I december 2016 kommer en ny lag förmodligen att träda i kraft i Sverige som innehåller krav på att företag ska upprätta en hållbarhetsredovisning. Enligt lagförslaget kommer stora företag och företag av allmänt intresse att bli tvungna att rapportera om deras arbete kring miljö- och sociala frågor samt antikorruption. Rapporteringen måste ge information om vissa förutbestämda kriterier av lagen, såsom affärsmodell, policy, resultat av policy, väsentliga risker och hur dessa hanteras och andra relevanta icke-finansiella faktorer.Tidigare forskning visar att obligatorisk hållbarhetsredovisning inte hade den effekt som var förväntad då den abstrakta formuleringen gav företagen möjlighet att göra egna tolkningar av lagen. Tidigare forskning visar också att företag inom klädbranschen lämnar mer omfattande upplysningar än banker, speciellt vad gäller deras arbete kopplat till miljö och de sociala förhållandena i deras produktionsenheter. Banker rapporterar istället mer omfattande om sociala frågor kopplade till samhället. Vissa forskare hävdar att det fortfarande finns brister i sättet att redovisa hållbarhet inom alla branscher.Syftet med vår studie har varit att diskutera vilka konsekvenser den nya lagen kan komma att få för stora företag och dess hållbarhetsrapporter. Vi har jämfört innehållet av sex företags hållbarhetsredovisningar, tre i klädbranschen och tre i bankbranschen, gentemot lagförslagets krav på vad som ska ingå. Vidare har vi även analyserat huruvida det fanns en skillnad i sättet att rapportera mellan dessa branscher. Vi har genomfört en kvantitativ innehållsanalys av hållbarhetsredovisningar i företag som uppfyller lagförslagets kriterier på stora företag eller företag av allmänt intresse. Vår studie visade att även om företag rapporterade om alla områden som lagförslaget kräver, så gav inte rapporterna fulländad information om de speciella kriterier som krävs enligt lagförslaget. Företagens rapporter gav mycket information om hantering av risker och deras affärsmodell, men inte tillräckligt med upplysningar om deras väsentliga risker eller resultat av deras hållbarhetspolicyer. En anledning till detta kan vara att företagen inte vill rapportera om sådant som kan skada deras image. Vår studie visar också att omfattningen av företagens rapportering om de olika områdena skiljer sig beroende på bransch. Företagen i klädbranschen rapporterade utförligt om miljö- och sociala frågor men väldigt lite om antikorruption och personal. Banker rapporterade om alla områden som lagförslaget nämner, speciellt om personal, antikorruption och delar av sociala förhållanden och miljö. Överlag rapporterade bankerna mer generellt medan klädföretagen hade en mer detaljerad rapportering, speciellt vad gäller deras miljöarbete.Att implementera kraven från lagförslaget kommer att innebära ökade kostnader i form av både tid och pengar för företagen i vår studie. Båda branscherna kommer att behöva förbättra deras rapportering om risker och resultat av policy. Klädföretagen kommer att behöva komplettera deras rapportering om personalfrågor och antikorruption medan bankerna kommer att behöva konkretisera deras rapportering överlag. En stor risk med formuleringen av det aktuella lagförslaget är att företagen kan hitta kryphål för att göra sina egna tolkningar av den, vilket försvagar de förväntade effekterna av lagen. / In June 2016, a new law requiring companies to report on sustainability is likely to come into force in Sweden. According to the bill, large and public-interest companies are required to report their efforts on environmental issues, social issues and anti-corruption. The reporting need to include criteria predetermined by the law, such as business model, policies, results of such policies, main risks and how they are managed and other relevant non-financial factors.Previous research shows that mandatory sustainability reporting didn´t have the expected effect. Abstract law formulations gave the companies the opportunity to make their own interpretations of the law. Previous studies also show that companies working in the clothing industry provide more comprehensive information than banks, especially on their efforts connected to the environment and to the social conditions in their manufacturing units. Banks, on the other hand, report more extensively on social issues connected to society. Some scientists argue that there are still weaknesses in the way of reporting corporate sustainability across all industries.The aim of our study was to discuss the impact that such law might have for large companies and their sustainability reports. We compared the content of the corporate sustainability reports of six companies, three in the clothing industry and three in the banking sector, to what the current bill requires. In addition, we analyzed whether there was a difference in the way of reporting used by these two industries. We conducted a quantitative content analysis of the sustainability reports of companies that fulfill the bill´s criteria for large companies or public-interest entities. Our study showed that even though the selected companies reported on all the areas required by the bill, their reports didn´t give all the information specifically required by the bill. The reports described the companies' business model and risk management but they did not give enough information about the main risks or the result of their sustainability policies. One reason for this may be that companies don’t want to report information that may damage their image. Our study also showed that the degree, to which the companies reported in each area, differed depending on the industry. Companies in the clothing industry provided extensive information about environmental and social efforts but very little information about anti-corruption and employee policies. Banks reported in all areas mentioned by the law, particularly within employee related issues, anti-corruption and parts of their social and environmental efforts. As a whole, banks reported in a more general manner while clothing companies had more detailed reporting, especially on their environmental efforts. To implement the requirements of the law will mean costs in terms of time and money for the companies in our study. Both industries will need to improve their reporting of main risks and result of their sustainability policies. The clothing companies will need to complete their reporting within employee relations and anti-corruption, while the banks will need to be more detailed in the overall reporting. A major risk with the current law formulation is that companies can find loopholes to make their own interpretations of it, weakening the expected effects of the law.This paper is written in Swedish.

Background:  The introduction of the EU-taxonomy for sustainable activities in 2020 aims to create a shift in investments to foster sustainable growth. It classifies an organisation as “green” or not based on a predetermined set of categories and criteria. However, not all organisations are included. Small to medium enterprises are not included, and do not need to report on their activities. However, there exist SMEs which decided to still, to the extent possible, voluntarily comply with the EU-taxonomy. This form of voluntary compliance has not been explored in the prior literature.    Purpose:  The purpose of this study is to investigate the “Why” and the “How” of SMEs voluntarily compliance with the EU-taxonomy sustainability regulation.   Method:  In order to fulfil the purpose an interpretive qualitative approach has been adopted in this study. A comparative case study is used to develop an understanding of the individual cases but also their comparative aspects through a cross analysis. The information from the cases was collected through semi-structured interviews as well as from secondary data such as annual reports.    Conclusion:  This study concludes that while there are a multitude of reasons why an SME voluntarily complies to the EU-taxonomy, such as reputation and environment. “How” an organisation voluntarily complies is highly dependent on the industry and resources of an organisation.

As required by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) of the European Union, this thesis thoroughly examines the transition in corporate sustainability reporting from limited to reasonable assurance. The directive is being implemented at a crucial time as companies are progressively incorporating environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into their core operating and reporting practices. The CSRD is intended to improve sustainability disclosures’ comparability, credibility and reliability. It is a legislative response to a larger movement for more corporate accountability and transparency. The study uses a qualitative technique using semi-structured interviews with professionals from leading audit firms. The purpose of these interviews is to provide many aspects of the transition with a particular emphasis on how businesses and audit firms are modifying their operations to comply with the stricter requirements of the CSRD. The study identifies the main factors behind this shift such as increased stakeholder demands for transparency and a changing regulatory environment that makes it necessary to reevaluate current assurance practices.  The study’s important conclusion is that putting reasonable assurance requirements into practice is difficult. Companies must create advanced data management systems that can handle the CSRD’s requirements for an increasing volume of information. In addition to ensuring data accuracy, these systems need to make it easier to analyse and report on the data in a way that complies with the new assurance standards.  Additionally, the shift needs a major improvement in auditor competencies. It is necessary for auditors to have a better understanding of both traditional financial auditing and the specific challenges presented by sustainability reporting. This includes having a thorough understanding of ESG factors and how they affect risk profiles and corporate performance. Hence, the CSRD acts as a catalyst for a significant shift in auditors’ professional development and training, emphasising the necessity to combine sustainability with financial auditing skills.  Strong internal controls are also important, as the research shows. Establishing and maintaining strict internal mechanisms is necessary for businesses to ensure the reliability of their sustainability reports. This involves a thorough review and a redesign of internal processes in order to meet the higher standards of reasonable assurance. These controls are essential for reducing the risks associated with sustainability reporting such errors or misrepresentations which can have a big influence on stakeholder trust and regulatory compliance.  This change has significant implications for society at large. Companies may give stakeholders more reliable and detailed disclosures about their sustainable practices by shifting toward reasonable assurance. This can have a big impact on investment choices and build stakeholder confidence. This shift promotes a more transparent and sustainable corporate environment by supporting the incorporation of ESG factors into core business strategies and by strengthening the credibility of sustainability reports.

Background: In an evolving business landscape, the need for regulations has emerged to foster sustainable business. To ensure that firms are held accountable, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) entered into force in January 2024, encompassing approximately 50,000 firms across Europe. This directive expands upon previous legislation in all conceivable metrics, and has put affected firms under significant pressure, posing implications for organizational change arising from the extensive implementation. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify what actions firms are taking to comply with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and explore how their actions impact their organizational structure. Method: The study was conducted through a qualitative method including semi-structured interviews with eight participants, including HR Managers, Sustainability Managers, and Consultants. Conclusion: The study reveals that the effects on the organizational structure of firms as a consequence of the CSRD primarily involves incremental change. Efforts of coordinating across departments, allocating tasks and establishing supervisory functions emerges as core challenges when transitioning to CSRD compliance. These, in turn constituting structural changes in specialization, functional flexibility, formalization and standardization to accommodate new procedures necessitated by the CSRD. The analysis further highlights the expansion of middle management, support staff and technostructure, as a result of organization wide collaboration.

This master’s thesis investigates the preparedness of a selection of medium-sized Swedish construction companies for the upcoming Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). By examining the companies’ awareness and knowledge of the new regulation, this thesis aims to provide insights into the challenges and opportunities they may encounter. The research questions explored include: the extent of these companies’ knowledge and understanding of the CSRD requirements, the most challenging aspects of these regulations, and the potential impact of the CSRD on their sustainability practices.  The results shows that the examined medium-sized Swedish construction companies has limited knowledge about the CSRD. The companies face a number of challenges in connection to their ability to comply to the CSRD. The most prominent challenge was found to be External data collection - scope 3. Furthermore, the companies believe that by complying with the CSRD it will make them more sustainable. However, the companies believe the tools and methods needed to comply with the CSRD could affect their profitability. Nevertheless the companies generally believe that this need for resources can become a long-term investment and thereby make them more sustainable and profitable. / Denna masteruppsats undersöker beredskapen hos ett urval av medelstora svenska byggföretag för det kommande Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Genom att undersöka företagens medvetenhet och kunskap om den nya förordningen syftar denna avhandling till att ge insikter om de utmaningar och möjligheter de kan möta. Forskningsfrågorna som undersöks inkluderar: omfattningen av dessa företags kunskap och förståelse för CSRD kraven, de mest utmanande aspekterna av dessa förordningar och den potentiella inverkan av CSRD på deras hållbarhetspraxis.  Resultaten visar att de undersökta medelstora svenska byggföretagen har begränsad kunskap om CSRD och ESRS. Företagen står inför ett antal utmaningar i samband med deras förmåga att följa CSRD. Den mest framträdande utmaningen visade sig vara extern datainsamling - scope 3. Vidare tror företagen att genom att följa CSRD kommer det att göra dem mer hållbara. Företagen tror dock att de verktyg och metoder som behövs för att följa CSRD kan påverka deras lönsamhet. Trots det tror företagen generellt att detta resursbehov kan bli en långsiktig investering och därmed göra dem mer hållbara och lönsamma.

Revisorer beskriver Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) som det största som någonsin hänt inom revisionsprofessionen. Klimatförändringar är något som inte går att blunda för i dagsläget utan alla måste agera för att vända den pågående förödande trend i världen. Europaparlamentet fattade beslut att införa CSRD för att EU ska bli den första kontinenten att bli klimatneutrala, vilket är EU:s gröna giv. Tidigare har stora företag i EU omfattats av Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) men kraven på vad företag måste rapportera har varit nästintill obefintliga, vilket resulterar i att många företags hållbarhetsrapporter kan klassas som greenwashing. CSRD syftar till att öka transparens, jämförbarhet och kvalité för hållbarhetsrapporter då det nya direktivet är betydligt mer omfattande än NFRD. Företag som omfattas av det nya direktivet ska nu rapportera hur de hanterar miljö, socialt och bolagsstyrning för att öka jämförbarhet och trovärdigheten. Rapporter omfattas enligt CSRD även av lagstadgad revision vilket innebär att auktoriserade revisorer ska utföra oberoende granskning för att öka trovärdigheten för intressenter.  Syftet med studien är att med utgångspunkt i skandinavisk institutionell teori identifiera hur det nya direktivet för hållbarhetsrapportering översätts hos en revisionsbyrå samt skapa en förståelse för vilka utmaningar dessa förklaringar ger uttryck för. Intervjuer genomfördes med revisorer för att få en förståelse för hur de ser på direktivet och skapa en bild över hur direktivet översätts i organisationen. Även textanalys av CSRD och statens offentliga utredning om hållbarhetsrapportering genomfördes för att besvara studiens syfte. Resultatet visar att det finns flera olika steg som organisationer går igenom när de implementerar CSRD i revisionsbyrån. Studien identifierar flertalet teman som påverkar översättningsprocessen både internt och externt. Utifrån dessa identifierade teman i empirin framstår tre utmaningar kopplat till översättningsprocessen vilket är tidspress, kompetens och slutkonsumentens makt. / Auditors describe the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) as the biggest thing that has ever happened to the audit profession. Climate change is something that cannot be turned a blind eye to and everyone must act to reverse the ongoing devastating trend in the world. The European Parliament decided to introduce CSRD so that the EU can become the first continent to become climate neutral, which is the EU's green Deal. In the past, large companies in the EU have been covered by the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), but the requirements for what companies must report have been almost non-existent, which results in many companies' sustainability reports being classified as greenwashing. CSRD aims to increase transparency, comparability, and quality of sustainability reports as the new directive is significantly more comprehensive than NFRD. Companies covered by the new directive must now report how they manage environmental, social and corporate governance to increase comparability and credibility. Reports according to CSRD are also covered by statutory audit, which means that authorized auditors must carry out independent review to increase credibility for stakeholders. The purpose of the study is to identify, based on Scandinavian institutional theory, how the new directive for sustainability reporting is translated at an accounting firm and to create an understanding of the challenges these explanations express. Interviews were conducted with auditors to gain an understanding of how they view the directive to create a picture of how the directive is translated in the organization. Text analysis of the CSRD and the state's public inquiry into sustainability reporting was also carried out to answer the purpose of the study. The result shows that there are several different steps that organizations go through when implementing CSRD in the audit firm. The study identifies several themes that affect the translation process both internally and externally. Based on these identified themes in the empirical work, three challenges appear linked to the translation process, which are time pressure, competence and the power of the end consumer.

Published Article / Sustainability has been described as the primary moral and economic imperative of the twenty-first century and one of the most important sources of both opportunities and risks for businesses. Companies are also expected to behave, and be seen to behave, as responsible corporate citizens that is, as protecting, enhancing and investing in the wellbeing of the economy, society and the natural environment in which they do business. Accordingly the need exists for accurate, reliable and credible stakeholder reporting by organisations on their economic, social and environmental performances and achievements. An effectively functioning audit committee can play an important role in this regard to assist the board in providing accurate and credible sustainability reporting and disclosures that are integrated with the company's financial reporting. The objective of the article is twofold: it aims, firstly, to provide a brief overview of the development of sustainability and sustainability reporting and the role that audit committees can fulfil in this regard; and, secondly, its intention is to provide evidence that the recommendations of the third Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa (King III) regarding sustainability reporting, assurance and the audit committee's oversight responsibility for this are justified. This is done through a literature review of current sustainability and audit committee developments and practices, and this is supported by empirical evidence obtained from assessing the annual reports and questionnaires sent to the audit committee chairs of the Top 40 listed companies in South Africa. The main findings of the study are that the majority of audit committees at the largest listed companies in South Africa are not taking oversight responsibility for sustainability reporting on their boards' behalf, although they are dealing with some ethical and social reporting aspects. It was also found that reporting by companies in their annual reports on their audit committee's corporate governance, social and sustainability oversight responsibilities was limited and does not reflect the true state of affairs. These findings are of significance, as they provide support for the recommendations of King III (effective from 1 March 2010) that companies should in future provide integrated reporting in terms of both their finances and sustainability, and that the audit committee should take oversight responsibility for this. The study is of specific relevance for Africa with its rich mineral resources, as it is of vital importance that companies that do business on the continent behave as responsible corporate citizens, respect the environment and society, and provide accurate, reliable and credible reporting on their financial and sustainability performance to all of their stakeholders.

Published Article / It is widely assumed that sustainability reporting is a mechanism that companies can use to demonstrate their trustworthiness with regard to development in a sustainable manner. This article uses the Mayer, Davis and Schoorman trust model as basis to discuss how sustainability reporting can enhance trustworthiness in a sustainable development context. The study also uses a survey-questionnaire, sent to South African sustainability reporters, to explore whether they are finding sustainability reporting useful for enhancing companies' trustworthiness among stakeholders in a sustainable development context. Respondents indicate, amongst other things, that sustainability reporting in South Africa has a role to play in enhancing trustworthiness, more so among contractual stakeholders than among community stakeholders. To entrench trust benefits in the long term will however require long term strategies. Such strategies should focus on increasing the engagement of community stakeholders, authentic use of the GRI and implementing effective control systems that prevent the misuse of sustainability reports, while not preventing the formation of real trust.

As a response to the growing public awareness on the importance of organisational contributions to sustainable development, there is an increased incentive for corporations to report on their sustainability activities. In parallel with this has been the development of 'Sustainable HRM' which embraces a growing body of practitioner and academic literature connecting the notions of corporate sustainability to HRM. The aim of this article is to analyse corporate sustainability reporting amongst the world's largest companies and to assess the HRM aspects of sustainability within these reports in comparison to environmental aspects of sustainable management and whether organisational attributes - principally country-of-origin - influences the reporting of such practices. A focus in this article is the extent to which the reporting of various aspects of sustainability may reflect dominant models of corporate governance in the country in which a company is headquartered. The findings suggest, first and against expectations, that the overall disclosure on HRM-related performance is not lower than that on environmental performance. Second, companies report more on their internal workforce compared to their external workforce. Finally, international differences, in particular those between companies headquartered in liberal market economies and coordinated market economies, are not as apparent as expected. (authors' abstract)

År 1992 gick startskottet för att hållbarhet skulle bli företags skyldighet utifrån tidigare sattaglobala hållbarhetsmål. Detta medförde en diskussion om hur hållbarhet skulle rapporteras.Inte förrän 25 år senare anammas detta som ett lagkrav för större företag i Sverige. Problemetär sålunda, att trots lagkrav om hållbarhetsrapportering finns det inget lagstyrt ramverk somföretag måste använda. Målet med studien är därmed att studera vilka ramverk som användsav Sveriges börsbolag. Börsbolagen delas även upp i olika branscher för att synliggöraeventuella skillnader kring ramverkens användning i respektive bransch. I samband med dettahar vi studerat vilka företag som hållbarhetsredovisar under tre olika tidpunkter; 2014, 2016samt 2018. Med hjälp av en kvantitativ innehållsanalys har bland annat följande slutsatserpåträffats: Att fler företag och branscher hållbarhetsredovisar, vilket beror påÅrsredovisningslagens tvingande isomorfism, samt att hållbarhetsrapporterna frambringarlegitimitet. Ramverken Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Standards,International Organization for Standardization (ISO), UN Sustainable Development Goals(SDG) och UN Global Compact (UN GC) är de mest använda ramverken. / The importance of sustainable responsibility for enterprises was introduced in 1992 lead bythe global goals of sustainability at the time. This evoked a discussion involving methods forthe accounting of sustainability. After a period of approximately 25 years, the SwedishAnnual Accounts Act was reformed to include legislation meaning larger enterprises ought toaccount for their sustainability work. Beyond this legislation, however, there is no guidanceregarding which framework an enterprise should turn to for help. The goal of this study hastherefore been to examine the uses of specific frameworks in listed companies on TheNASDAQ Stockholm stock exchange. The companies’ choice of framework is also examinedin regards to their line of business. Three points for measurement have been distinguished asthe years of 2014, 2016 and 2018. A quantitative content analysis was conducted whichgenerated a few conclusions. The results pinpoint that most companies, as well as most of thelines of businesses, conduct a sustainability report. It was also shown that businesses conductthese reports in regards to the legitimacy it earns them, as well as the compelling isomorphismthrough the Swedish Annual Accounts Act. The most frequently used frameworks weredistinguished as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Standards,International Organization for Standardization (ISO), UN Sustainable Development Goals(SDG) and the UN Global Compact (UN GC).