The Need for Sector‐Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting Standards

The market continues to show growing interest in how well companies are performing across a broad range of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions. Partly as a result, the companies themselves are paying more attention to these performance dimensions, how they contribute to financial performance, and how to evaluate tradeoffs that arise. One of the greatest challenges facing both investors and companies in using ESG performance information is the absence of standards. Another challenge is knowing which of the many ESG dimensions are most material for a company in terms of creating value for shareholders and stakeholders over the long term. The authors argue that materiality and reporting standards must be developed on a sector‐by‐sector basis, and that failure to do so will result in inconsistent and even misleading disclosures. The authors illustrate this with the case of climate change. The SEC has already issued interpretive guidance on climate change disclosures, making it quite clear that existing regulations require companies to report on material effects of climate change, from both an upside and downside perspective. Based on an analysis of 10K filings in six industries, the authors show that, even within a given industry, there is substantial variation in reporting among companies that ranges from no disclosure, to boilerplate disclosure, industry‐specific interpretation, and the use of quantitative metrics. After providing further detail on this by looking at the airline and utilities industries, the authors conclude by offering a methodology for defining material ESG issues on a sector‐by‐sector basis that could provide the basis for developing key performance indicators.     

“Non‐Financial” Is a Misnomer,but Doesn't Have to Be a Missed Opportunity

With enterprise values now representing increasing multiples of companies' net book assets, investors are clearly looking beyond financial reporting for enhanced insights and understanding of when and how companies are adding value. This shift includes growing attention to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information. Although ESG data presents its own unique challenges, dismissing it as “non‐financial” can be misleading. When explicitly linked to a company's long‐term value creation strategy, ESG information can serve as a valuable input to more farsighted financial analysis. Market‐driven initiatives, notably that of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), aim to standardize a subset of business‐critical, industry‐specific sustainability data for investors. Research indicates such approaches can generate positive outcomes not only for providers of financial capital, but for their portfolio companies and markets in general. In illustrating these concepts, the authors explore ESG impacts in three sectors and industries, while examining how access to consistent, comparable, reliable sustainability information in those sectors can augment an analysis of traditional business fundamentals. One example focuses on water management in the Oil & Gas Exploration & Production industry, a major environmental issue where geographic considerations can shed light on company‐specific exposures to cost increases, production disruptions, increased CapEx and R&D spending, as well as the potential for asset write‐downs. In the Food & Beverage sector, health and nutrition concerns are shown to be changing consumer preferences, triggering regulatory action, and reshaping companies' product portfolios—with significant implications for the companies' brand values and ability to compete for market share. Finally, in Aerospace & Defense, lapses in business ethics such as bribery of government officials present a governance challenge that comes with the risk of value‐destroying fines and penalties and, even more significant, associated reductions in revenues.     

Integrated Reporting,Quality of Management,and Financial Performance

Interest in integrated reporting continues to grow as its proponents cite a number of significant benefits to both companies and investors. But given the still‐early stages of development of this new management practice and the relative paucity of data, establishing empirical confirmation of these claims is difficult. Using RobecomSAM's proprietary database of over 2,000 companies surveyed during its annual Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), the authors discuss the extent and recent growth of integrated reporting, and its likely effects on important indicators of both ESG quality of management and financial performance. The authors begin by reporting that although only 12% of the companies in the survey dataset practiced some form of integrated reporting in 2012, that number represented a 50% increase from 2011. The authors also report a strong relationship between integrated reporting and ESG quality of management, which some studies suggest has become a useful indicator of the overall effectiveness of management in creating value over the long term. This relationship is particularly strong in certain sectors, notably healthcare. At the same time, the authors find a relationship between integrated reporting and financial performance for two sectors—healthcare and information technology—though not for the population as a whole. The authors suggest that this apparent lack of effect may be attributable to a time lag between integrated reporting's contribution to better ESG quality of management, and the eventual reflection of such management in financial performance.     

Corporate Disclosure of Material Information: The Evolution—and the Need to Evolve Again

This article by the former chairman of the FASB and the founder and executive director of the new Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) presents the rationale for and mission of the SASB. As the authors point out, both the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was created in 1934, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board, set up in 1973, emerged during times of low investor confidence to restore trust in the capital markets. And the institutional changes brought about by the creation of both the SEC and the FASB succeeded in eliciting new information for investors and in raising the standards by which such information was reported. But as the authors go on to argue, we now live in a different world, one in which the management of environmental, social, and governance issues is increasingly viewed as critical to the long‐run value creation of companies. And because today's corporate reporting fails to account in a systematic way for material non‐financial issues, it's time once again for the capital markets to evolve. The SASB aims to meet this need by creating sustainability accounting standards for use by public companies in disclosing a minimum set of material sustainability impacts for companies in over 80 different industries. As part of a natural evolution in disclosure, the SASB aims to achieve the same goal the SEC and FASB started with: to protect investors and the public.     

Measuring What Matters: Industry Specificity Helps Companies and Investors Gain Traction on Sustainability

Financial analysts interpret the performance of companies and their securities through an industry lens. Just as an industry approach is critical in financial analysis, it's also critical in helping investors evaluate sustainability performance, since sustainability issues differ from one industry to the next—in large because of differences in how companies use natural and other social resources when bringing their goods and services to market, and how they impact society and the environment in the process. The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) was created in 2012 to deliver a full set of sustainability accounting standards that can be used to guide industry‐specific corporate sustainability disclosure to the capital markets. SASB has now issued provisional standards for 79 industries, thereby enabling companies and investors for the first time to identify patterns of sustainability risks and opportunities both across and within industries. Although high‐level issues such as climate change, product safety, and resource intensity and scarcity have material impacts across a variety of sectors, those impacts often vary greatly from one industry to the next. Thus, although the risk may be ubiquitous, it is also differentiated to the point that each industry has its own distinct sustainability profile. Understanding these unique profiles can help companies better manage the issues that are most likely to present material risks to their industries.     

The SEC and Improving Sustainability Reporting

In this discussion that took place at the SASB 2016 Symposium, the former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission explores recent developments in corporate sustainability reporting with three Directors—two past and one current—of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance (or “CorpFin”). The consensus of the panelists was that investors want companies to provide more and better disclosure of their ESG exposures, particularly climate change, and their plans to manage those exposures. According to the current director of CorpFin, the most common demand expressed in the thousands of “comment letters” elicited by the SEC's recent concept release was for more and better sustainability information. And among the many issues cited by investors in those letters, including economic inequality, corruption, indigenous rights, and community relations, the subject of greatest interest by far was climate change. While none of the panelists claimed to see private‐sector demand for SEC action and a new set of mandatory requirements, all seemed to agree that many companies would welcome the establishment of voluntary guidelines and standards for providing ESG information—and that the guidelines recently developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board are a promising model. For companies in each of 79 different industries, the SASB has identified a specific set of “material” concerns along with metrics or KPIs that can be used to evaluate corporate performance in responding to those concerns. Perhaps the most important advantage of this approach is that, by limiting such reporting to material exposures (and so adhering to a principle that has long informed SEC requirements), the SASB guidelines should significantly increase the relevance and value to investors—while possibly holding down the costs—of the sustainability reports that large companies in the U.S. and abroad have been producing for decades. But, as the former SEC Chair also notes in closing, the adoption of such guidelines by companies should be viewed as just a first step toward improving disclosure. To help companies develop the most useful and cost‐effective disclosure practices, investors themselves will have to become more active in communicating their own demands and preferences for information.     

Innovation in Stock Exchanges: Driving ESG Disclosure and Performance

Stock exchanges are in a unique position to promote ESG transparency and leverage their institutional capacity to build more sustainable capital markets. To facilitate the quick uptake of material ESG disclosure and raise the quality and comparability of the data, the Athens Stock Exchange has created ESG guidelines for listed companies that will be published in the summer of 2019. One important feature of the guidelines is their degree of sectoral specificity and emphasis on materiality. The guidelines and supporting metrics they propose are based on reporting practices endorsed by international sustainability standards like the SASB's industry standards. This materiality‐oriented approach will help issuers focus on the sustainability value drivers inherent in their business, and so ensure that corporate ESG disclosures satisfy the demand of investors for comparable quantitative and accounting metrics that help companies communicate their commitment to long‐term value creation.     

Four Things No One Will Tell You About ESG Data

As the ESG finance field and the use of ESG data in investment decision‐making continue to grow, the authors seek to shed light on several important aspects of ESG measurement and data. This article is intended to provide a useful guide for the rapidly rising number of people entering the field. The authors focus on the following:

1. The sheer variety, and inconsistency, of the data and measures, and of how companies report them. Listing more than 20 different ways companies report their employee health and safety data, the authors show how such inconsistencies lead to significantly different results when looking at the same group of companies.
2. ‘Benchmarking,’ or how data providers define companies' peer groups, can be crucial in determining the performance ranking of a company. The lack of transparency among data providers about peer group components and observed ranges for ESG metrics creates market‐wide inconsistencies and undermines their reliability.
3. The differences in the imputation methods used by ESG researchers and analysts to deal with vast ‘data gaps’ that span ranges of companies and time periods for different ESG metrics can cause large ‘disagreements’ among the providers, with different gap‐filling approaches leading to big discrepancies.
4. The disagreements among ESG data providers are not only large, but actually increase with the quantity of publicly available information. Citing a recent study showing that companies that provide more ESG disclosure tend to have more variation in their ESG ratings, the authors interpret this finding as clear evidence of the need for ‘a clearer understanding of what different ESG metrics might tell us and how they might best be institutionalized for assessing corporate performance.’

What can be done to address these problems with ESG data? Companies should ‘take control of the ESG data narrative’ by proactively shaping disclosure instead of being overwhelmed by survey requests. To that end, companies should ‘customize’ their metrics to some extent, while at the same time seeking to self‐regulate by reaching agreement with industry peers on a ‘reasonable baseline’ of standardized ESG metrics designed to achieve comparability. Investors are urged to push for more meaningful ESG disclosure by narrowing the demand for ESG data into somewhat more standardized, but still manageable metrics. Stock exchanges should consider issuing—and perhaps even mandating—guidelines for ESG disclosures designed in collaboration with companies, investors, and regulators. And data providers should come to agreement on best practices and become as transparent as possible about their methodologies and the reliability of their data.     

ESG,risk, and (tail) dependence

While environmental, social, and governance (ESG) trading activity has been a distinctive feature of financial markets, the debate if ESG scores can also convey information regarding a company’s riskiness remains open. Regulatory authorities, such as the European Banking Authority (EBA), have acknowledged that ESG factors can contribute to risk. Therefore, it is important to model such risk dependencies and quantify what part of a company’s riskiness can be attributed to the ESG scores. This paper aims to question whether ESG scores can be used to provide information on (tail) riskiness. By analyzing the (tail) dependence structure of companies with a range of ESG scores, that is within an ESG rating class, using high-dimensional vine copula modeling, we are able to show that risk can also depend on and be directly associated with a specific ESG rating class. Empirical findings on real-world data show positive not negligible ESG risks determined by ESG scores, especially during the 2008 crisis.     

Sentimental Sustainability: Does What Companies Say Tell More Than What Companies Do?

Based on a sample of more than eleven thousand unique 10-K reports of US companies filed with SEC in period 2013 to 2018, this study examines the relationship between actual sustainability performance of companies, evaluated by MSCI ESG performance scores, and the extent and the scope of environmental, social, and governance information disclosure in their annual reports. The study shows empirical evidence supporting the signalling theory view of voluntary disclosure of ESG information in annual reports for most industries, while environmentally unfriendly companies belonging to the Mining industry division show excessive reporting behavior favoring environmental topics, which is consistent with incentives to improve public image and mitigate social, political, and legal risks in line with the legitimacy theory of information disclosure. When differentiating between forward-looking and non-forward-looking ESG statements, the study shows that companies providing more forward-looking ESG information in annual reports show better next-year ESG performance. This study implements established content analysis techniques with focus on ESG reporting and performance, building up on the study of Baier, Berninger, and Kiesel (2020) that proposed an ESG-tailored dictionary for textual analysis purposes.     

ESG Integration in Investment Management: Myths and Realities

The number of public companies reporting ESG information grew from fewer than 20 in the early 1990s to 8,500 by 2014. Moreover, by the end of 2014, over 1,400 institutional investors that manage some $60 trillion in assets had signed the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI). Nevertheless, companies with high ESG “scores” have continued to be viewed by mainstream investors as unlikely to produce competitive shareholder returns, in part because of the findings of older studies showing low returns from the social responsibility investing of the 1990s. But studies of more recent periods suggest that companies with significant ESG programs have actually outperformed their competitors in a number of important ways. The authors’ aim in this article is to set the record straight on the financial performance of sustainable investing while also correcting a number of other widespread misconceptions about this rapidly growing set of principles and methods: Myth Number 1: ESG programs reduce returns on capital and long‐run shareholder value. Reality: Companies committed to ESG are finding competitive advantages in product, labor, and capital markets; and portfolios that have integrated “material” ESG metrics have provided average returns to their investors that are superior to those of conventional portfolios, while exhibiting lower risk. Myth Number 2: ESG is already well integrated into mainstream investment management. Reality: The UNPRI signatories have committed themselves only to adhering to a set of principles for responsible investment, a standard that falls well short of integrating ESG considerations into their investment decisions. Myth Number 3: Companies cannot influence the kind of shareholders who buy their shares, and corporate managers must often sacrifice sustainability goals to meet the quarterly earnings targets of increasingly short‐term‐oriented investors. Reality: Companies that pursue major sustainability initiatives, and publicize them in integrated reports and other communications with investors, have also generally succeeded in attracting disproportionate numbers of longer‐term shareholders. Myth Number 4: ESG data for fundamental analysis is scarce and unreliable. Reality: Thanks to the efforts of reporting and investor organizations such as SASB and Ceres, and of CDP data providers like Bloomberg and MSCI, much more “value‐relevant” ESG data on companies has become available in the past ten years. Myth Number 5: ESG adds value almost entirely by limiting risks. Reality: Along with lower risk and a lower cost of capital, companies with high ESG scores have also experienced increases in operating efficiency and expansions into new markets. Myth Number 6: Consideration of ESG factors might create a conflict with fiduciary duty for some investors. Reality: Many ESG factors have been shown to have positive correlations with corporate financial performance and value, prompting ERISA in 2015 to reverse its earlier instructions to pension funds about the legitimacy of taking account of “non‐financial” considerations when investing in companies.     

Corporate Disclosure Quality: Lessons from Australian Companies on the Impact of Adopting International Financial Reporting Standards

For annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005, Australian companies were required to comply with the Australian equivalents of International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS). To ensure a smooth transition, a broadly defined standard (AASB 1047) mandated pre-adoption company disclosures of the AIFRS' impact. The standard provided managers with the opportunity to exercise considerable discretion in complying with the underlying disclosure requirements. We examine how this discretion impacted on the quality of pre-adoption AIFRS disclosures provided by a sample of large Australian companies. Using a disclosure quality index, we find considerable evidence of a cross-sectional variation in disclosure quality that varies according to differences in the AIFRS financial impact, size, industry and profitability factors. Importantly, we also observe individual Big 4 audit firm influences on disclosure quality. These findings highlight consequences of mandating corporate disclosures based on broadly defined principles.     

The Next Wave of ESG Integration: Lessons from Institutional Investors

In this panel that also took place at the recent SASB Symposium, senior representatives of four leading institutional investors—BlackRock, Ca lPERS, Ca lSTRS, and Wells Fargo—emphasize the relevance of ESG data for “mainstream” investors and the importance of integrating it with traditional fundamental analysis rather than viewing it as a separate set of reporting responsibilities. Moreover, the logical place for integrating ESG information is in the most forwardlooking section of financial reports, the “Management Discussion and Analysis,” or “MD&A,” which would be strengthened by including more and better information about the companies' ESG risks and initiatives. Some panelists noted that ESG information is likely to be valued by investors because of its ability to shed light on “idiosyncratic” risks that are not captured by the traditional risk factors that have long dominated asset pricing models. Others described ESG information as helpful in evaluating and comparing the “quality” of management in portfolio companies. But all agreed that efforts like the SASB's to standardize ESG data are essential to successful integration of that data into the decision‐making process of large mainstream investors. And as the panelists also made clear, there is an important generational component to the growing movement to integrate ESG into mainstream investing, with Millenials—and particularly Millenial women—showing especially strong support.     

Environmental,social and governance reporting in annual reports: A textual analysis

Considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors becomes increasingly important for companies and investors. However, “ESG” is not clearly defined so far and, therefore, it is difficult to measure the ESG activity of companies. We analyze the extent and changes in 10‐K reports and proxy statements on ESG, using a textual analysis and creating an ESG dictionary. The results show an average of 4.0 % ESG words on total words in the reports. The ESG word list with 482 items can be used to quantitatively examine the extent of ESG reporting, which will be helpful especially for SRI investors. Our classification of 40 subcategories allows a highly granular analysis of different ESG related aspects. Moreover, indications for a relation between changes in reporting and real events, especially negative media presence, are detected. Regulatory bodies have to be aware of the use of such words and how they are used.     

How to Integrate ESG into Investment Decision‐Making: Results of a Global Survey of Institutional Investors

The authors review the findings of their global survey of 582 institutional investors that were either practicing or planning to practice some degree of integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their investment decision‐making process. The investors were evenly split between asset owners and asset managers, equity and fixed income, and across the three regions of the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and Africa. The survey explored reasons for ESG investing; the barriers to such investing and investor approaches to overcoming them; and the time frames used for making investment decisions, evaluating the performance of managers, and awarding compensation. The authors report finding that the commonly perceived barriers to ESG integration—the belief that ESG integration requires sacrificing returns, that fiduciary duty prevents one from doing so, and unrealistically short‐term expectations for ESG to deliver outperformance—were not as great as commonly believed. The biggest barrier is the lack of high quality data about the performance of companies on their material ESG factors—a scarcity that the authors attribute to the lack of standards for measuring ESG performance and the lack of ESG performance data reported by companies. The results were very similar between asset owners and asset managers, equity and fixed income, and across regions. However, the investment horizons of asset owners were notably longer than those of asset managers, and the same was true of equity vs. fixed income investors. Investors in the Americas were more patient about time frames for seeing outperformance from ESG, while those in Asia Pacific were the least patient. There were also differences across regions in how to overcome the barriers to ESG integration.     

A Tale of Two Stories: Sustainability and the Quarterly Earnings Call

One of the challenges companies claim to face in making sustainability a core part of their strategy and operations is that the market does not care about sustainability, either in general or because the time frames in which it matters are too long. The response of investors who say they care about sustainability—and their numbers are large and growing—is that companies do a poor job in providing them with the information they need to take sustainability into account in their investment decisions. Whatever the merits of each view, the fact remains that an effective conversation about sustainability requires the participation of both sides of the market. There are two main mechanisms for companies to communicate to the market as a way of starting this conversation: mandated reporting and quarterly conference calls. In this paper, the authors argue that neither companies nor investors can be seen as taking sustainability seriously unless it is integrated into the quarterly earnings call. Until that happens, the core business and sustainability are two separate worlds, each of which has its own narrator telling a different story to a different audience. The authors illustrate their argument using the case of SAP, the German software company. SAP was the first company to host an “ESG Investor Briefing,” a conference call for analysts and investors held on July 30, 2013 in which the company discussed both its sustainability performance and its contribution to the firm's financial performance. The narrative of this call was very similar to the narrative of the company's first “integrated report,” which was issued in 2012 and presented the company's sustainability initiatives in the context of its operating and financial performance. Nevertheless, the content and main focus of the “ESG Briefing” were very different from that of most quarterly earnings conferences, and so were the audiences. Whereas the quarterly call was attended mainly by sell side analysts—and the words “sustainability” or “sustainable” failed to receive a single mention—the ESG briefing was delivered to an investor audience made up almost entirely of the “buy side.”     

Advancing Sustainability Reporting in Canada: 2019 Report on Progress

This study examines the progress Canada's largest companies are making in their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures. Given the introduction of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) as well as the issuance of the Task Force on Climate‐Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations, our research reflects the uptake of these guidance documents by both mature and new reporters. Our analysis suggests that challenges persist—processes and progress often fail to reach investors as they are “lost in translation” when issued through third‐party ESG information providers, and reporters are also pressured to respond to a myriad of requests for information from rating and reporting agencies. Nevertheless, we note that Canada has new reporting sectors that must mature to survive the scrutiny of the markets and also hope that stock markets will respond to the recent announcement by the 181 CEOs of the U.S. Business Roundtable, who committed to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders—customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders. Overall, we believe that our research will provide food for thought for companies interested in continuous improvement.     

Responsible Investors: Who They Are,What They Want

This article by a long‐time partner in Domini Social Investments, a well‐known socially responsible investment firm, begins by describing four different approaches that institutional investors have currently adopted as they account for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations in their investment decisions: (1) the incorporation of internationally accepted ESG norms and standards (as set forth in, for example, the FTSE4Good Indexes); (2) the use of industry‐specific ESG ratings and rankings (such as those used for the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes); (3) the integration of ESG considerations into stock valuation (as advocated, for example, in the Principles of Responsible Investment); and (4) the identification of companies whose business models successfully address the most pressing societal needs (often referred to as “impact investing”). The article then seeks to answer the question: what corporate ESG programs and policies can be most effectively used by managers seeking to attract institutional investors using these different approaches? The author describes three kinds of corporate ESG programs. In one approach, corporate managers focus on strengthening relations with non‐investor stakeholders, including employees, the environment, and local communities. In the second approach, corporations seek to create “shared value” by emphasizing products and services that help address society's most pressing needs. The third approach focuses on identifying and addressing the firm's industry‐specific ESG performance indicators (KPIs) that are most material to stockholders and other stakeholders. Given institutional investors' growing commitment to the incorporation of ESG concerns, corporate managers should understand the range of investors' approaches to ESG and how to account for them in their strategic planning. At the same time, they are encouraged to develop comprehensive ESG policies and goals, devote adequate resources to their implementation, and communicate efforts effectively to these investors and to the public.     

International Accounting Standards and Financial Reporting Uniformity: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago

The paper has two purposes. First, it describes the financial reporting environment of Trinidad and Tobago before and after the adoption of International Accounting Standards (IAS) (currently called International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)) as the national standards of Trinidad and Tobago. Second, it examines the association between the adoption of IAS as the national standards of Trinidad and Tobago and the degree of uniformity of financial reporting among public companies. This study is useful because of the dearth of research on financial reporting in the English-speaking Caribbean and the effect of IAS on the degree of financial reporting uniformity within a country. Using an ex post facto research design, the financial statements of 18 publicly traded firms for the year immediately prior to the adoption of IAS (1987) and four years during the period following the adoption of IAS (1995, 1999, 2002 and 2003) were subjected to content analysis. Overall, the uniformity of financial reporting practices among publicly traded firms in Trinidad and Tobago increased following the adoption of IAS. This finding was fairly uniform across all the financial statement items examined though the magnitude of the change varied. It was directly attributed to the adoption of IAS for only three financial statement elements.     

Extractive Industries Reporting: A Review of Accounting Challenges and the Research Literature

While the extractive industries (EI) are of major significance economically, the reporting of their activities has been the subject of contentious debate posing dilemmas for regulators and standard setters over many decades. In order to ensure alignment with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) research project on EI, we first identify some important economic characteristics of EI and associated accounting challenges together with an overview of how current accounting standards deal with these challenges using International Financial Reporting Standards as the focus. Second, we conduct a review of extant research on EI reporting analyzed around the key areas of: (a) international diversity of accounting practices and the challenges facing information users; (b) standard-setting processes and lobbying behaviour that deals with why the IASB (and other standard setters) have not succeeded in developing rigorous standards for extractive activities; (c) the reporting of oil, gas, and mineral reserves, given that large proportions of the assets of EI firms (the reserves) are off-balance sheet; (d) environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting dealing with how EI firms have increased their reporting of ESG information in response to regulatory demands and pressure for voluntary disclosures; and (e) other EI related topics such as earnings management, risk disclosures, and voluntary disclosure behaviour. Finally, we present some conclusions together with suggestions relating to key areas for future research on EI reporting.