and whoever puts money at risk still are the primarily user group, but the context and consequences of reporting are wider than before. The approach taken by this paper was first of all to discover inside outs of corporate reporting and secondly to look how industry self-regulators interact with public authorities, for the common good. The added value of the present papers is represented by its policy recommendations presented as conclusions.
There is a considerable amount of publications written on rolling back the EU supra state, national sovereignty regain, and strategic (mis)conceptions for analysing Brexit scenarios for both the UK and the EU. Many articles present a unilateral point of view with a tendency to be normative. The presentation of only one-sided political, historical, and business perspectives can be very dangerous, limiting understanding and constructive approaches. This also happens with macro-economic analyses that are used fit for purpose. David Cameron’s political calculation to call for a referendum regarding the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union has had complex ramifications. With causes that have led to the British citizens’ decision that range from multiple crises in the European Union, member states’ inability for burden and risk sharing, to the lack of trust portrayed by European institutions and a confusing internal rhetoric. With a City of London remaining undecided and continuously evaluating the value at risk of Brexit, and in the absence of a new European financial center, it is important to make sense of the arguments of both in and out supporters. Thus, this article attempts to present a more integrated approach, spanning across politics, trade, private businesses and social attitudes. This paper looks beyond international relations between nations and takes into consideration the international relations between corporations and their business strategies.
This paper considers the information value of carbon-emissions disclosures for investors. Our argument is that Financial Institutions (FIs) do need to map the carbon-financial intensity of corporate activities so as to provide investors with higher returns on capital relative to the carbon emissions attached to this capital. Our analysis maps out carbon-financial risks in the S&P500 constituent companies that are domiciled in the US and capturing approximately 82% of the total U.S. equity market value. We examine the extent to which carbon-financial risk has already impacted on the allocation of capital (debt and equity) and market value exposure from carbon emissions in the S&P500. Our analysis of carbon generating and carbon dependent business models in the S&P 500 reveals a complex and interconnected physical-financial value chain. This new insight will force FIs to now become active investor’s rather than simply investing (or disinvesting) at a distance in order to secure a long-term decarbonisation of their portfolios. This papers also argues for new innovative disclosures such as company’s reporting their top 10 material carbon-stakeholder relations. This would help FIs understand a company’s business model in terms of carbon interdependency and inform regulatory and technical interventions thereby avoiding the possibility of a disruptive evacuation of capital from carbon-intensive business models.
Titles on IAS 41 are not very common in the literature and in this sense there is a limited understanding of the standard and the agri-business, especially when connected with accounting and sustainability. Far too many scholars when taking into consideration natural capital, place too much emphasis on abiotic products (wind, solar, etc) which have a different economic behaviour than the biotic ones (biological assets). The topic of IAS 41 is important, as agriculture is one of the strategic sectors for human living and it needs to be accounted for in careful manner. Our article connects accounting with agriculture, sustainability and non-financial reporting for an integrated perspective. There are certain intrinsic challenges that IAS 41 presents, especially when dealing with FVA, but there are also greater needs for materiality in the sustainable agricultural development in the EU legislation. Authors think that there is place for improvement whiten the standards and the future of EU farming should not leave accounting behind, making a call for a more integrated approach and understanding.
As the investor base committed to financing sustainable companies in an attempt to combat the climate crisis expands, green financial products have become more attractive to issuers, corporate and sovereign alike. As a result, the EU is attempting to create favourable market conditions which mobilise the allocation of private capital for investments that reduce the contribution to climate change. As part of the EU Commission’s Action Plan for Sustainable Finance, it intends to create Green Bond Standards which aim to support the transition to greener securities investments. As a foundation, we provide an overview of the green bond market development. We then consider investment challenges such as incentivisation and transparency and discuss whether the Green Bond Standards shall likely resolve these issues. Furthermore, we confer that enforceability of current green securities regulations is weak to non-existent and propose possible policy approaches which address these issues.