IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i5p1963-d328406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

OHS Disclosures Within Non-Financial Reports: The Romanian Case

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Petrina Păun

    () (Department of Economic Sciences, University of Petroșani, University Street, 332001 Petroșani, Romania)

  • Codruța Cornelia Dura

    () (Department of Economic Sciences, University of Petroșani, University Street, 332001 Petroșani, Romania)

  • Sorin Mihăilescu

    () (Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Transport Engineering, University of Petroșani, University Street, 332001 Petroșani, Romania)

  • Roland Iosif Moraru

    () (Department of Management and Industrial Engineering, University of Petroșani, University Street, 332001 Petroșani, Romania)

  • Claudia Adriana Isac

    () (Department of Economic Sciences, University of Petroșani, University Street, 332001 Petroșani, Romania)

Abstract

The article addresses the issue of disclosing Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) issues by corporations in Romania, under the influence of recent changes in the legislative framework imposed by the adoption of the EU Directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial reporting by large corporations exceeding 500 employees. The goal of our study consist in determining the relevant factors that influence the level of the Romanian companies’ OHS disclosure. To this end, we have compiled a sample of 35 organizations that have elaborated and published non-financial reports during 2016–2017 and we have analysed the impact of some relevant determinants upon the reporting phenomenon. With the aim of providing a clear picture of the regional context of our study, we put together many pieces of information regarding the corporations that played the trend-setters role in Romania, by disclosing corporate social responsibility (CSR)/sustainability reports between 2003 and 2017, although this practice has been characterized by a voluntary and unsteady approach in many cases. The importance of outlining the regional context of the Romanian reporting companies is given by the urge to raise the local managers’ level of awareness towards sustainability issues and to use the recent legislative changes as opportunities to catch up with more advanced EU countries. The research methods used in order to identify the interdependencies established between the key factors involved in the disclosure practices included a mixed quantitative-qualitative approach, and referred to: content analysis of sustainability reports; descriptive analysis of the statistical variables which were taken into consideration; correlation analysis of numerical variables; and the ANOVA method for investigating the interdependencies between the categorical and numerical variables. Among the influencing factors that impact with a greater or lesser intensity the quality of OHS reporting performed by the local companies, the following were highlighted: the corporations’ market share, their field of activity, and the ownership structure.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Petrina Păun & Codruța Cornelia Dura & Sorin Mihăilescu & Roland Iosif Moraru & Claudia Adriana Isac, 2020. "OHS Disclosures Within Non-Financial Reports: The Romanian Case," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:1963-:d:328406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1963/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1963/
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ciprian Obrad & Vasile Gherheș, 2018. "A Human Resources Perspective on Responsible Corporate Behavior. Case Study: The Multinational Companies in Western Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Sarah J. Williams & Carol A. Adams, 2013. "Moral accounting? Employee disclosures from a stakeholder accountability perspective," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(3), pages 449-495, March.
    3. Justyna Dyduch & Joanna Krasodomska, 2017. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Empirical Study of Polish Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(11), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Eng, L. L. & Mak, Y. T., 2003. "Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 325-345.
    5. Kansal, Monika & Joshi, Mahesh & Batra, Gurdip Singh, 2014. "Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from India," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 217-229.
    6. Camelia I. Lungu & Chiraţa Caraiani & Cornelia Dascălu, 2011. "Research on Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 13(29), pages 117-131, February.
    7. Irina-Eugenia Iamandi, 2012. "Empirical Analysis on CSR Communication in Romania: Transparency and Participation," Romanian Economic Journal, Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, vol. 15(45), pages 25-50, December.
    8. Radu FILIP & Irina-Eugenia IAMANDI & Sebastian Mãdãlin MUNTEANU, 2012. "Corporate Social Responsibility Management Standards In Romania: Application And Evaluation At Corporate Level," Business Excellence and Management, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2(2), pages 35-46, June.
    9. Patrycja Hąbek & Radosław Wolniak, 2016. "Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 399-420, January.
    10. Carmelo Reverte, 2009. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 351-366, August.
    11. Adriana Tiron-Tudor & Cristina Silvia Nistor & Cristina Alexandrina ªtefãnescu & Gianluca Zanellato, 2019. "Encompassing Non-Financial Reporting in A Coercive Framework for Enhancing Social Responsibility: Romanian Listed Companies’ Case," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(52), pages 590-590, August.
    12. António Dias & Lúcia Lima Rodrigues & Russell Craig, 2016. "Global financial crisis and corporate social responsibility disclosure," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 12(4), pages 654-671, October.
    13. Tamara Eugenia Baleanu & Liviu Chelcea & Alin Stancu, 2011. "The Social Responsibility of the Top 100 Romanian Companies. An Analysis of Corporate Websites," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 13(29), pages 235-248, February.
    14. Patrycja Hąbek & Radosław Wolniak, 2016. "Assessing the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: the case of reporting practices in selected European Union member states," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 399-420, January.
    15. R.M. Haniffa & T. E. Cooke, 2002. "Culture, Corporate Governance and Disclosure in Malaysian Corporations," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 38(3), pages 317-349, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Directive 2014/95/EU; Romania; disclosure; occupational health and safety (OHS); non-financial reporting; CSR/sustainability; determinants; global OHS reporting index; Pearson correlation; ANOVA method;

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:1963-:d:328406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.