Strengthening accountability and

sustainability reporting: does stakeholder

engagement really work? Evidence from
the judicial sector
Floriana Fusco, Pietro Pavone and Paolo Ricci

Abstract Floriana Fusco is based at

Purpose – This study aims to explore to what extent stakeholder engagement affects the sustainability the Department of Law,
reporting (SR) process and if it succeeds in facilitating the encounter between demand and supply of Economics, Management
accountability, as well as the main challenges of this practice, by focusing on a crucial and under- and Quantitative Methods,
investigated public sector area, the judicial system. University of Sannio,
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopts an action research (AR) approach. Specifically, it Benevento, Italy. Pietro
focuses on a specific phase (i.e. stakeholder engagement) of the broader project that was carried on from 2019 Pavone and Paolo Ricci are
in an Italian Public Prosecutor’s Office. Data were collected from multiple sources, i.e. written notes and reports both based at the
gathered during meetings, the survey administered to stakeholders and the published sustainability reports.
Department of Political
Findings – Stakeholder engagement may be a valuable and effective tool for improving the level of Sciences, University of
accountability, as it increases the responsiveness of SR to the informative needs of stakeholders. Naples Federico II, Naples,
However, the study also highlights some critical points that must be addressed to exploit this fully. Among
Italy.
these is the need to act upstream of the process by working on an accounting system that goes beyond
the economic dynamics and can effectively answer the accountability demand.
Originality/value – The study contributes to theoretical and empirical knowledge by exploring a topic
Received 1 May 2023
and a public sphere still limited investigated, i.e. the stakeholder engagement in sustainability in the Revised 1 October 2023
judicial sector. The AR approach also presents some originality points, as it is low widespread in 3 November 2023
management and accounting literature. Accepted 13 December 2023
Keywords Stakeholder engagement, Accountability, Sustainability reporting, Justice system, Courts, © Floriana Fusco, Pietro Pavone
Action research and Paolo Ricci. Published by
Emerald Publishing Limited.
Paper type Research paper
This article is published under
the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Anyone may reproduce,
1. Introduction distribute, translate and create
derivative works of this article
Seventy years have passed since Bowen’s definition of corporate social responsibility (for both commercial and
(CSR), considered as the obligations of businessman pursued as to those policies, to make non-commercial purposes),
subject to full attribution to the
those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the original publication and authors.
objectives and values of our society (Bowen, 1953, p. 6). A few decades less since the path The full terms of this licence may
be seen at http:// creativecom-
was opened to research the reporting of these broad responsibilities. In 1987, Gray et al. mons.org/licences/by/4.0/legal-
code
(1987, p. 9) defined the social accounting the process of communicating the social and
environmental effects of organisations’ economic actions to particular interest groups within Since the submission of this
article, the following author has
society and to society at large. As such, it involves extending the accountability of updated her affiliations:
organisations [. . .] beyond the traditional role of providing a financial account. Floriana Fusco is at the
Department of Law,
Economics, and
Despite the vast amount of scientific work, academic interest in these topics shows no sign Communication (GEC), Lumsa
of waning (Moura-Leite and Padgett, 2011; Euge nio et al., 2010; Andrew and Baker, 2020), University, Palermo, Italy.

DOI 10.1108/SRJ-05-2023-0248 VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024, pp. 1015-1039, Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-1117 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1015
 also due to numerous evolutions and contaminations with the related concepts (Carroll,
2015; Torelli, 2020; Khan et al., 2020). Actually, the concept of CSR is now inextricably
linked with that of sustainability (van Marrewijk, 2003; Moon, 2007; Montiel and Delgado-
Ceballos, 2014), and nomenclature surrounding the related reporting has increasingly
diversified (e.g. “social”, “environmental”, “social-environmental”, “sustainability”), until it
falls under the umbrella of non-financial disclosure (Andrew and Baker, 2020; Khan et al.,
2020; Venturelli et al., 2018; Aluchna et al., 2022), or, more recently “extended external
reporting”, also to include “integrated” and “value” reporting (Nicolò et al., 2022; De Villiers
et al., 2022; Hsiao et al., 2022).
Here, we refer to “sustainability reporting” (SR) as a form of disclosure containing
information on social, environmental and economic activities and impacts of organisations.
Albeit with a certain delay (Ball et al., 2014), research and practices on SR have also
focused on the public sector organisations (PSOs) (Guthrie et al., 2017; Fusco and Ricci,
2019; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020). Not only. In a mirror movement compared to what is
happening in the private sector, financial standard setters are also pushing in this direction.
Not by chance, on its website, the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board
defines the development of guidance for SR in the public sector as an “urgent need”.
Hence, on the one hand, there is a broad convergence towards the consideration that
traditional financial reporting mechanisms cannot grasp the essence of PSOs’ purposes
and remain opaque and useless for non-expert recipients (Ricci and Civitillo, 2018; Bracci
et al., 2015). On the other, PSOs are critical players in pursuing sustainable and responsible
social and economic progress, both in their regulatory role and as economic actors, which
control a large proportion of the economy and provides several crucial services for the
community (UN, 2015; European Commission, 2017; World Bank, 2020; Ball et al., 2014).
Nowadays, current knowledge mainly focuses on the reasons for disclosure, and therefore
considering SR in the light of some theoretical lenses, first of all stakeholder theory, legitimacy
theory and institutional theory (Farneti and Guthrie, 2009; Bellringer et al., 2011; Joseph and
Taplin, 2012; Monfardini et al., 2013; Farneti et al., 2019; Argento et al., 2019); what was
reported, thus analysing the content and the extent of the reports, also in comparison with
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines (Ahmad and Haraf, 2013; Greiling et al., 2015;
Guthrie and Farneti, 2008); or, again, the driving factors, for example, type of organisation,
context, size, corporate governance (Jamil et al., 2021; Greco et al., 2012; Galera et al., 2014).
Despite growing interest, many areas need to be further explored in this strand of literature
(Kaur and Lodhia, 2019a). For instance, studies mainly investigated local authorities and
universities, whereas other types of organisations still need to be deeply investigated
(Fusco and Ricci, 2019). Among them, the judicial sector, about which there is still little
knowledge. Some studies have been carried out, mainly focused on Italy, where there has
been a fair diffusion of the tool, initially as a result of public incentives (Ricci and Fusco,
2016); whereas, to the best of our knowledge, the studies carried out in other countries are
limited (Banasik et al., 2022). Although some beneficial effects on internal and external
accountability have been highlighted (Ricci and Pavone, 2020), extant literature stressed
several weaknesses and criticalities in current practices, also due to poor understanding of
the tool, a lack of resources (human and/or economic) or difficulties in using or adapting
existing models (Fusco et al., 2022; Ricci and Pavone, 2022). The disclosure seemed to be
driven by “self-induced” and “self-referential” approaches without taking into account the
“demand” perspective (Ricci and Pavone, 2020).
In this direction, the engagement and dialogue with stakeholders could be helpful to avoid
hypocrisy of SR or, in any case, to improve its quality and usefulness (Higgins et al., 2020;
Tommasetti et al., 2020). In effect, it has the potential for converging answerability (i.e. the
ability to inform and justify) and enforcement (i.e. the capacity to control, evaluate and
propose) in the accountability environment (Ackerman, 2004; Rixon, 2010), by creating a

PAGE 1016 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

network of mutual responsibility with multiple – constructive – relations among organisations
and community actors (Hanberger, 2009; Rocca et al., 2021; Brown, 2009).
Although the relevance of engaging stakeholders in SR is generally recognised by the
literature (Unerman, 2007; Kaur and Lodhia, 2018; Manetti, 2011), the focused studies on
the topic are quite limited, especially in the public sector (Kaur and Lodhia, 2019a).
Hence, we intend to answer the call of Kaur and Lodhia (2019a) on the need to further
explore stakeholder engagement in the public sector, as well as its role in sustainability
accounting, accountability and reporting (p. 501), by also diversifying the context, and
contribute to the embryonic debate on the judicial sector in accounting and management
literature (Guimarães et al., 2018). Specifically, this study aims to explore the role of
stakeholder engagement in SR practices in an Italian judicial office, addressing the
following research questions:
RQ1. To what extent stakeholder engagement affect the sustainability reporting process?
RQ2. What are, if any, the main challenges?
Much of the SR research has tended to be “desk-based” (Owen, 2008, p. 247), with a low
engagement with practice. However, specifically about the dialogic approach in SEAR,
some influential authors stressed the opportunity for a greater engagement of researchers
in these processes (Bebbington et al., 2007). This study adopts an action research (AR)
approach. The data were collected from multiple sources, i.e. a questionnaire, notes and
reports, which were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed.
The remainder of the paper is as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature concerning
stakeholder engagement in SR; Section 3 describes the methodology followed; the results
are presented in Section 4 and discussed in Section 5. Section 6 contains some concluding
remarks, implications and limitations of the study.

2. State of art on stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting

Multiple (some diverging) definitions of SE have been provided by literature. For instance,
Andriof and Waddock (2002, p. 42) defined it as “trust-based collaborations between
individuals and/or social institutions with different objectives that can only be achieved
together”. Greenwood (2007, p. 321) considered it a “process or processes of consultation,
communication, dialogue and exchange”. More recently, Mitchell et al. (2022, p. 77) spoke
about “the interaction among a firm and its stakeholders that addresses knowledge
problems to improve correspondence in understanding between managers and
stakeholders, thereby to assist in resolving ethical challenges faced by managers”.
This variety also derives from the many streams of literature, which have taken an interest in
the topic (e.g. CSR, accounting and reporting, natural resource management and
innovation) and from the different theoretical lenses that have been used (Greenwood,
2007). In a recent review, Kujala et al. (2022) highlighted that SE is commonly theoretically
associated with stakeholder theory, CSR and ethics. However, other theoretical keys, such
as agency and institutional theories, are used.
In a broad sense, it is possible to underline two main trends. That is the one that interprets
SE as a normative/moral practice; the other considers it (only) as an instrumental and
strategic practice used by organisations for their own benefits (Greenwood, 2007; Noland
and Phillips, 2010; Izzo and Ciaburri, 2018; Schafer and Zhang, 2019).
However, there is a push to overcome this rigid separation between morality and strategy
and embrace a middle, ethical-strategic or integrative – position (Noland and Phillips, 2010;
Patzer et al., 2018; Freeman et al., 2017), which offers “much needed theoretical basis for
including honest, open, respectful engagement of stakeholders as a vital part a firm’s
strategy” (Noland and Phillips, 2010, p. 49) for co-creation of value.

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1017

 Several studies have found a positive relationship between SE and social performance and
its crucial role in shaping a CSR culture (Doni et al., 2022; Agudo-Valiente et al., 2015).
Furthermore, its importance has also been emphasised during the COVID-19 pandemic
(Hasan et al., 2023; Momin et al., 2022). In this direction, recent literature seems to highlight
the ability of the SE to co-create shared value, i.e. create value for firms and all affected
stakeholders (Schormair and Gilbert, 2021). It should be remembered that this ability
remains potential, because it depends on multiple factors, such as the real motivations of
the organisations in engaging, the effective (or not) implement the ES and the motivations of
the stakeholders. Therefore, the SE could also have neutral or negative effects (Kujala et al.,
2022; Kaur and Lodhia, 2019b).
The construct has also been investigated in (SEAR) (Bebbington et al., 2007; Blackburn
et al., 2014; Greco et al., 2015; Dillard and Vinnari, 2018; Kaur and Lodhia, 2019a; Aversano
et al., 2020; Rocca et al., 2021).
In this literature, SE means co-creation of sustainability knowledge, co-participation in
problem-solving and co-determination of materiality topics to include in the report (Manetti,
2011; Bellucci et al., 2019; Kaur and Lodhia, 2014, 2018). Scholars emphasised its dialogic
and dynamic nature as well as its cruciality in the overall “process of change that SEA
seeks” (Bebbington et al., 2007, p. 373) because it requires replacing the monological
approach with a polyvocal citizenship perspective that moves well beyond organisation-
centric performance metrics and reporting (Gray et al., 1997; Brown and Dillard, 2013;
Dillard and Brown, 2015; Tanima et al., 2021).
Effectively, extant knowledge found that SE is critical to establishing the actors to whom the
SR is directed and what issues and information the disclosure should address (Rinaldi et al.,
2014). Scholars and standard-setters (e.g. GRI) linked the inclusion of stakeholders in the
drafting process to the quality of the report and its usefulness, relevance and credibility
(Brown and Hicks, 2013). By pointing out “the differences between what is considered
material by reporting entity and what is considered material by stakeholders” (Torelli et al.,
2020, p. 473), several studies found that SE improves the quality of materiality analysis and
so of the reporting itself (Torelli et al., 2020; Bellantuono et al., 2016; Manetti, 2011). To
reach these benefits, scholars also emphasised the importance of seeing the SE not as an
isolated and occasional activity but as an ongoing and embedded process, which must
also be properly communicated in the external disclosure (Rinaldi et al., 2014; Kaur and
Lodhia, 2018, 2014; Ardiana, 2023). Hence, the quality of stakeholder engagement
contributes to the quality of SR.
However, evidence showed a generalised difficulty in operationalising SE mechanisms and
moving towards an effective “involve me culture” (Kaur and Lodhia, 2017, p. 133).
For example, Frost et al. (2012) found that SE was mainly limited to informing and
demonstrating the Australian local council’s performance to stakeholders. Consistent results
were pointed out by Greco et al. (2015) with reference to 11 Italian local councils. Other
authors highlighted as the SE was often identified with a consulting activity with key
stakeholders on some aspects of SR, such as planning and preparation of reports
(Cummings, 2001; Manetti, 2011). However, this consultation approach may be considered
a weak form of engagement, suitable only for stimulating stakeholders’ opinions over issues
self-determined (Friedman and Miles, 2006). For example, Rocca et al. (2021) showed a
constant focus by local governments on the same issues without adequate attention to
citizens’ interests. In identifying five levels of engagement (i.e. information and education,
consultation, negotiation, involvement, collaboration, empowerment), Kaur and Lodhia
(2017) formulated the provocative question of whether the empowerment of stakeholders
(i.e. the highest form of engagement that sees the integration of stakeholders’ views and
opinions into the strategy) really exists. This question seems to be posed equally
provocatively also in the judicial sector, where innovative management processes in court

PAGE 1018 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

administration are creating the cultural and organisational prerequisites for sustainability
accounting and reporting. Moreover, the justice black box, made up of hermetic
organisations, represents an empirical setting where studies on SE are still isolated and
recent cases (Banasik et al., 2022). In this context, SE is framed as an “energy exchange”
(p. 1220) between organisation and stakeholders, not easy to implement due to the difficulty
of observing benefits in the short term.
These concerns cannot be eliminated, at least not totally, by the greater ease of interaction
via social media, which has been highlighted both in the context of the SEAR (Giacomini
et al., 2022) and other forms of extended reporting (Grossi et al., 2021). Digital platforms
and social media are increasingly widespread tools both as a (non-conventional) container
for social and environmental disclosure and as a place for dialogue and exchange between
actors (Giacomini et al., 2022). However, the question of how effective and strong is the
level of engagement remains unchanged.
Moreover, it is worth pointing out that beyond (potential) benefits and (concrete)
implementation challenges, scholars also warned about the risk of managerialism, i.e.
improper use aimed at manipulating stakeholders’ perceptions (Greenwood, 2007).
Furthermore, the consequence of the different power between stakeholders, well-known in
stakeholder theory, has also been highlighted in this stream of literature. Barone et al.
(2013) showed the lack of interest and engagement of non-financial and powerless
stakeholders, such as the community and employees, to the point of talking about “(ir)
responsibility reporting”.
Although the review revealed that existing literature had explored a variety of issues on the
role of SE in SEAR, many areas still remain to be explored. Specifically, the extant
knowledge is predominantly focused on the private sector, whereas there is still little
evidence in the public sector (Kaur and Lodhia, 2019a), where public administrators
struggle to interpret the role of facilitators of citizens’ engagement (Rocca et al., 2021).

3. Methodology
3.1 Research process and approach
This study derives from AR carried out in an Italian Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereafter,
also called Office).
Over the years, the AR approach has become a widespread methodology also in business
and management fields (Eden and Huxham, 1996; Waardenburg et al., 2020; Shani and
Coghlan, 2021). Several authors have emphasised the helpfulness of engagement
research, including AR, also in social and environmental accounting and reporting (Adams
and Larrinaga, 2007; Correa and Larrinaga, 2015; Adams and Larrinaga, 2019), and
indeed, although still limited, some studies are using this approach (Battaglia et al., 2015;
Taı̈bi et al., 2020; Tarquinio and Xhindole, 2021).
AR is a participatory approach in which researchers and practitioners are directly and jointly
involved in implementing innovative processes within an organisation (Burns, 2007;
Chevalier and Buckles, 2013). So, it is characterised by a great potential to contribute
effectively to change. The AR approach requires the presence of a real and current issue
within a real-world context, which has both managerial and research significance (Curtis,
2017). As Adams and McNicholas (2007) observed, it is a powerful way to seek solutions to
immediate managerial problems and minimise the theory-practice gap by gaining
reciprocal (practical and theoretical) knowledge through experience in ongoing managerial
processes.
Indeed, this research started from a proposal from the office to collaborate with the
university’s team, with expertise in accountability and SR in the public sector. The issue was
to restart the path of SR, which had stopped after the first edition (2014). The opportunity

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1019

 seemed particularly exciting to the researchers from several points of view for advancing
theoretical and practical knowledge.
Recent literature has highlighted how Italy is one of the countries most chosen for empirical
analysis on accountability and SR in the public sector, also thanks to a certain proliferation
of these practices (Fusco and Ricci, 2019; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020). Therefore, it appeared
to be an interesting context because it allows temporal and spatial comparison in the
evolution of these practices. Moreover, albeit to a smaller extent, there has been a fair
commitment towards accountability and SR in the judicial system, at first following a project
to disseminate best practices, financed in 2008 with European Union (EU) funds (Ricci and
Fusco, 2016). To the authors’ knowledge, this circumstance is not widespread in other
countries. In addition, the office had several points of interest. It had published the first
sustainability report five years earlier; hence, it could be defined as an early adopter in the
Italian judicial system. Although it then stopped this practice, as in most cases in PSOs
(Fusco et al., 2022; Farneti et al., 2019; Vinnari and Laine, 2013), it showed the willingness
to resume it by being firmly convinced of its necessity in the relationship between the office
and the community, thus offering a particular awareness and maturity on the topic. It was,
therefore, considered an interesting research laboratory in a sector (i.e. the judicial one)
highly under investigated in literature and a country with a fair amount of ferment in these
practices, which, however, seems to have experienced a slowdown after an initial impulse
(Greco et al., 2015; Farneti et al., 2019; Fusco et al., 2022).
The formal cooperation between the researchers’ university and the office was established
in 2019. The participatory AR led to the drafting of two further editions of the sustainability
report and, above all, contributed to making this tool an internalised practice in the
organisation. The evidence on the drafting process and report content are already
discussed in other publications (Ricci and Pavone, 2022; Ricci and Pavone, 2020). Instead,
this study focuses on a specific phase of the project: the design and the first
implementation of a stakeholder engagement practice in the SR process. This phase
emerged during the second stage of AR, that is, the development of the third edition (the
second with the researchers) of SR, which was officially presented at a public event in
March 2022 (Figure 1).
The work team comprised the Chief Prosecutor, seven Deputy Prosecutors, four Assistant
Prosecutors, three Directors and three Officers from the administrative area, a Judicial
Assistant with secretarial functions and two academic researchers.
It is possible to identify three key moments (Chiu, 2003) through which the engagement was
planning and implemented:

1. Problem identification: The Office declared the intention to strengthen its accountability
mechanisms through a more effective opening towards the external environment.

2. Solution generation: Practitioners and researchers together decided to embrace a

stakeholder engagement approach in the SR process as a possible link between
supply and demand for accountability.

3. Implementation and evaluation: As a first engagement experience, which took over at a

relatively late stage of the drafting process, it was decided to firstly refer only to
selected (qualified) stakeholders (see Paragraph 3.1.1.) and secondly, to use a
questionnaire to engage them (see Paragraph 3.12.). Responses were discussed
between the researcher and practitioners during the meetings.
3.1.1 Stakeholder analysis. As mentioned above, in this first experience, it was decided to
engage only qualified stakeholders. The choice not to include the more widely community
(non-expert users) has long been discussed with the researchers, who finally agreed to
the solution preferred by practitioners. There were used two criteria for stakeholder
identification:

PAGE 1020 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

 Figure 1 Action research timeline

1. a previous relationship between the office and the stakeholder; and

2. a direct impact of the activities of the office on stakeholders. The “stakeholder-intervention

area matrix” was used at this end, according to the GBS standard (GBS, 2005) (Table 1).
The choice was due to consistency with the report’s overall structure, which followed, with
some adaptation, the aforementioned national standard. The standard is specific to the
public sector. Although adaptations were still necessary due to the specificity of the judicial
service, both practitioners and researchers considered it to meet more properly the
features and needs of the office compared to the GRI standard.
As a result, 65 qualified stakeholders [1] were selected, among associations, foundations
and local observatories, the Criminal Chamber of the city, professional orders, Notarial
Councils, the police force, the District Anti-Mafia Directorate, Financial Intelligence Unit

Table 1 “Stakeholders per intervention areas” matrix

Intervention areas Stakeholder categories

Preliminary investigations Police forces,

(e.g. coordination activities) Prefectural anti-mafia
functions
Investigating activity Lawyers
(e.g. right of defence guarantee)
Organizational structure modernization University
(e.g. digitalisation and reporting)
Support for entrepreneurial activity Companies or
(e.g. economic and financial security) business associations
Source: Authors’ adaptation from office’s sustainability report (2021)

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1021

 (Bank of Italy), Ministry of Justice, Customs and Monopolies Agency, National Guarantor for
the Rights of Persons Detained or Deprived of Liberty, local universities.

3.1.2 Stakeholder engagement. The engagement was achieved through administering a

questionnaire, which the researchers developed after extensive dialogue within the work team.
The choice to involve the stakeholders through a questionnaire rather than focus groups,
interviews or meetings was due to the limited available timing. The office had stated the need
to end the reporting by February 2022. Furthermore, it needs to be underlined the particular
historical period in which this experience was about to start, i.e. the third wave of the COVID-
2019 outbreak, which would have made a different choice even more difficult to implement.
The questionnaire was structured in two parts:

1. The first one, made up of 8 closed items, was aimed at obtaining a global assessment
of the perceived level of effectiveness, efficiency and digitalisation of the office.
2. The second one, made up of ten closed items, was aimed at gathering feedback on the
content and quality of the previous report (2020), to stimulate suggestions and direct
the ongoing reporting process towards “demand side”.

The link to the digital format of the sustainability report was also included.
The survey, whose link was sent by email, was administered through Google Forms. It was
initially made accessible for 15 days (from 13 December 2021 to 28 December 2021);
however, because of the small number of responses received also due to the holiday
period, it was decided to send a reminder and open a second access time window (from 20
January 2022 to 27 January 2022).
Finally, 43 responses were collected (66% of the response rate). The respondents declared an
appreciable familiarity and sensitivity to social, environmental and SR issues. Specifically,
about 30% claimed to have experience in these reporting processes in 9.3% of cases with
specific reporting responsibilities and 20.9% in the stakeholder engagement process.

3.2 Data collection and analysis

The research strategy ensured the triangulation of data and methods. The triangulation
strengthens the validation process and represents a powerful strategy for enhancing the
quality and credibility of the findings (Erzberger and Prein, 1997; Modell, 2005; Sridharan,
2021).
The data were collected from multiple sources:
䊏 observation;
䊏 interactions with the participants;
䊏 collection of organisational documents; and
䊏 survey.
The data deriving from observation and interaction with the participants were made
codifiable, by summarising them in a research diary.
Ten videoconference meetings were held, lasting approximately one hour, from 27 April 27
2021 to 14 February 14 2022. For each meeting, researchers took written notes and draw
up an official report; the latter sent for possible comments and final approval to all reporting
team members. The research diary was fed whenever there were interactions with some
participants, such as informal meetings, phone calls and emails. This was useful for
expanding and corroborating the evidence by also assessing the level of matching with the
content in the minutes of meetings.

PAGE 1022 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

Further data were collected from the internal documents, i.e. the organisational project and
the sustainability reports, including the latest edition, within which the SE occurred, and the
survey used to engage stakeholders.
Descriptive statistics was used for analysed survey responses; then a qualitative content
analysis was conducted for identifying, classifying and interpreting qualitative data
(Krippendorff, 2004; Schreier, 2012).
The research diary and internal documents were read by the three authors separately;
disagreements were solved by discussion and consensus, to reach a shared construction of
meaning.

4. Result analysis
4.1 Emergence of the SE in the sustainability reporting process
The attention to the stakeholders had already been shown in the first edition of the SR,
where the office had identified them to clarify who would be affected by the impacts of the
actions and policies undertaken and the recipients of the SR. However, the perception of
the relationship that emerges from the documents preceding the start of the AR is
predominantly asynchronous and non-interactive. The intention is to give the account
transparently to allow the office’s stakeholders to know and evaluate its conduct.
Nevertheless, there is no mention of the feedback effect. The issue of stakeholder
engagement was raised in the early stages of AR (September 2019). In the first meeting,
after listening to the members of the office about the intention of resuming SR, the
researchers thoroughly clarified the meaning and potential of this path, including the
importance of stakeholder engagement. They decided to introduce the topic, aware that
the time was not ripe but hoping the seed would fall on fertile ground.
Some of the office members within the working group showed interest and curiosity, even if
there were no further developments and the issue was not taken up again in the following
meetings. In that phase, the problems relating to reporting resumption were preponderant
(data availability and accuracy first).
As the drafting of the second edition (the first within AR) of the sustainability report was
being completed, the awareness grew that this tool should take on a dimension of dialogue
with the subjects with whom the office interacted and who had an interest in its activity, i.e.
with the stakeholders.
Therefore, the topic emerged again in the first meeting of the second phase, i.e. drafting the third
edition of the report (the second within AR) (April 2021). The members of the office hoped for:
[. . .] a discussion with the outside, which would necessarily imply the exposure of the Prosecutor’s
Office to inevitable questions.

This need for openness, in truth, was raised not only in reference to SR, but also with reference
to the overall activity of the office. This must also be read from the perspective of the particular
type of public organisation, typically seen as extremely closed towards the outside, especially
from the community, and yet increasingly under public attack for its inefficiency.
In fact, the awareness of the need to open up had its roots in the intention of:
䊏 increasing transparency, also in adherence to the recommendations of the Consultative
Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE);
䊏 better capturing the expectations of the community concerning the services offered by
the Office; and
䊏 making the social control more effective, by also minimising the auto-referentiality of
the SR.

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1023

 So, when the researchers re-proposed stakeholder engagement as a valuable tool to
meet these needs, the idea was accepted, albeit with cautious enthusiasm, also in light
of the innovative reach that this practice would have brought about in the judicial
sector.
The following meetings, therefore, aimed to make the tool known in more depth and decide
on times and methods of implementation. Although there was general agreement on
identifying stakeholders, there was an extensive discussion on who should have been
involved in the engagement and how.
As in the entire AR, there was mediation aimed at preventing the office from believing that
decisions were imposed by external parties (i.e. researchers), and if eventually accepted,
this was without conviction. This strategy was considered the most appropriate to facilitate
the effective internalization of the reporting and stakeholder engagement process. The
main concern of the office’s members within the work team was to respect the deadlines
set for the publication of the sustainability report. In the end, this led to the decision to
involve only qualified stakeholders through a survey, by also considering the period of
COVID-19 restrictions that the country was going through. The questionnaire structure, its
administration and the response rate have already been clarified in the methodology
section.

4.2 Stakeholders’ voice: the accountability demand

The first part of the questionnaire was aimed at verifying the perceived performance level of
the prosecutor’s office. The responses showed a positive perception of the office’s overall
performance regarding skills, accessibility, digitalisation and communication. Specifically,
both skills and competencies of administrative staff, including the front office, and courtesy
and helpfulness were considered in line with expectations or beyond expectations in almost
all responses (over 90%). Even the degree of accessibility was considered “adequate” or
“more than adequate” by more than 70% of the respondents. Positive feedback was also
received in terms of communication capacity and digitalisation. The last question of the first
section gathered suggestions for improving the front office and the criminal record. There
was shown a focus on the traditional issues of the current debate on court management,
such as resource enhancement (46.5%), simplification and reduction of times (respectively,
41.9% and 39.5%) and improvement of the institutional website (39.5%).
As mentioned in the methodology section, the second part of the questionnaire was
focused on sustainability reports. The stakeholders revealed a good understanding of
the tool (Figure 2): no one defined it as a tool for the artificial influence of the opinions
and expectations of the relevant public. It mainly appeared as a tool of public
transparency (39.5%) and accountability (37.2%). Interestingly, 23.3% answered: “a
tool to welcome stakeholders’ opinions”.
The quality of the disclosure of the Prosecutor’s Office Sustainability Report 2020 (previous
edition) was investigated in terms of understandability and interpretability (Figure 3),
completeness of the information (Figure 4) and graphic layout. The stakeholders provided
favourable judgements, although a not negligible percentage detected the presence of
technicalities and, therefore, a reading that was not always easy.
Overall, reading the sustainability report positively changed the stakeholders’ perceptions
of the office image (74% of respondents), with essential signals regarding social legitimacy.
However, although the Judicial Office was perceived as committed to its institutional
activities, it was not yet perceived – or was little perceived – as engaging and inclusive,
innovative, transparent and fully efficient (Figure 5).
The last three questions were addressed to analyse the needs of stakeholders in
terms of accountability and reporting, as well as overall relationships with the office.

PAGE 1024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

 Figure 2 Meaning attributed to the sustainability report tool

Figure 3 Understandability and interpretability of the office sustainability report 2020

Coherently with the responses to the previous question, the area where more effort has
been required to fit better the stakeholders ‘demand for accountability in SR was
service accessibility and transparency (46.5%). Moreover, it is interesting to note that
there was a greater demand for social and environmental issues (32.6%) rather than
management information, as well as the suggestion to strengthen logic and
mechanisms to consider the stakeholders’ views (30.2%). A worthy number of
respondents also highlighted the need for a greater/better focus on results (25.6%) and
the economic-financial dimension (16.3%) (Figure 6).
Stakeholders were also asked to express their opinions on improving relationships between
the office and the community and the desired level of engagement (Figures 7 and 8). The
respondents found it particularly useful to develop educational programmes for active
citizenship (46.5%) and promote strategic alliance (39.5%). The responses were distributed
almost equally among the options regarding the policies to be implemented for improving
community engagement.

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1025

 Figure 4 Completeness of information of the office sustainability report 2020

Figure 5 Terms that best identify the office according to the stakeholders’ perceptions

4.3 Stakeholder engagement impacts in sustainability reporting

The first impact that emerged from the involvement of stakeholders is the acquisition of
greater awareness of the existence of a demand for accountability and a need for
participation.
First of all, the head of the office was amazed and satisfied with such a high response rate,
believing that this and the other data emerging from the survey were a clear signal of a
“need for participation”:
Judicial offices are generally closed organisations. However, when the Office decided to open
up, it realised that there was a demand for dialogue to be satisfied.

However, the survey had highlighted that some relevant issues for stakeholders were
not fully addressed in the current SR process of the office. The work team discussed
these concerns to determine how they could have been dealt with. However, the
possibility of entirely answering the demand for accountability has found two partly

PAGE 1026 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

 Figure 6 Stakeholder accountability and reporting demand

Figure 7 Strategic lines and common initiatives to be implemented for enhancing

stakeholder relationships

linked main constraints: time and the informative system of the organisation. However,
the possibility of entirely answering the demand for accountability has found two, partly
linked, main constraints: time and the informative system of the organization. First of all,
the willingness to not delay the publication led to questioning what improvements could
be made without markedly lengthening the closing time of the report. The second and
undoubtedly major constraint was the information system. It was necessary to verify
whether that specific information need could be satisfied by the current information
system of the Judicial Office. In the end, only some accountability needs were met, as
shown in Table 2.
Regarding accessibility, it was decided to insert a paragraph on the so-called “ideographic
balance” to also graphically illustrate how the digitalisation put in place by the office

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1027

 Figure 8 Policies to be implemented for improving community engagement

Table 2 Encounter between stakeholders’ needs and sustainability reporting

Stakeholder reporting
demand Impacts on the report

Accessibility and The section “ideographic report of technological innovation” has

transparency been added, to give greater emphasis to digitalisation and
technological innovation and to how they positively affected the
accessibility of services
Community Ad hoc chapter has been added, focused on stakeholder
involvement engagement process and results (the information on the agreements
and the institutional network was already included)
Social and –
environmental impact
Achieved results The office also disclosed the “income”, not just the costs.
Economic-financial The result of the preventive seizure of “citizenship income” has been
dimension focused
Identity and strategy –
Source: Authors’ elaboration

affected many areas of the delivery process, with positive impacts on the efficiency and
accessibility of services.
Moreover, the sustainability report met the requests for greater community involvement by
starting this process, satisfying, albeit, in part, the concerns identified, and inserting an ad
hoc section about the stakeholder engagement process and (positive and negative) results.
The accountability needs on results achieved and economic-financial aspects immediately
crossed the sensitivity of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, so significant changes were made in
this area. The work team decided to detail better the most crucial expense item, which is also
the most controversial in the public debate: wiretapping. Specifically, the “average daily cost
for wiretapping” ratio was inserted to explain the increase in this expense. In this way, it was
possible to highlight a decrease in the average daily cost of environmental wiretapping in the
past two years in the face of the greater incidence of electronic wiretapping, which has a
significantly higher daily price than other interceptions. In addition, a focus on the preventive
seizure of citizenship income was also inserted, quantifying them at approximately e900,000.
Moreover, it also included the income dimension for the first time. This choice is derived from
the will, first of all of the Prosecutor, not to convey the image of an organisation that only “costs

PAGE 1028 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

the community”, albeit through efficient use of resources, but also to account for the
economic–financial wealth it produces. This was first realised by reporting the incomes for
specific services (e.g. issuing criminal, civil, pending charges certificates or copying or
registry rights for acquiring parts of the proceedings). Secondly – and it was the most
innovative element – it was reported the value of the confiscated assets, also thanks to the
contribution of the police forces who, on the initiative of the Public Prosecutor and the constant
presence of researchers, provided details of the seizures and confiscations for the two years
2020–2021.
Therefore, although not all stakeholders’ concerns have been addressed, efforts have been
made to improve the quality of the disclosure, especially in terms of completeness and
relevance of the information provided.

5. Discussion
Findings show that SE was not a neutral practice in the SR process but positively affected
the SR process, bringing benefits. Consistently with previous studies (Torelli et al., 2020;
Kaur and Lodhia, 2017, 2018), SE proved may be a valuable and effective tool for
improving SR, increasing responsiveness to the informative needs of stakeholders and
reducing the gap between accountability supply and demand (RQ1). Although it was
the first experience and the SE was realised through a questionnaire – which gives the
possibility to catch the voice of multiple stakeholders but “limits” the engagement in the
ranks of predefined items – it turned the spotlight on some issues that the office was not
addressing in its SR. The ongoing changes to the sustainability report increased the
disclosure quality, especially in terms of completeness and relevance of the information
provided, and reduced the self-referentiality (Ricci and Fusco, 2016).
Furthermore, contrary to what was highlighted by Greco et al. (2015) and Kaur and Lodhia
(2019b), and consistently with Stocker et al. (2020), after an initial reluctance, the
stakeholders showed a fair interest in participating by also demanding a broader
engagement and collaboration in the other activities of the office. This, however, could also
derive from the choice to engage only qualified stakeholders who already had a previous
relationship/contact with the office.
Despite these positive signals, the study also reveals that the potential of SE has not been
fully grasped. In effect, its role in the SR process was relatively marginal. It was introduced
after the reporting process had already begun and, as discussed below, is subject to
various constraints. By adopting the classification of Stocker et al. (2020), the SE took into
practice could be traced back to “Level 2”, i.e. a stakeholder response strategy aimed at
consulting the stakeholders and supporting their demands. The office took on an
investigator’s attitude (Stocker et al., 2020), involving a high number of stakeholders (i.e. 65
qualified stakeholders) and approaching it in a consultative manner.
However, even such weaknesses should be assessed more leniently in light of the broader
landscape and previous evidence. Literature found that organisations do not commonly
include the SE in the SR process, and even when it is present, they do not disclose it in the
SR (Ardiana, 2023; Bellucci et al., 2019). Furthermore, concerning the extent of
engagement, previous studies pointed out there was little evidence of higher levels of
engagement, whereas most practices limit it to informing (Kaur and Lodhia, 2017; Frost
et al., 2012; Greco et al., 2015). In this vein, the practice developed by the investigated
office should still be interpreted as a – first – good achievement in the SE journey, above all,
taking into account that it is a public, judicial organisation, where these practices are even
less widespread (Banasik et al., 2022).
Regarding the RQ2, findings showed that there were two major challenges to face. The need
to improve the openness to the external environment and become more accountable was a
recurring theme in the “third edition” reporting process. The practitioners stressed the issue in

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1029

 all meetings and informal conversations before SE started. Nevertheless, despite this strongly
emergent need, it was not immediate to agree on the usefulness, meaning, methods and tools
of the engagement process among the team members. Specifically, due to the lack of
complete knowledge of the tool, the researchers had to overcome the initial hesitations –
which, we remember, were impediments in the second reporting stage – of the judicial office
team and mediate on the implementation method. As mentioned, this means that not all the
solutions considered more appropriate by the researchers have been fully adopted, but this
approach was preferred because it is more appropriate in facilitating the emerging strategy
internally within the organisation. So, the observation made within the AR allowed highlights
that cultural constraint is the first obstacle to effective engagement. On this point, previous
evidence is conflicting. For instance, Kaur and Lodhia (2019b) reached similar results in the
public context and found a perceived insignificance of SE. In contrast, Bellucci et al. (2019), in
private context, found supporting evidence that SE is perceived as a fundamental tool. This
may be because SE in the public sector is still in an infancy stage and, therefore, there is a
greater immaturity of PSOs and a generalised lack of knowledge on the topic. Future studies
should further investigate this issue and confirm (or not) this explanation.
In addition, it must also be underlined that beyond the organisation’s intentions and,
therefore, what we have defined as cultural constraint, the actual possibility of embracing
and supporting the stakeholder needs (i.e. the accountability demand) was constrained by
the available data. Therefore, the usefulness and effectiveness of SE practice was
undermined by an objective constraint, that is the extant accounting system it was found to
be a substantial limitation in the investigated case. As also shown by Bellucci et al. (2019),
the exploitation of SE potential also implies the creation of new streams of data and “a more
comprehensive accounting framework that supports decision-making processes and
dialogue” (p. 1489).
The study did not provide direct evidence of other types of obstacles highlighted in the
literature, such as unwillingness to participate, antagonism between stakeholders, the lack
of resources and excessive dependence on “champion leaders” (Greco et al., 2015; Kaur
and Lodhia, 2019b). However, some additional considerations can be made. The
implemented experience was made possible by the involvement of the researchers (also in
some executive steps) and by a leadership strongly oriented towards SR and, therefore, its
improvement. Without these two key drivers, the continuation of the SE and of the SR itself
could be compromised despite the overall working group’s good SR culture.

6. Conclusion, implications and limitations

6.1 Main findings
The public sector is a critical player in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals,
contained in the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030. Furthermore, the increasing uncertainty
of the times, deriving from unexpected and global events, such as the COVID-19 outbreak
and international upheavals (Ansell et al., 2021; Meuleman, 2021; Bebbington and
Unerman, 2020), pose new and additional challenges, which broaden the objectives of the
public sector and make an urgent need the advancement and adaptation of accounting
and accountability systems (Bastida et al., 2022; Bracci et al., 2021). In this direction, SR
can be a useful tool for responding to the multiple needs of accountability with reference to
social and environmental, as well as economic, aspects. However, extant knowledge
emphasises that sustainability accountability and reporting are not necessarily a good
practice and that there is often a divergence between “talk and walk” (Torelli, 2020). If the
SR sins of hypocrisy and managerialism (Higgins et al., 2020; Cho et al., 2015),
accountability risks becoming “emptied of its substance and becomes a word hollow of
meaning” (Green et al., 2008). While these risks are not entirely eliminated, SE can be a
helpful for bringing the supply and demand of accountability closer together, increasing the
usefulness and relevance of SR. Despite the importance of the topic, empirical studies on

PAGE 1030 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

the subject, especially in the public sector, are still scarce (Kaur and Lodhia, 2019a). Our
study, therefore, aimed to contribute by investigating the influence and main challenges of
SE in SR, used an AR methodology.
The results highlight some positive consequences and strengths of the practice. Although
not very high, the level of engagement is aimed at consulting stakeholders rather than
merely informing them. Furthermore, the sustainability report under construction has been
modified to accommodate some stakeholder requests.
However, findings also highlight some critical issues to be addressed in future practices.
What has been defined as the “cultural constraint” and therefore the poor – initial –
perception of the usefulness of SE can be attributed to a static and top-down view of SR. A
prevailing focus on the final output (i.e. the document) and not on the whole process, which
does not require a time frame, but a continuous and overarching path. The “silos thinking”
and the prevailing tendency to consider SR a managerial parenthesis, disconnected from
other organisation’s activities, including decision-making, planning and performance
management systems, has often been highlighted in the literature (Stacchezzini et al., 2016;
De Micco et al., 2021), also concerning the judicial sector (Ricci and Pavone, 2020). This
obviously also impacts stakeholder engagement, which is generally conceived as a portion
in a portion of time, scarcely embedded in SR (Ardiana, 2023). The experience analysed
here is no exception in this sense. Hence, the call to take stakeholder engagement
“seriously” (Brown, 2009, p. 317) must be restated again. In the case analysed and contrary
to what has been found in part of the previous literature, the stakeholders seem to be ready.
In answering to the office call, they placed themselves more and more in an “engage me
dimension” over the “inform me dimension” (Cummings, 2001), by asking to be co-
producers of justice (Loeffler and Bovaird, 2020) rather than watchdogs.
In addition, the study provides further evidence of the need to reframe the accounting system in
order to allow a real meeting between accountability supply and demand. Nevertheless, the
traditional accounting system, and consequently, the relative reports represent a controversial
tool for an effective dialogue with stakeholders, which are often unable to find and navigate
documents and often do not receive relevant information (Ricci and Civitillo, 2018). Although this
is mitigated in non-financial reporting, including SR, it remains an important limitation in building
effective dialogical accountability and reporting. So, what is needed is a shift from accounting-
based accountability to accountability-based accounting (Dillard and Vinnari, 2018). In this
regards, an alarm bell should be sounded about the intense harmonisation movement in this
period. The risk that the “mainstream” transformation of SR will lead to a flattening of reporting
standards compared to the current financial thinking of accounting standards is real. If this
should be the case, the benefits of the mandatory nature and development of standards will not
be many in terms of accountability and transparency of the information contained in the
reporting, nor of support for sustainable development transition (Abela, 2022). In the traditional
monologic conceptualisation of accounting and accountability, which is far from being an
objective fact, the choice of what should be represented and what should be silenced is self-
established (Lehman, 2013). In a “serious” dialogic accounting, the polyvocal stakeholders’
perspective “participate actively participate in the (re)constructions of their world(s)” (Thomson
and Bebbington, 2005, p. 524). The dialogue and the debate are the prerequisites for creating
new understandings, and so new solutions heretofore obscured or non-existent (Dillard and
Brown, 2015).

6.2 Theoretical and practical implication

Firstly, it provides some original insights for the two main literature streams in which it fits, i.
e. the SE in SR and the SEAR in PSOs, by focusing on an under-investigated topic (SE) in
an under-investigated public context (the judicial sector). To the best of the authors’
knowledge, only one study (Banasik et al., 2022) focuses on SE within this sector but not on
SR. The judicial sector tends to be a relatively closed organisation and not very open to

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1031

 innovation, making the scope of the SE and our study more innovative. Furthermore, if, on
the one hand, our results confirm, in this new context, some of the prior knowledge (e.g.
usefulness of the practice, under-use, also due to obstacles), on the other hand, they
highlight some elements less underlined in the literature, for example, the presence of a
(potential) active demand not only for accountability but also for entire involvement by
stakeholders and that some of the major obstacles are partially independent of the
organisations. In this, research and academics can do a lot to raise awareness of the tool
and contribute to creating a broader accounting framework that can respond to
accountability demand. In addition, although it is not the focus of the study, the results seem
to support the usefulness of combining normative and instrumental approaches to SE. The
observations led to consider the office’s motivations to engage mainly referable to the
desire for greater accountability, but also to legitimise the office further. Hence, they could
be explained only using both normative stakeholder and legitimacy theories. However, the
evidence gathered is still tiny, and the matter needs further exploration. Finally, the study
also presents points of originality also from a methodological point of view, as AR is a
method that is still not widespread in SEAR.
Concerning its practical implications, the study highlights some critical points in the path
that led to the decision to engage stakeholders in SR and, subsequently, some critical
points in implementing the practice and the office’s feedback actions. For instance, it
emphasises the need to expand and anticipate the space for engagement, avoiding it
being just a portion in a portion of time. Hence, it can be a helpful guide for practitioners to
fully exploit the potential of the SE in the SR process and favour the encounter between
demand and supply of accountability. It is assumed that the practical implications will be
stronger in the office where the AR was carried out. In fact, the presence of researchers
helped in progressive understanding of the practice and its internalisation.
Finally, by shedding light on the specificities and challenges of the practice in this public
context, the study also offers some valuable insights for the broader debate of policymakers
and standard-setters on the need to advance SR in PSOs and evaluate the opportunity to
define specific guidelines or standards.

6.3 Limitation and direction for future research

Despite the points of originality and the contribution, the study has some limitations, mainly
due to the methodology adopted. An AR approach requires that the results are specific to
the observed context. In addition, it focuses on a single judicial office and covers a limited
time horizon. Although the AR lasted three years, the stakeholder engagement phase only
concerned the last few months. This is to the detriment of the full generalisability of the
findings into other empirical settings. Nonetheless, some lessons that emerge give
important indications on the role of the SE in SR and may represent the starting point to
investigate the topic also through more generalisable approaches. Furthermore, in this first
experience, the SE was realized through a questionnaire. stakeholders. As mentioned, if this
allowed the involvement of a high number of stakeholders, on the other hand, it caged
engagement, also hindering synchronous dialogue between stakeholders and the office
and between stakeholders. Moreover, the stakeholders’ opinions were gathered on the
sustainability report of the previous edition. Therefore, the evidence of the improved report
quality is derived from the observation and analysis of the researchers.
These limitations lead to the identification of some future research directions that the authors
themselves will try to carry forward. With reference to the AR underway, future steps should
adopt more inclusive and pervasive ways to achieve engagement with external stakeholders
(e.g. focus groups, interviews, web forums); moreover, they should investigate the
stakeholders’ opinions on the edition for which they have been engaged and observe the
evolution of this first case of judicial SE in future SR practices. In this direction, longitudinal
studies could be a valuable choice. Furthermore, the study highlights some areas that should

PAGE 1032 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

be further and deeply explored. First of all, although the present study found a certain
willingness to engage and an active demand for accountability, further supporting evidence
must be collected. Future studies should, therefore, move from an organisation-centred
perspective to a stakeholder-centred one, i.e. shift the focus of the investigation to the demand
side. Some big questions remain largely unanswered: is there really a conscious demand for
accountability? How is it formed and what are the differences between the various groups of
actors?

Note
1. The authors will provide the complete list upon request.

References
Abela, M. (2022), “A new direction? The “mainstreaming” of sustainability reporting”, Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 1261-1283.
Ackerman, J. (2004), “Co-governance for accountability: beyond ‘exit’ and ‘voice’”, World Development,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 447-463.
Adams, C.A. and Larrinaga, C. (2007), “Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved
sustainability accounting and performance”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 333-355.
Adams, C.A. and Larrinaga, C. (2019), “Progress: engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved
sustainability accounting and performance”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32
No. 8, pp. 2367-2394.
Adams, C.A. and McNicholas, P. (2007), “Making a difference: sustainability reporting, accountability
and organisational change”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 382-402.
s-Ayerbe, C. and Salvador-Figueras, M. (2015), “Corporate social
Agudo-Valiente, J.M., Garce
performance and stakeholder dialogue management”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 13-31.

Ahmad, N.N.N. and Haraf, A.S.A. (2013), “Environmental disclosures of Malaysian property
development companies: towards legitimacy or accountability?” Social Responsibility Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 241-258.

Aluchna, M., Roszkowska-Menkes, M. and Kamin  ski, B. (2022), “From talk to action: the effects of the
non-financial reporting directive on ESG performance”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 1-25.
Andrew, J. and Baker, M. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility reporting: the last 40 years and a path
to sharing future insights”, Abacus, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 35-65.
Andriof, J. and Waddock, S. (2002), Unfolding Stakeholder Engagement’’, Unfolding Stakeholder
Thinking, Routledge, London, pp. 19-42.
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2021), “The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public
administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems”, Public
Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 949-960.
Ardiana, P.U. (2023), “Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting by Fortune Global 500
companies: a call for embeddedness”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 344-365.
Argento, D., Culasso, F. and Truant, E. (2019), “From sustainability to integrated reporting: the
legitimizing role of the CSR manager”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 484-507.
Aversano, N., Di Carlo, F., Sannino, G., Tartaglia Polcini, P. and Lombardi, R. (2020), “Corporate social
responsibility, stakeholder engagement, and universities: new evidence from the Italian scenario”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1892-1899.

Ball, A., Grubnic, S. and Birchall, J. (2014), “Sustainability accounting and accountability in the public
sector”, Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 46-67.

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1033

 Banasik, P., Morawska, S. and Austen, A. (2022), “The community involvement of courts: an action
research study in the context of the Polish justice system”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 1209-1225.
Barone, E., Ranamagar, N. and Solomon, J.F. (2013), “A Habermasian model of stakeholder (non)
engagement and corporate (IR)responsibility reporting”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 163-181.
Bastida, F., Bracci, E. and Hoque, Z. (2022), “Accounting for unstable environments in the public sector:
managing post-COVID-19 times”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Battaglia, M., Bianchi, L., Frey, M. and Passetti, E. (2015), “Sustainability reporting and corporate identity:
action research evidence in an Italian retailing cooperative”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 52-72.

Bebbington, J. and Unerman, J. (2020), “Advancing research into accounting and the UN sustainable
development goals”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1657-1670.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B. and Thomson, I. (2007), “Theorizing engagement: the potential of a
critical dialogic approach”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 356-381.
Bellantuono, N., Pontrandolfo, P. and Scozzi, B. (2016), “Capturing the stakeholders’ view in sustainability
reporting: a novel approach”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 379-391.
Bellringer, A., Ball, A. and Craig, R. (2011), “Reasons for sustainability reporting by New Zealand local
governments”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 126-138.
Bellucci, M., Simoni, L., Acuti, D. and Manetti, G. (2019), “Stakeholder engagement and dialogic
accounting: empirical evidence in sustainability reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1467-1499.
Blackburn, N., Brown, J., Dillard, J. and Hooper, V. (2014), “A dialogical framing of AIS–SEA design”,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 83-101.
Bowen, H.R. (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Bracci, E., Humphrey, C., Moll, J. and Steccolini, I. (2015), “Public sector accounting, accountability and
austerity: more than balancing the books?” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6,
pp. 878-908.
Bracci, E., Saliterer, I., Sicilia, M. and Steccolini, I. (2021), “Accounting for (public) value (s):
reconsidering publicness in accounting research and practice”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1513-1526.
Brown, J. (2009), “Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: taking pluralism
seriously”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 313-342.
Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2013), “Agonizing over engagement: sea and the death of environmentalism
debates”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Brown, L. and Hicks, E. (2013), “Stakeholder engagement in the design of social accounting and reporting
tools”, in Mook, L. (Ed.), Accounting for Social Value, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 85-116.
Burns, D. (2007), Systematic Action Research: A Strategy for Whole System Change, Policy Press,
Bristol.
Carroll, A.B. (2015), “Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is on a sustainable trajectory”, Journal of
Defense Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-2.
Chevalier, J.M. and Buckles, D.J. (2013), Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for
Engaged Inquiry, Routledge, London.
Chiu, L.F. (2003), “Transformational potential of focus group practice in participatory action research”,
Action Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 165-183.
Cho, C.H., Laine, M., Roberts, R.W. and Rodrigue, M. (2015), “Organized hypocrisy, organizational
façades, and sustainability reporting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 40, pp. 78-94.
Correa, C. and Larrinaga, C. (2015), “Engagement research in social and environmental accounting”,
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 5-28.

Cummings, J. (2001), “Engaging stakeholders in corporate accountability programmes: a cross-sectoral

analysis of UK and transnational experience”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 45-52.

PAGE 1034 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

Curtis, S.M. (2017), “Pathway to reform: developing action research capacity in accounting education”,
Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 51-79.
De Micco, P., Rinaldi, L., Vitale, G., Cupertino, S. and Maraghini, M.P. (2021), “The challenges of
sustainability reporting and their management: the case of Estra”, Meditari Accountancy Research,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 430-448.
de Villiers, C., Hsiao, P.C.K., Zambon, S. and Magnaghi, E. (2022), “Sustainability, non-financial,
integrated, and value reporting (extended external reporting): a conceptual framework and an agenda
for future research”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 453-471.
Dillard, J. and Brown, J. (2015), “Broadening out and opening up: an agonistic attitude toward
progressive social accounting”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 243-266.
Dillard, J. and Vinnari, E. (2018), “Critical dialogical accountability: from accounting-based accountability
to accountability-based accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 62, pp. 16-38.
Doni, F., Corvino, A. and Bianchi Martini, S. (2022), “Corporate governance model, stakeholder
engagement and social issues evidence from European oil and gas industry”, Social Responsibility
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 636-662.

Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996), “Action research for management research”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 75-86.

Erzberger, C. and Prein, G. (1997), “Triangulation: validity and empirically based hypothesis
construction”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 141-154.
Eugenio, T., Costa Lourenço, I. and Morais, A.I. (2010), “Recent developments in social and
environmental accounting research”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 286-305.
European Commission (2017), “Annual growth survey 2018”.

Farneti, F. and Guthrie, J. (2009), “Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: why
they report”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 89-98.
Farneti, F., Casonato, F., Montecalvo, M. and de Villiers, C. (2019), “The influence of integrated reporting
and stakeholder information needs on the disclosure of social information in a state-owned enterprise”,
Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 556-579.
Freeman, R.E., Kujala, J., Sachs, S. and Stutz, C. (2017), “Stakeholder engagement: practicing the ideas
of stakeholder theory”, in Freeman, R., Kujala, J. and Sachs, S. (Eds.), Stakeholder Engagement: Clinical
Research Cases. Issues in Business Ethics, Springer, Cham, Vol. 46, pp. 1-12.
Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2006), Stakeholders: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Frost, G., Jones, S. and Lee, P. (2012), “The measurement and reporting of sustainability information within the
organization: a case analysis”, in Jones, S. and Ratnatunga, J. (Eds), Contemporary Issues in Sustainability
Accounting, Assurance and Reporting, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 197-225.
Fusco, F. and Ricci, P. (2019), “What is the stock of the situation? A bibliometric analysis on social and
environmental accounting research in public sector”, International Journal of Public Sector Management,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 21-41.
Fusco, F., Civitillo, R., Ricci, P., Morawska, S., Pustułka, K. and Banasik, P. (2022), “Sustainability
reporting in justice systems: a comparative research in two European countries”, Meditari Accountancy
Research, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1629-1657.
Galera, A.N., De Los Rı́os Berjillos, A., Lozano, M.R. and Valencia, P.T. (2014), “Transparency of
sustainability information in local governments: English-speaking and Nordic cross-country analysis”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 64, pp. 495-504.
Giacomini, D., Paredi, D. and Sancino, A. (2022), “Stakeholder interactions as sources for organisational
learning: insights from the water sector”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 1-25.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1987), Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting &
Accountability, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. (1997), “Struggling with the praxis of social and
environmental accounting: stakeholders accountability audits and procedures”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 325-364.

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1035

 Greco, G., Sciulli, N. and D’onza, G. (2012), “From Tuscany to Victoria: some determinants of
sustainability reporting by local councils”, Local Government Studies, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 681-705.
Greco, G., Sciulli, N. and D’Onza, G. (2015), “The influence of stakeholder engagement on
sustainability reporting: evidence from Italian local councils”, Public Management Review, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 465-488.
Green, M., Vandekerckhove, W. and Bessire, D. (2008), “Accountability discourses in advanced
capitalism: who is now accountable to whom?”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 198-208.
Greenwood, M. (2007), “Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 315-327.

Greiling, D., Traxler, A.A. and Stötzer, S. (2015), “Sustainability reporting in the Austrian, German and
Swiss public sector”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 28 Nos 4/5, pp. 404-428.
Grossi, G., Biancone, P.P., Secinaro, S. and Brescia, V. (2021), “Dialogic accounting through popular
reporting and digital platforms”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 75-93.
GBS (2005), “Il bilancio sociale. Standard. La rendicontazione sociale nel settore pubblico”, available at:
www.gruppobilanciosociale.org/ (accessed 14 August 2023).
Guimarães, T.A., Gomes, A.O. and Guarido, E.R. (2018), “Administration of justice: an emerging
research field”, RAUSP Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 476-482.
Guthrie, J. and Farneti, F. (2008), “GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organizations”,
Public Money & Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 361-366.

Guthrie, J., Manes-Rossi, F. and Orelli, R.L. (2017), “Integrated reporting and integrated thinking in Italian
public sector organisations”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 553-573.
Hasan, I., Singh, S. and Kashiramka, S. (2023), “CSR initiatives and stakeholder engagement amidst
COVID-19 pandemic: insights using content analysis and literature review”, Social Responsibility Journal,
Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/SRJ-09-2022-0376.
Hanberger, A. (2009), “Democratic accountability in decentralised governance”, Scandinavian Political
Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Higgins, C., Tang, S. and Stubbs, W. (2020), “On managing hypocrisy: the transparency of sustainability
reports”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 114, pp. 395-407.
Hsiao, P.C.K., de Villiers, C., Horner, C. and Oosthuizen, H. (2022), “A review and synthesis of
contemporary sustainability accounting research and the development of a research agenda”,
Accounting & Finance, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 4453-4483.
Izzo, M.F. and Ciaburri, M. (2018), “Why do they do that? Motives and dimensions of family firms’ CSR
engagement”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 633-650.
Jamil, A., Mohd Ghazali, N.A. and Puat Nelson, S. (2021), “The influence of corporate governance structure
on sustainability reporting in Malaysia”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1251-1278.

Joseph, C. and Taplin, R. (2012), “Local government website sustainability reporting: a mimicry
perspective”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 363-372.
Kaur, A. and Lodhia, S.K. (2014), “The state of disclosures on stakeholder engagement in sustainability
reporting in Australian local councils”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2, pp. 54-74.
Kaur, A. and Lodhia, S.K. (2017), “The extent of stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and
reporting: does empowerment of stakeholders really exist?” Modern Organisational Governance, Vol. 12,
pp. 129-145.
Kaur, A. and Lodhia, S.K. (2018), “Stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and reporting: a
study of Australian local councils”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 338-368.
Kaur, A. and Lodhia, S.K. (2019a), “Sustainability accounting, accountability and reporting in the public
sector: an overview and suggestions for future research”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 498-504.
Kaur, A. and Lodhia, S.K. (2019b), “Key issues and challenges in stakeholder engagement in
sustainability reporting: a study of Australian local councils”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 2-18.

PAGE 1036 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

Khan, M., Lockhart, J. and Bathurst, R. (2020), “A multi-level institutional perspective of corporate
social responsibility reporting: a mixed-method study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 265,
p. 121739.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), “Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and
recommendations”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 411-433.
Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A. and Laude, D. (2022), “Stakeholder engagement: past,
present, and future”, Business & Society, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 1136-1196.
Lehman, C. (2013), “Knowing the unknowable and contested terrains in accounting”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 136-144.
Loeffler, E. and Bovaird, T. (2020), “Assessing the impact of co-production on pathways to outcomes in
public services: the case of policing and criminal justice”, International Public Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 205-223.

Manes-Rossi, F., Nicolò, G. and Argento, D. (2020), “Non-financial reporting formats in public sector
organizations: a structured literature review”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial
Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 639-669.
Manetti, G. (2011), “The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and
critical points”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 110-122.
Meuleman, L. (2021), “Public administration and governance for the SDGs: navigating between change
and stability”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 11, p. 5914.
Mitchell, J.R., Mitchell, R.K., Hunt, R.A., Townsend, D.M. and Lee, J.H. (2022), “Stakeholder engagement,
knowledge problems and ethical challenges”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 175 No. 1, pp. 75-94.

Modell, S. (2005), “Triangulation between case study and survey methods in management accounting
research: an assessment of validity implications”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 231-254.
Momin, M.A., Chong, S., van Staden, C. and Ma, L. (2023), “Stakeholder engagement during COVID-19:
evidence from corporate use of Twitter”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1397-1418, doi:
10.1108/SRJ-08-2022-0314.

Monfardini, P., Barretta, A.D. and Ruggiero, P. (2013), “Seeking legitimacy: social reporting in the
healthcare sector”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 54-66.

Montiel, I. and Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2014), “Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: are we
there yet?” Organization & Environment, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 113-139.
Moon, J. (2007), “The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development”,
Sustainable Development, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 296-306.
Moura-Leite, R.C. and Padgett, R.C. (2011), “Historical background of corporate social responsibility”,
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 528-539.
Nicolò, G., Zanellato, G., Tiron-Tudor, A. and Polcini, P.T. (2022), “Revealing the corporate contribution to
sustainable development goals through integrated reporting: a worldwide perspective”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5.

Noland, J. and Phillips, R. (2010), “Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic
management”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-49.

Owen, D. (2008), “Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current state of, and future
prospects for social and environmental accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 240-267.
Patzer, M., Voegtlin, C. and Scherer, A.G. (2018), “The normative justification of integrative stakeholder
engagement: A Habermasian view on responsible leadership”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 325-354.

Ricci, P. and Civitillo, R. (2018), “Italian public administration reform: what are the limits of financial
performance measures?” in Bianchi, C., Borgonovi, E. and Anessi Pessina, E. (Eds), Outcome-Based
Performance Management in the Public Sector, Springer Series on ‘‘System Dynamics for Performance
Management”, Springer International Publishing AG, Switzerland, Vol. 2, pp. 121-140.
Ricci, P. and Fusco, F. (2016), “Social reporting in the Italian justice system: Milan court experience”,
Public Integrity, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 254-268.

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1037

 Ricci, P. and Pavone, P. (2020), “The experience of social reporting in italian judicial offices. The
laboratory of the public prosecutor’s office in Naples”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 33 Nos 6/7, pp. 713-729.
Ricci, P. and Pavone, P. (2022), “The accountability in the justice system: have times really
changed? Reflections from an Italian social reporting experience”, Public Integrity, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 111-125.

Rinaldi, L., Unerman, J. and Tilt, C. (2014), “The role of stakeholder engagement and dialogue within the
sustainability accounting and reporting process”, Sustainability Accounting and Accountability,
Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 86-107.
Rixon, D. (2010), “Stakeholder engagement in public sector agencies: ascending the rungs of the
accountability ladder”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 347-356.

Rocca, L., Giacomini, D. and Zola, P. (2021), “Environmental disclosure and sentiment analysis: state of
the art and opportunities for public-sector organisations”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 617-646.
Schafer, J.G. and Zhang, Z. (2019), “Who is engaged and why? Testing an instrumental perspective on
stakeholder engagement”, Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 155-177.
Schormair, M.J. and Gilbert, D.U. (2021), “Creating value by sharing values: managing stakeholder value
conflict in the face of pluralism through discursive justification”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 1-36.
Schreier, M. (2012), “Qualitative content analysis in practice”, Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice,
Sage, London, pp. 1-280.
Shani, A.B. and Coghlan, D. (2021), “Action research in business and management: a reflective review”,
Action Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 518-541.
Sridharan, V.G. (2021), “Methodological insights theory development in qualitative management control:
revisiting the roles of triangulation and generalization”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 451-479.
Stacchezzini, R., Melloni, G. and Lai, A. (2016), “Sustainability management and reporting: the role of
integrated reporting for communicating corporate sustainability management”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 136, pp. 102-110.
Stocker, F., de Arruda, M.P., de Mascena, K.M. and Boaventura, J.M. (2020), “Stakeholder engagement
in sustainability reporting: a classification model”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 2071-2080.
Taı̈bi, S., Antheaume, N. and Gibassier, D. (2020), “Accounting for strong sustainability: an intervention-
research based approach, sustainability accounting”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and
Policy Journal, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 1213-1243.
Tanima, F.A., Brown, J., Wright, J. and Mackie, V. (2021), “Taking critical dialogic accountability into the
field: engaging contestation around microfinance and women’s empowerment”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 90, p. 102383.
Tarquinio, L. and Xhindole, C. (2021), “The institutionalisation of sustainability reporting in management
practice: evidence through action research”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 362-386.

Thomson, I. and Bebbington, J. (2005), “Social and environmental reporting in the UK: a pedagogic
evaluation”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 507-533.

Tommasetti, A., Mussari, R., Maione, G. and Sorrentino, D. (2020), “Sustainability accounting and
reporting in the public sector: towards public value co-creation?” Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 1-19.

Torelli, R. (2020), “Sustainability, responsibility and ethics: different concepts for a single path”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 719-739.
Torelli, R., Balluchi, F. and Furlotti, K. (2020), “The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement:
a content analysis of sustainability reports”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 470-484.

Unerman, J. (2007), “Sakeholder engagement and dialogue”, in Unerman, J., Bebbington, J. and
O’Dwyer, B. (Eds), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability, Routledge, London.

PAGE 1038 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024

UN General Assembly (2015), “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development”,
available at: www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html (accessed 21 October 2015).

Van Marrewijk, M. (2003), “Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between
agency and communion”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 95-105.
Venturelli, A., Caputo, F., Leopizzi, R. and Pizzi, S. (2018), “The state of art of corporate social disclosure
before the introduction of non-financial reporting directive: a cross country analysis”, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 409-423.
Vinnari, E. and Laine, M. (2013), “Just a passing fad? The diffusion and decline of environmental reporting
in the Finnish water sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 1107-1134.
Waardenburg, M., Groenleer, M., de Jong, J. and Keijser, B. (2020), “Paradoxes of collaborative
governance: investigating the real-life dynamics of multi-agency collaborations using a quasi-
experimental action-research approach”, Public Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 386-407.
World Bank (2020), “Doing business 2020: comparing business regulation in 190 economies”, World
Bank, Washington DC, available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/
32436/9781464814402.pdf (accessed 24 October 2020).

Corresponding author
Floriana Fusco can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

VOL. 20 NO. 5 2024 j SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY JOURNAL j PAGE 1039