IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/amfeco/v27y2025i70p957.html

Sustainability Reporting in the EU-27: The Impact of National ESG Ecosystems and Organizational Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandru Avram

    (Timisoara West University, Timisoara, Romania)

  • Georgiana Maria Lungu

    (University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania)

  • Costin Daniel Avram

    (University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania)

  • Luminita Popescu

    (University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania)

  • Daniel Toba

    (University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania)

  • Iulia-Cristina Ciurea

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Georgiana Maria Lungu

Abstract

Sustainability reporting is a vital element that enables stakeholders to discern how companies comply with social, environmental, and governance regulations while assessing sustainable development. This study examines the national context that influences corporate sustainability reporting, emphasising the interplay between macrolevel ESG economic conditions and firm-level disclosures mandated by frameworks such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). While previous studies focused on organisational and concept-level analysis, the originality of this study lies in the direct evaluation of national ESG-economic ecosystems on the preparedness of EU member states for sustainability reporting under the new directive. A macroeconomic analysis of the EU-27 member states was performed using key ESG and economic indicators, with the principal component analysis generating a composite index of national performance. Additionally, the clustering of K-means revealed different regional profiles that reflect differences in ESG economic metrics. These findings have important implications, as countries with stronger macro indicators encourage environments that facilitate the adoption of advanced reporting methods, while countries facing economic and institutional challenges may require targeted interventions to improve transparency and compliance. This approach provides valuable information for policymakers and investors, emphasising the systemic links between national conditions and effective sustainability reporting at the organisational level.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandru Avram & Georgiana Maria Lungu & Costin Daniel Avram & Luminita Popescu & Daniel Toba & Iulia-Cristina Ciurea & Georgiana Maria Lungu, 2025. "Sustainability Reporting in the EU-27: The Impact of National ESG Ecosystems and Organizational Implications," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 27(70), pages 957-957, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:27:y:2025:i:70:p:957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_3453.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wendy Stubbs & Colin Higgins, 2018. "Stakeholders’ Perspectives on the Role of Regulatory Reform in Integrated Reporting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 489-508, February.
    2. Rodrigo Lozano, 2015. "A Holistic Perspective on Corporate Sustainability Drivers," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 32-44, January.
    3. Alexandra Zbuchea & Florina Pînzaru & Mihail Busu & Sergiu-Octavian Stan & Alina Bârgăoanu, 2019. "Sustainable Knowledge Management and Its Impact on the Performances of Biotechnology Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Ioannis Ioannou & George Serafeim, 2015. "The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts' perceptions and shifting institutional logics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 1053-1081, July.
    5. Andrew L. Friedman & Samantha Miles, 2002. "Developing Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Aomar Ibourk & Soukaina Raoui, 2023. "Impact of Governance Indicators on Inclusive Growth and the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa," Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, in: Alina Mihaela Dima & Elena Rodica Danescu (ed.), Fostering Recovery Through Metaverse Business Modelling, pages 77-87, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samson Ojeme SAMUEL. & Ayotunde Oladipupo AKINYOSOYE, 2025. "Environmental Accounting Disclosure and Financial Performance of Listed Manufacturing Companies in Nigeria," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 9(6), pages 4995-5011, June.
    2. Tracy Van Holt & Matt Statler & Ulrich Atz & Tensie Whelan & Mara van Loggerenberg & James Cebulla, 2020. "The cultural consensus of sustainability‐driven innovation: Strategies for success," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3399-3409, December.
    3. Mauricio Latapí & Lára Jóhannsdóttir & Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir & Mette Morsing, 2021. "The Barriers to Corporate Social Responsibility in the Nordic Energy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-30, April.
    4. Jongmoo Jay Choi & Hoje Jo & Jimi Kim & Moo Sung Kim, 2018. "Business Groups and Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 931-954, December.
    5. Ioana Gutu & Daniela Tatiana Agheorghiesei & Alexandru Tugui, 2023. "Assessment of a Workforce Sustainability Tool through Leadership and Digitalization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-30, January.
    6. Simona Galletta & Sebastiano Mazzù & Valeria Naciti & Carlo Vermiglio, 2021. "Sustainable development and financial institutions: Do banks' environmental policies influence customer deposits?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 643-656, January.
    7. Wen, Hui & Ho, Ken C. & Gao, Jijun & Yu, Li, 2022. "The fundamental effects of ESG disclosure quality in boosting the growth of ESG investing," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    8. Nusirat Ojuolape Gold & Fauziah Md. Taib & Yaxin Ma, 2022. "Firm-Level Attributes, Industry-Specific Factors, Stakeholder Pressure, and Country-Level Attributes: Global Evidence of What Inspires Corporate Sustainability Practices and Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-28, October.
    9. Jagvinder Singh & Varda Sardana & Shubham Singhania, 2024. "Beyond compliance: the business case for gender diversity on boards and sustainability reporting in India," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 15(6), pages 2284-2293, June.
    10. Emmanuel Anyigbah & Yusheng Kong & Bless Kofi Edziah & Ahotovi Thomas Ahoto & Wilhelmina Seyome Ahiaku, 2023. "Board Characteristics and Corporate Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-26, February.
    11. Deheng Xiao & Shi Chen, 2025. "Does Executive Environmental Cognition Promote Corporate ESG Performance? Evidence from China," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 16(6), pages 17699-17727, December.
    12. Sonia Boukattaya & Zyed Achour & Zeineb Hlioui, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance: An Empirical Literature Review," Post-Print hal-03472433, HAL.
    13. Yi Zhang, 2022. "Analyst coverage and corporate social responsibility decoupling: Evidence from China," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 620-634, May.
    14. Adhikari, Binay K., 2016. "Causal effect of analyst following on corporate social responsibility," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 201-216.
    15. Xiaona Luo & Chan Lyu, 2024. "Green Bonds Drive Environmental Performance: Evidences from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-20, May.
    16. Päivi Myllykangas & Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki, 2010. "Analyzing the Essence of Stakeholder Relationships: What do we Need in Addition to Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 65-72, August.
    17. Ghada A. Altarawneh & Asma’a Omar Al-Halalmeh, 2020. "Conformity of Annual Reports to an Integrated Reporting Framework: ASE Listed Companies," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-24, August.
    18. Quynh-Trang Nguyen & John Francis Diaz & Jo-Hui Chen & Ming-Yen Lee, 2019. "Fractional Integration in Corporate Social Responsibility Indices: A FIGARCH and HYGARCH Approach," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 9(7), pages 836-850, July.
    19. Bilyay-Erdogan, Seda & Danisman, Gamze Ozturk & Demir, Ender, 2024. "ESG performance and investment efficiency: The impact of information asymmetry," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    20. Sajad Fayezi, 2022. "Student-Centered Curriculum Design and Evaluation in Logistics Management," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility
    • M48 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:27:y:2025:i:70:p:957. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Valentin Dumitru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.