The Sustainability of Esas Triumvirate for Sustainability-Related Disclosures in the Financial Sector – All for One and One for All?

Filip Rubáček; Radka MacGregor Pelikánová; Robert K. MacGregor

doi:10.18778/0208-6069.105.08

Authors

Filip Rubáček Metropolitan University Prague https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5134-6525
Radka MacGregor Pelikánová Metropolitan University Prague https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9628-7146
Robert K. MacGregor Metropolitan University Prague

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.105.08

Keywords:

CSR, EU law, European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), financial services

Abstract

Sustainability is definitely one of the top priorities of the current highly competitive global society. For almost three decades, the EU has been declaring its commitment to sustainable growth, while progressively recognizing that the concept of shared values, the multi-stakeholder model and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are indispensable. The EU moved, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and other events, from mere Directives to Regulations, i.e. the genuine reporting about sustainability is becoming a duty for certain businesses, especially in the financial sector. This political and legislative trend is boosted by the engagement of three special EU institutions (ESAs) entrusted with the development, standardization and monitoring of sustainability-related disclosures based on Regulation 2019/2088. Who belongs in this triumvirate? What are their competencies and tasks? And most importantly, how is this triumvirate and its operations perceived? A holistic multi-disciplinary research of legislative sources and performed surveys and studies yields both quantitative and qualitative data. An open-minded critical analysis of such data, along with a comparison, Socratic questioning and forensic glossing brings answers to these three burning questions and offers fresh recommendations regarding EU pro-sustainability endeavours as well as modern European integration.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Areeda, Phillip E. 1996. “The Socratic method.” Harvard Law Review 109(5): 911–922.
Google Scholar

Balcerzak, Adam. Radka MacGregor Pelikánová. 2020. “Projection of SDGs in Codes of Ethics – Case Study about Lost in Translation?” Administrative Sciences 10(4): 1–18.
Google Scholar

Balcerzak, Adam. Robert K. MacGregor. Radka MacGregor Pelikánová. Elżbieta Rogalska. Dawid Szostek. 2023. “The EU Regulation of Sustainable Investment: The End of Sustainability Trade-offs?” Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 11(1): 199–212. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110111
Google Scholar

Botopoulos, Kostas, 2020. “The European Supervisory Authorities: Role-models or in Need of Re-modelling?” ERA Forum 21: 177–198.
Google Scholar

Busch, Danny, 2023. “EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation.” Capital Markets Law Journal 18(3): 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmad005
Google Scholar

Carroll, Archie B. 2016. “Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking Another Look.” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 1.
Google Scholar

Chmelíková, Gabriela. Annette Krauss. Ondřej Dvouletý. 2019. “Performance of Microfinance Institutions in Europe-Does Social Capital Matter?” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2018.11.007
Google Scholar

DʼAdamo, Idiano. Gianluca Lupi. 2021. “Sustainability and Resilience after COVID-19: A Circular Premium in the Fashion Industry.” Sustainability 13(4): 1861. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041861
Google Scholar

de Bakker, Frank G.A. Andreas Rasche. Stefano Ponte. 2019. “Multi-stakeholder Initiatives on Sustainability: A Cross-disciplinary Review and Research Agenda for Business Ethics.” Business Ethics Quarterly 29(3): 343–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.10
Google Scholar

Dumas, Alexandre. 1844. Les Trois Mousquetaires – Three Musketeers. Paris: Baudry.
Google Scholar

Eger, Claudia. Graham Miller. Caroline Scarles. 2019. “Corporate Philanthropy through the Lens of Ethical Subjectivity.” Journal of Business Ethics 156: 141–153.
Google Scholar

European Commission – Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union. 2022. Targeted Consultation on the Supervisory Convergence and the Single Rulebook. https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/finance-2021-esas-review_en (accessed: 17.07.2022).
Google Scholar

Ferraro, Fabrizio. Daniel Beundza. 2018. “Creating Common Ground: A Communicative Action Model of Dialogue in Shareholder Engagement.” Organization Science 29: 1187–1207. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1226
Google Scholar

Glass, Gene V. 1976. “Primary, Secondary, and Meta-analysis of Research.” Educational Researcher 5(10): 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
Google Scholar

Gortsos, Christos V. 2015. “Competence Sharing between the ECB and the National Competent Supervisory Authorities within the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM).” European Business Organization Law Review 16(3): 401–420.
Google Scholar

Kramer, Mark R. Marc W. Pfitzer. 2016. “The Ecosystem of Shared Value. Business and Society.” Harvard Business Review (October): 3–11.
Google Scholar

Krippendorff, Klaus. 2013. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Los Angeles: Sage.
Google Scholar

Kuckartz, Udo. 2014. Qualitative Text Analysis – A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka. Filip Rubáček. 2022. “Taxonomy for Transparency in Non-financial Statements – Clear Duty with Unclear Sanction.” Danube 13(3): 173–195. https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2022-0011
Google Scholar

MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka. Martin Hála. 2021. “CSR Unconscious Consumption by Generation Z in the COVID-19 Era – Responsible Heretics not Paying CSR Bonus?” Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14(8): 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14080390
Google Scholar

MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka. Robert K. MacGregor. 2020. “The EU Puzzling CSR Regime and the Confused Perception by Ambassadors of Luxury Fashion Businesses: A Case Study from Pařížská.” Central European Business Review 9(3): 74–108.
Google Scholar

MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka. Robert K. MacGregor. Martin Černek. 2021a. “New trends in codes of ethics: Czech business ethics preferences by the dawn of COVID-19.” Oeconomia Copernicana 12(4): 973–1009. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.032
Google Scholar

MacGregor Pelikánová, Radka. Tereza Němečková. Robert K. MacGregor. 2021b. “CSR Statements in International and Czech Luxury Fashion Industry at the Onset and during the COVID-19 Pandemic – Slowing Down the Fast Fashion Business?” Sustainability 13(7): 3715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073715
Google Scholar

MacGregor, Robert K. Włodzimierz Sroka. Radka MacGregor Pelikánová. 2020. “The CSR Perception of Front-line Employees of Luxury Fashion Businesses.” Organizacija 53(3): 198– 211. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2020-0013
Google Scholar

Małecka, Joanna. Teresa Łuczka. Jarmila Šebestová. Roman Šperka. 2017. “Economic Activity and Social Determinants versus Entrepreneurship in SMEs – Selected Aspects.” Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting 6: 47–61. https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2017.016
Google Scholar

Porter, Michael E. Mark R. Kramer. 2011. “Creating Shared Value.” Harvard Business Review 89(1–2): 62–77.
Google Scholar

Schmidt, Frank L. John E. Hunter. 2014. Methods of Meta-analysis – Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

Silverman, David. 2013. Doing Qualitative Research – A Practical Handbook. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

Škapa, Stanislav. Nina Bočková. Karel Doubravský. Mirko Dohnal. 2022. “Fuzzy Confrontations of Models of ESG Investing versus non-ESG Investing Based on Artificial Intelligence Algorithms.” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 13: 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2022.2030666
Google Scholar

Sroka, Włodzimierz. Richard Szántó. 2018. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics in Controversial Sectors: Analysis of Research Results.” Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI) 14: 111–126. https://doi.org/10.7341/20181435
Google Scholar

Stepien, Sebastian. Jan Polcyn. 2019. “Risk Management in Small Family Farms in Poland.” Economic Science for Rural Development 50: 382–388. https://doi.org/10.22616/ESRD.2019.048
Google Scholar

Streimikiene, Dalia. Rizwan R. Ahmed. 2021. “The Integration of Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing Concepts as a Business Strategy: Evidence from SEM-based Multivariate and Toda-Yamamoto Causality Models.” Oeconomia Copernicana 12(1): 125–157. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.006
Google Scholar

Tulder, Rob. May Seitanidi. Andrew Crane. Stephen Bramer. 2016. “Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships. Four Impact Loops for Channelling Partnership Studies.” Journal of Business Ethics 135: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2756-4
Google Scholar

Turečková, Kamila. Jan Nevima. 2019. “Smart Approach in Regional Development.” In Proceedings of MIRDEC-12th, International Academic Conference Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Studies on Social Sciences. 77–84. Edited by Kemal Cebeci, Joaquim Ramos Silva, Tamer Budak, Antonio Focacci. Rome: University of Washington Rome Center.
Google Scholar

Van Tulder, Rob. Nienke Keen. 2018. “Capturing Collaborative Challenges: Designing Complexity- Sensitive Theories of Change for Cross-Sector Partnerships.” Journal of Business Ethics 150: 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3857-7
Google Scholar

Vourvachis, Petros. Thérèse Woodward. 2015. “Content Analysis in Social and Environmental Reporting Research: Trends and Challenges.” Journal of Applied Accounting Research 16(2): 166–195.
Google Scholar

Washburn, Nathan T. David A. Waldman. Mary F. Sully de Luque. Min Z. Carter. 2018. “Executives’ Stakeholder Values in the Prediction of Work Process Change.” Journal of Management Studies 55: 1423–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12394
Google Scholar

Yin, Robert K. 2008. Study Research. Design Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Google Scholar