IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i19p8814-d1762978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business Strategies and Corporate Reporting for Sustainability: A Comparative Study of Materiality, Stakeholder Engagement, and ESG Performance in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas-Errikos Delegkos

    (Department of Tourism Management, University of West Attica, Egaleo Park Campus, GR-12243 Egaleo, Greece)

  • Michalis Skordoulis

    (Department of Tourism Management, University of West Attica, Egaleo Park Campus, GR-12243 Egaleo, Greece)

  • Petros Kalantonis

    (Department of Tourism Management, University of West Attica, Egaleo Park Campus, GR-12243 Egaleo, Greece)

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between corporate reporting practices and the value relevance of accounting information by analyzing 100 publicly listed non-financial European firms between 2015 and 2019. Drawing on the Ohlson valuation framework, the analysis combines random effects with Driscoll–Kraay standard errors and System GMM estimations to assess the role of financial and non-financial disclosures. Materiality and stakeholder engagement were scored through content analysis of corporate reports, while ESG performance data were obtained from Refinitiv Eikon. The results show that financial fundamentals remain the most robust determinants of firm value, consistent with Ohlson’s model. Among qualitative disclosures, materiality demonstrates a strong and statistically significant positive association with market value in the random effects specification, while stakeholder engagement and ESG scores do not attain statistical significance. In the dynamic panel model, lagged market value is highly significant, confirming the persistence of valuation, while the effect of materiality and stakeholder engagement diminishes. Interaction models further indicate that materiality strengthens the relevance of earnings but reduces the role of book value, underscoring its selective contribution. Overall, the findings provide partial support for the claim that Integrated Reporting enhances the value relevance of accounting information. It suggests that the usefulness of IR depends less on adoption per se and more on the quality and substance of disclosures, particularly the integration of financial material ESG issues into corporate reporting. This highlights IR’s potential to improve transparency, accountability, and investor decision making, thereby contributing to more effective capital market outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas-Errikos Delegkos & Michalis Skordoulis & Petros Kalantonis, 2025. "Business Strategies and Corporate Reporting for Sustainability: A Comparative Study of Materiality, Stakeholder Engagement, and ESG Performance in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-23, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:19:p:8814-:d:1762978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/19/8814/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/19/8814/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Fasan & Chiara Mio, 2017. "Fostering Stakeholder Engagement: The Role of Materiality Disclosure in Integrated Reporting," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 288-305, March.
    2. Fiona Ann Robertson & Martin Samy, 2020. "Rationales for integrated reporting adoption and factors impacting on the extent of adoption," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(2), pages 351-382, January.
    3. Fiona Ann Robertson & Martin Samy, 2020. "Rationales for integrated reporting adoption and factors impacting on the extent of adoption," Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 11(2), pages 351-382, January.
    4. Baruch Lev, 2018. "The deteriorating usefulness of financial report information and how to reverse it," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 465-493, July.
    5. Petros Kalantonis & Andreas Errikos Delegkos & Emmanouela Sotirchou & Aristidis Papagrigoriou, 2022. "Modern business development and financial reporting: exploring the effect of corporate governance on the value relevance of accounting information—evidence from the Greek listed firms," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2879-2897, July.
    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. Hema Diwan & Binilkumar Amarayil Sreeraman, 2024. "From financial reporting to ESG reporting: a bibliometric analysis of the evolution in corporate sustainability disclosures," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(6), pages 13769-13805, June.
    2. Pei‐Chi Kelly Hsiao & Charl de Villiers & Claire Horner & Hein Oosthuizen, 2022. "A review and synthesis of contemporary sustainability accounting research and the development of a research agenda," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(4), pages 4453-4483, December.
    3. Bianca Alves Almeida Machado & Lívia Cristina Pinto Dias & Alberto Fonseca, 2021. "Transparency of materiality analysis in GRI‐based sustainability reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 570-580, March.
    4. Riccardo Torelli & Federica Balluchi & Katia Furlotti, 2020. "The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 470-484, March.
    5. Rongjiang Cai & Tao Lv & Cheng Wang & Nana Liu, 2023. "Can Environmental Information Disclosure Enhance Firm Value?—An Analysis Based on Textual Characteristics of Annual Reports," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-21, February.
    6. repec:osf:osfxxx:hb92c_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Dinh, Tami & Schultze, Wolfgang, 2022. "Accounting for R&D on the income statement? Evidence on non-discretionary vs. discretionary R&D capitalization under IFRS in Germany," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    8. Laura Girella & Stefano Zambon & Paola Rossi, 2019. "Reporting on sustainable development: A comparison of three Italian small and medium‐sized enterprises," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 981-996, July.
    9. Monica Laura Zlati & Valentin Marian Antohi & Petronela Cardon, 2019. "Correction of Accounting Errors through Post Balance Sheet Event Analysis for Romanian Companies," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-22, April.
    10. F. Cappellieri & R. Vinciguerra & A. Ricciardi & M. Pizzo, 2025. "Independent minority directors against self-serving and manipulative practices in non- financial reporting," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 29(2), pages 453-501, June.
    11. Torelli, Riccardo, 2020. "Sustainability, Responsibility and Ethics: Different Concepts for a Single Path," OSF Preprints hb92c, Center for Open Science.
    12. Sharon Kwaramba & Stanley Murairwa, 2022. "Enhancing the quality of decisions by administrators: A framework for identifying, classifying and engaging primary school stakeholders in Harare, Zimbabwe," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(1), pages 46-56, January.
    13. Stefano Marasca & Lucia Montanini & Alessia D'Andrea & Eva Cerioni, 2020. "The how and why of integrated reporting in a public health care organization: The stakeholders' perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 1714-1722, May.
    14. Jannik Gerwanski, 2020. "Does it pay off? Integrated reporting and cost of debt: European evidence," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2299-2319, September.
    15. Marco Bellucci & Carmela Nitti & Chiara Chimirri & Luca Bagnoli, 2019. "Rendicontare l?impatto sociale. Metodologie, indicatori e tre casi di sperimentazione in Toscana," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2019(3), pages 166-187.
    16. Kannan, Yezen & Khallaf, Ashraf & Gleason, Kimberly & Bostan, Ibrahim, 2023. "The relationship between R&D intensity, conservatism, and management earnings forecast issuance," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    17. Assaf Bar‐Hod & Ester Chen & Ilanit Gavious, 2021. "The economic consequences of fair value disclosures: a manifestation of the buried facts doctrine," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1363-1413, April.
    18. Ricardo Pinto & Isabel Lourenço & Ana Simões, 2022. "Does Innovation Spur Integrated Reporting?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, December.
    19. Caterina Cavicchi & Chiara Oppi & Emidia Vagnoni, 2019. "On the feasibility of integrated reporting in healthcare: a context analysis starting from a management commentary," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(2), pages 345-371, June.
    20. Patrick Velte, 2022. "Does sustainable corporate governance have an impact on materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting? International evidence," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1655-1670, December.
    21. Torelli, Riccardo & Balluchi, Federica & Furlotti, Katia, 2019. "The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports," OSF Preprints tw6c7, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:17:y:2025:i:19:p:8814-:d:1762978. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.