Institutional isomorphism and quality of gender disclosure. The Italian case

Journal title FINANCIAL REPORTING
Author/s Paola Paoloni, Antonietta Cosentino, Marco Venuti
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2024/1
Language English Pages 29 P. 27-55 File size 371 KB
DOI 10.3280/FR2024-001003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Purpose: Non-financial reporting (NFR), including gender disclosure (GD), is a tool companies use for institutional legitimisation and represents an organisational field that evolves due to regulatory and stakeholder pressure. This research uses the theoretical approach of institutional isomorphism in the context of neo-institutional theory to investigate GD’s degree of maturity (quality and homogenei-ty) in a homogeneous institutional context. Design/methodology/approach: This paper adopts a qualitative research meth-odology based on a content analysis of the GD resulting from the NFRs of listed Italian companies in 2016 and 2021. Findings: The results show the degree of institutionalisation achieved through GD after introducing the mandatory NFR. The analysis reveals companies’ conver-gence process in terms of isomorphic behaviour and changes in the quality of GD. The findings unfold the institutional pressure that has the most significant impact on the quality of GD, fostering a homogenisation of disclosure at the company level. Originality/value: This is the first study to assess isomorphism and its effects on the quality of GD. This research enriches the literature on institutional theory by analysing the impact of different isomorphic forces on GD. Practical implications: This paper assists policymakers, supervisors, and investors in evaluating the quality of GD and identifying the issues leading to the most critical matters and inefficient or non-transparent behaviours. The findings improve regulatory quality, information control, and assessment of the appropriateness and reliability of the NFR. The implications guide regulators in identifying stand-ards and tools that enhance strategies regarding gender diversity and performance disclosure.

Keywords: sustainability reporting, gender disclosure, institutional isomorphism, EU Directive 2014/95.

Jel codes: G18, G38, M41, M48

  1. Amoako, G. K., Adam, A. M., Arthur, C. L., & Tackie, G. (2021). Institutional isomorphism, environmental management accounting and environmental accountability: A review. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 11201-11216.
  2. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edged sword of organisational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177-194.
  3. Aureli, S., Salvatori, F., & Magnaghi, E. (2020). A country-comparative analysis of the transposition of the EU non-financial directive: An institutional approach. Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, 10(2), 1-30.
  4. Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036-1071. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-00998
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  6. Campbell, D. T. (1986). Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 198(31), 67-77.
  7. Carungu, J., Di Pietra, R., & Molinari, M. (2020). Mandatory vs voluntary exercise on non-financial reporting: Does a normative/coercive isomorphism facilitate an increase in quality?. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(3), 449-476. DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-08-2019-0540
  8. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 917-945.
  9. Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78-94.
  10. Comprix, J., Lopatta, K., & Tideman, S. A. (2022). The role of gender in the aggressive questioning of CEOs during earnings conference calls. The Accounting Review, 97(7), 79-107. DOI: 10.2308/TAR-2019-1029
  11. Contrafatto, M. (2014). The institutionalization of social and environmental reporting: An Italian narrative. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), 414-432.
  12. CSR Europe & GRI. (2017). Member state implementation of directive 2014/95/EU. -- Retrieved from www.accountancyeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/1711-NFRpublication-GRI-CSR-Europe.pdf.
  13. Cubilla-Montilla, M. I., Galindo-Villardon, P., Nieto-Librero, A. B., Vicente Galindo, M. P., & García-Sanchez, I. M. (2020). What companies do not disclose about their environmental policy and what institutional pressures may do to respect. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1181-1197.
  14. Cupertino, S., Vitale, G., & Ruggiero, P. (2022). Performance and (non) mandatory disclosure: The moderating role of the Directive 2014/95/EU. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(1), 163-183. DOI: 10.1108/JAAR-04-2021-0115
  15. Dacin, M. T. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 46-81. DOI: 10.5465/257020
  16. de Villiers, C., & Alexander, D. (2014). The institutionalisation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The British Accounting Review, 46(2), 198-212.
  17. de Villiers, C., Rinaldi, L., & Unerman, J. (2014). Integrated reporting: Insights, gaps and an agenda for future research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 27(7), 1042-1067. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-06-2014-1736
  18. Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. P., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 4(2), 27-54.
  19. Depoers, F., & Jérôme, T. (2020). Coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphisms as drivers of corporate tax disclosure: The case of the tax reconciliation. Journal of Applied Accounting Research. DOI: 10.1108/JAAR-04-2018-0048
  20. Di Giandomenico, M. E. (2008). Il bilancio sociale e il modulo aziendale etico. Giuffrè.
  21. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 1-38). University of Chicago Press.
  22. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160. DOI: 10.2307/2095101
  23. Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5-34. DOI: 10.1177/1094428106289252
  24. European Commission (2016). Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2020-2025. -- Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-strategy_en.
  25. European Commission (2020). Striving for a Union of Equality: The Gender Equality Strategy 2016-2019. -- Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-strategy.
  26. European Union Directive (2014). Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. -- Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0095.
  27. European Union Directive (2022). Directive 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting. -- Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464&from=EN.
  28. Fernandez-Feijo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 53-63.
  29. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2022). A short introduction to the GRI standards. -- Retrieved from http://www.globalreporting.org/media/wtaf14tw/a-short-introduction-to-the-gri-standards.pdf.
  30. Haveman, H. A. (1993). Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 593-627.
  31. Heugens, P., & Lander, M. (2009). Structure! Agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 61-85.
  32. Hinna, L. (2002). Il bilancio sociale. Sole 24 Ore.
  33. Hoffmann, E., Dietsche, C., & Hobelsberger, C. (2018). Between mandatory and voluntary: Nonfinancial reporting by German companies. Sustainability Management Forum, 26(1), 47-63.
  34. Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3-4), 433-439.
  35. Huang, R., Xie, X., & Zhou, H. (2022). ‘Isomorphic’ behavior of corporate greenwashing. Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment, 20(1), 29-39.
  36. KPMG (2015). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting: The time has come. KPMG International.
  37. KPMG (2022). Big shifts, small steps. Survey of Sustainability Reporting, 2022 -- https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/se/pdf/komm/2022/Global-Survey-of-Sustainability-Reporting-2022.pdf.
  38. Kuasirikun, N. (2011). The portrayal of gender in annual reports in Thailand. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(1), 53-78.
  39. La Torre, M., Sabelfeld, S., Blomkvist, M., Tarquinio, L., & Dumay, J. (2018). Harmonising non-financial reporting regulation in Europe: Practical forces and projections for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 26(4), 598-621. DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-02-2018-0290
  40. Latif, B., Mahmood, Z., Tze San, O., Mohd Said, R., & Bakhsh, A. (2020). Coercive, normative and mimetic pressures as drivers of environmental management accounting adoption. Sustainability, 12(11), 4506.
  41. Linsley, P. M., & Shrives, P. J. (2006). Risk reporting: A study of risk disclosures in the annual reports of UK companies. The British Accounting Review, 38(4), 387-404.
  42. Lopatta, K., Böttcher, K., Lodhia, S. K., & Tideman, S. A. (2020). The relationship between gender diversity and employee representation at the board level and non-financial performance: A cross-country study. The International Journal of Accounting, 55(01), 2050001. DOI: 10.1142/S1094406020500018
  43. Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: New directions in the institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4-5), 349-361.
  44. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., Knipping, C., & Presmeg, N. (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13
  45. Mazzotta, R., Bronzetti, G., & Veltri, S. (2020). Are mandatory non-financial disclosures credible? Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27, 1900-1913.
  46. Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59-78.
  47. Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 653-683.
  48. Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Scoring corporate environmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031 and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(4), 215-233.
  49. Paoloni, P., Doni, F., & Fortuna, F. (2016). L’informativa sulla diversità di genere: Cosa cambia con l’Integrated Reporting? Il caso del Sudafrica [Information on gender diversity: What changes with Integrated Reporting? The case of South Africa]. In P. Paoloni (Ed.), I mondi delle donne: Percorsi interdisciplinari [Women’s worlds: Interdisciplinary paths]. Edicusano.
  50. Parker, L. D., & Northcott, D. (2016). Qualitative generalising in accounting research: Concepts and strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(6), 1100-1131. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2026
  51. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267-292.
  52. Posadas, S. C., Ruiz-Blanco, S., Fernandez-Feijoo, B., & Tarquinio, L. (2023). Institutional isomorphism under the test of Non-Financial Reporting Directive. Evidence from Italy and Spain. Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(7), 26-48. DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-02-2022-1606
  53. Radaelli, C. M. (2000). Policy transfer in the European Union: Institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy. Governance, 13(1), 25-43. DOI: 10.1111/0952-1895.00122
  54. Roszkowska-Menkes, M., & Aluchna, M. (2017). Institutional isomorphism and corporate social responsibility: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Positive Management, 8(2), 3-16. DOI: 10.12775/JPM.2017.007
  55. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications
  56. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Foundations for Organizational Science, A Sage Publication Series.
  57. Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 460-484). Oxford University Press.
  58. Smith, M., & Taffler, R. J. (2000). The chairman’s statement: A content analysis of discretionary narrative disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. DOI: 10.1108/09513570010353738
  59. Stefanescu, C. A. (2022). Linking sustainability and non-financial reporting directive 2014/95/EU through isomorphism lens. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(6), 1680-1704. DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-09-2020-1019
  60. Suchman M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
  61. Szabò, D. G., & Sørensen, K. E. (2015). New EU directive on the disclosure of non-financial information (CSR). European Company and Financial Law Review, 12(13), 307-340.
  62. Tiron-Tudor, A., Nistor, C. S., Stefanescu, C. A., & Zanellato, G. (2019). Encompassing non-financial reporting in a coercive framework for enhancing social responsibility: Romanian listed companies’ case. Amfiteatru Economic, 21(52), 590-606. DOI: 10.24818/EA/2019/52/590
  63. Tuttle, B., & Dillard, J. (2007). Beyond competition: Institutional isomorphism in U.S. accounting research. Accounting Horizons, 21(4), 387-409.
  64. United Nations (UN) (2015a). General Assembly. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: 70/1. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York.
  65. World Economic Forum (2021). Global gender gap report. Insight Report. Geneva.
  66. Yin R.K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.
  67. Zimmerman, M.A., & Zeitz, G.J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review 27(3), 414-431.

Paola Paoloni, Antonietta Cosentino, Marco Venuti, Institutional isomorphism and quality of gender disclosure. The Italian case in "FINANCIAL REPORTING" 1/2024, pp 27-55, DOI: 10.3280/FR2024-001003