IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v34y2025i7p8079-8099.html

Institutional Logics and Stakeholder Stances on Sustainability Reporting Regulation. Insights From the European Union Public Consultation

Author

Listed:
  • Rodolfo Damiano
  • Giuseppe Valenza

Abstract

This study examines how market and nonmarket logics influence the European sustainability reporting regulation revision. Drawing on institutional logics, we analyse the consultation that informed the Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD) to Directive 2022/2464/EU (CSRD) shift. We performed correspondence analysis of closed‐ended and close reading of open‐ended responses to explore contrasting stakeholder stances and whether these reflect competing logics. We found that business representatives (organisations and associations) are more conservative than nonbusiness (e.g., NGOs and citizens) on the proposed revisions due to market logics adherence. Furthermore, the CSRD regulatory stance aligns more with progressives, pushing conservatives towards reporting requirements they perceive as risky. This study contributes to the institutional logics and sustainability reporting literature, extending it to the regulation phenomenon. It provides theoretical insights on the competing logics roots of dissatisfaction with regulated sustainability reporting. It advocates for a regulatory design fostering dialogue and helping organisations develop capabilities for effective compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodolfo Damiano & Giuseppe Valenza, 2025. "Institutional Logics and Stakeholder Stances on Sustainability Reporting Regulation. Insights From the European Union Public Consultation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(7), pages 8079-8099, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:34:y:2025:i:7:p:8079-8099
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.70016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70016
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.70016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:bla:bstrat:v:34:y:2025:i:7:p:8079-8099. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    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.