MECHANISMS OF INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCE ON SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING
Abstract
The relevance of the research topic is driven by the rapid transition from voluntary non-financial disclosure to systemic standardization within the European Union and at the international level, necessitating a profound theoretical rethinking of the motives behind corporate transparency. The aim of the article is to examine and reconsider the provisions of institutional theory as a conceptual framework that explains the processes of harmonization and unification of sustainability-related disclosures under the pressure of the global institutional environment. The study employs the method of theoretical generalization to reveal the genesis of institutional mechanisms, the deductive method to analyze the three-pillar structure of the institutional environment (regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive), as well as comparative-typological analysis to identify manifestations of isomorphism amidst the implementation of ESRS and IFRS S1 and S2 standards. The results obtained demonstrate that the homogenization of reporting practices is often determined not by technical efficiency but by organizations' pursuit of social legitimacy through adaptation to external pressure. It is established that coercive isomorphism, implemented via the CSRD Directive and institutional investor requirements, defines formal operational frameworks; mimetic isomorphism prompts companies to emulate successful models of industry leaders under conditions of high uncertainty; and normative pressure from professional associations and standard-setters such as GRI or ISSB facilitates professionalization and the formation of a common reporting 'language'. A key scientific finding is the characterization of the decoupling phenomenon, which emerges as a defensive response to the conflict between environmental demands and internal economic priorities. The practical value of the article lies in the development of a comprehensive approach to mitigating the decoupling effect through the integration of ESG indicators into strategic planning and management KPI systems, the implementation of independent external data assurance, and the cultivation of an internal corporate culture of responsibility.
References
Жук В. М. Розвиток теорії бухгалтерського обліку: інституціональний аспект : монографія. Київ : ННЦ «ІАЕ», 2018. 408 с.
Meyer J. W., Rowan B. Institutionalised organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology. 1977. Vol. 83, No. 2. P. 340–363.
Scott W. R. Institutions and Organisations: Ideas and Interests. 3rd ed. Los Angeles : Sage Publications, 2008. 266 p.
Scott W. R. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1987. Vol. 32, No. 4. P. 493–511.
DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 1983. Vol. 48. P. 146–160.
Zucker L. G. Institutional Theories of Organization. Annual Review of Sociology. 1987. Vol. 13, No. 1. P. 443–464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.SO.13.080187.002303
Benvenuto M., Aufiero C., Viola C. A systematic literature review on the determinants of sustainability reporting systems. Heliyon. 2023. Vol. 9, Iss. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14893
Wukich J. J., Neuman E. L., Fogarty T. J. Show me? Inspire me? Make me? An institutional theory exploration of social and environmental reporting practices. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change. 2023. Vol. 20, No. 4. P. 673–701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-01-2023-0013
Del Gesso C., Lodhi R. Theories underlying environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure: a systematic review of accounting studies. Journal of Accounting Literature. 2024. Vol. 47, No. 2. P. 433–461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-08-2023-0143
Dumitru M., Dyduch J., Gușe R., Krasodomska J. Corporate reporting practices in Poland and Romania – An ex-ante study to the new non-financial reporting European directive. Accounting in Europe. 2017. Vol. 14, No. 3. P. 279–304.
Kılıç M., Uyar A., Kuzey C., Karaman A. S. Does institutional theory explain integrated reporting adoption of Fortune 500 companies? Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2021. Vol. 22, No. 1. P. 114–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2020-0068
Mahmud Md T. Quest for a Single Theory to Explain Managerial Motivations for Sustainability Disclosures: Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory or Institutional Theory. Bulletin of Japanese Association for International Accounting Studies. 2020. Vol. 7. P. 135–159. URL: https://jaias.org/content/files/pdf/academic_records/2019bulletin/12.pdf (дата звернення: 15.02.2025).
Mahmud M. T. Why Are Japanese Companies Publishing Integrated Reports? Perceiving through the Lens of Institutional Theory. Comparative CSR and Sustainability. 1st ed. New York : Routledge, 2022. P. 207–229.
Nasreen T., Baker R., Rezania D. Sustainability reporting – a systematic review of various dimensions, theoretical and methodological underpinnings. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. 2025. Vol. 23, No. 3. P. 1057–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-01-2022-0029
Posadas S., Ruiz Blanco S., Fernandez-Feijoo B., Tarquinio L. Institutional isomorphism under the test of Non-financial Reporting Directive. Evidence from Italy and Spain. Meditari Accountancy Research. 2023. Vol. 31. P. 26–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2022-1606
Khan M., Lockhart J., Bathurst R. A multi-level institutional perspective of corporate social responsibility reporting: A mixed-method study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020. Vol. 265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121739
Білобловський С. Інституційна трансформація звітування для забезпечення стійкого розвитку організацій в умовах глобальної нестабільності. Bulletin of Sumy National Agrarian University. 2025. № 1 (101). С. 25–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/bsnau.2025.1.5
Мисака Г., Дерун І. Концептуальні детермінанти розвитку корпоративної звітності в інформаційних економіках та суспільствах. Financial and Credit Activity Problems of Theory and Practice. 2022. № 4 (45). С. 68–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.4.45.2022.3806
Олійник О. В., Захаров Д. М. Виклики та перспективи ESG звітності: аналіз теоретичних і практичних аспектів. Економіка, управління та адміністрування. 2024. № 3 (109). С. 67–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26642/ema-2024-3(109)-67-73
Селецька Д. О. Звітність зі сталого розвитку: становлення, зміст, актуальність. Економіка, управління та адміністрування. 2024. № 2 (108). С. 109–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26642/ema-2024-2(108)-109-117
Deegan C. М. Financial accounting theory. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill Education (Australia) Pty Ltd, 2014. 609 p.
Тивончук О. І., Тітов Д. К. Вплив теорії стейкхолдерів на розвиток звітності зі сталого розвитку та її стандартизацію. Вісник Хмельницького національного університету. Економічні науки. 2025. Т. 342, № 3 (1). С. 161–169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31891/2307-5740-2025-342-3(1)-24
Esteban-Arrea R., Garcia-Torea N. Strategic responses to sustainability reporting regulation and multiple stakeholder demands: an analysis of the Spanish EU non-financial reporting directive transposition. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. 2022. Vol. 13, No. 3. P. 600–625.
Gray R. Ambidexterity, Puzzlement, Confusion and a Community of Faith? A Response to My Friends. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal. 2014. Vol. 34, No. 2. P. 97–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2014.938474
Eitrem A., Meidell A., Modell S. The use of institutional theory in social and environmental accounting research: a critical review. Accounting and Business Research. 2024. Vol. 54. P. 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2024.2328934
Di Chiacchio L., Vivian B., Cegarra-Navarro J. et al. The evolution of non-financial report quality and visual content: information asymmetry and strategic signalling: a cross-cultural perspective. Environmental Development and Sustainability. 2025. Vol. 27. P. 26427–26457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04779-z
Zhuk V. M. (2018). Rozvytok teorii bukhhalterskoho obliku: instytutsionalnyi aspekt [Development of accounting theory: institutional aspect]. Kyiv: NNTs «IAE». 408 p. (in Ukrainian)
Meyer J. W., & Rowan B. (1977). Institutionalised organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Scott W. R. (2008). Institutions and Organisations: Ideas and Interests (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. 266 p.
Scott W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.
DiMaggio P. J., & Powell W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 146–160.
Zucker L. G. (1987). Institutional Theories of Organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.SO.13.080187.002303
Benvenuto M., Aufiero C., & Viola C. (2023). A systematic literature review on the determinants of sustainability reporting systems. Heliyon, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14893
Wukich J. J., Neuman E. L., & Fogarty T. J. (2023). Show me? Inspire me? Make me? An institutional theory exploration of social and environmental reporting practices. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 20(4), 673–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-01-2023-0013
Del Gesso C., & Lodhi R. (2024). Theories underlying environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure: a systematic review of accounting studies. Journal of Accounting Literature, 47(2), 433–461. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-08-2023-0143
Dumitru M., Dyduch J., Gușe R., & Krasodomska J. (2017). Corporate reporting practices in Poland and Romania – An ex-ante study to the new non-financial reporting European directive. Accounting in Europe, 14(3), 279–304.
Kılıç M., Uyar A., Kuzey C., & Karaman A. S. (2021). Does institutional theory explain integrated reporting adoption of Fortune 500 companies? Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(1), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2020-0068
Mahmud Md T. (2020). Quest for a Single Theory to Explain Managerial Motivations for Sustainability Disclosures: Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory or Institutional Theory. Bulletin of Japanese Association for International Accounting Studies, 7, 135–159. Available at: https://jaias.org/content/files/pdf/academic_records/2019bulletin/12.pdf (accessed February 15, 2025).
Mahmud M. T. (2022). Why Are Japanese Companies Publishing Integrated Reports? Perceiving through the Lens of Institutional Theory. In Comparative CSR and Sustainability (1st ed., pp. 207–229). New York: Routledge.
Nasreen T., Baker R., & Rezania D. (2025). Sustainability reporting – a systematic review of various dimensions, theoretical and methodological underpinnings. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 23(3), 1057–1088. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-01-2022-0029
Posadas S., Ruiz Blanco S., Fernandez-Feijoo B., & Tarquinio L. (2023). Institutional isomorphism under the test of Non-financial Reporting Directive. Evidence from Italy and Spain. Meditari Accountancy Research, 31, 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-02-2022-1606
Khan M., Lockhart J., & Bathurst R. (2020). A multi-level institutional perspective of corporate social responsibility reporting: A mixed-method study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121739
Biloblovskyi S. (2025). Instytutsiina transformatsiia zvituvannia dlia zabezpechennia stiikoho rozvytku orhanizatsii v umovakh hlobalnoi nestabilnosti [Institutional transformation of reporting to ensure sustainable development of organizations in conditions of global instability]. Bulletin of Sumy National Agrarian University, 1(101), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.32782/bsnau.2025.1.5 (in Ukrainian)
Mysaka H., & Derun I. (2022). Kontseptualni determinanty rozvytku korporatyvnoi zvitnosti v informatsiinykh ekonomikakh ta suspilstvakh [Conceptual determinants of corporate reporting development in information economies and societies]. Financial and Credit Activity Problems of Theory and Practice, 4(45), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.4.45.2022.3806 (in Ukrainian)
Oliinyk O. V., & Zakharov D. M. (2024). Vyklyky ta perspektyvy ESG zvitnosti: analiz teoretychnykh i praktychnykh aspektiv [Challenges and prospects of ESG reporting: analysis of theoretical and practical aspects]. Ekonomika, upravlinnia ta administruvannia, 3(109), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.26642/ema-2024-3(109)-67-73 (in Ukrainian)
Seletska D. O. (2024). Zvitnist zi staloho rozvytku: stanovlennia, zmist, aktualnist [Sustainability reporting: formation, content, relevance]. Ekonomika, upravlinnia ta administruvannia, 2(108), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.26642/ema-2024-2(108)-109-117 (in Ukrainian)
Deegan C. М. (2014). Financial accounting theory (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education (Australia) Pty Ltd. 609 p.
Tyvonchuk O. I., & Titov D. K. (2025). Vplyv teorii steikkholderiv na rozvytok zvitnosti zi staloho rozvytku ta yii standartyzatsiiu [The influence of stakeholder theory on the development of sustainability reporting and its standardization]. Visnyk Khmelnytskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Ekonomichni nauky, 342(3(1)), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.31891/2307-5740-2025-342-3(1)-24 (in Ukrainian)
Esteban-Arrea R., & Garcia-Torea N. (2022). Strategic responses to sustainability reporting regulation and multiple stakeholder demands: an analysis of the Spanish EU non-financial reporting directive transposition. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(3), 600–625.
Gray R. (2014). Ambidexterity, Puzzlement, Confusion and a Community of Faith? A Response to My Friends. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(2), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2014.938474
Eitrem A., Meidell A., & Modell S. (2024). The use of institutional theory in social and environmental accounting research: a critical review. Accounting and Business Research, 54, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2024.2328934
Di Chiacchio L., Vivian B., Cegarra-Navarro J., et al. (2025). The evolution of non-financial report quality and visual content: information asymmetry and strategic signalling: a cross-cultural perspective. Environmental Development and Sustainability, 27, 26427–26457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04779-z
Copyright (c) 2026 Олена Тивончук, Дмитро Тітов
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
