Main findings: The results of the study have shown that the scope and level of reported disclosures by WIG-20 companies – that are best performing and positive toward sustainability – is insufficient

The gap

Consensus across the literature

Supporting evidence — 4 representative gaps

• PFAS disclosure practices of Dutch listed companies: An exploratory study (2026) · doi

  Early sustainability reporting emerged largely as a volun- tary practice, driven by stakeholder and institutional pres- sures, legitimacy concerns, and economic considerations (Hahn and Kühnen 2013). A substantial body of literature examines the determinants of voluntary sustainability re- porting and finds that firm size, industry affiliation, visibil- ity, and stakeholder scrutiny are among the most consistent predictors of disclosure (Hahn and Kühnen 2013; Dienes et al. 2016; Arkoh et al. 2024). Firms operating in environ- mentally sensitive industries are more likely to engage in sustainability reporting, reflecting higher exposure to en- vironmental risks and reputational concerns (Velte 2023). However, prior research consistently documents im- portant limitations of voluntary reporting. Disclosures tend to be selective, qualitative, and focused on positive aspects of corporate performance, while negative impacts and controversial issues are often omitted or downplayed (Hahn and Kühnen 2013; Dienes et al. 2016). This has raised concerns about symbolic reporting and green- washing, particularly when firms face weak regulatory oversight or when reporting frameworks provide broad discretion (e.g., Luu et al. 2025; Mateo-Márquez et al. 2022). As a result, voluntary sustainability reporting of- ten fails to provide comparable, decision-useful informa- tion to stakeholders (Christensen et al. 2021). 2.2. The shift toward mandatory sustainability reporting In response to the shortcomings of voluntary disclosure, reg- ulators increasingly rely on mandatory sustainability report- ing regimes. There is evidence that mandatory sustainability reporting can lead to improvements in environmental and social outcomes. For example, mandatory disclosure has been associated with reductions in greenhouse gas emis- sions, improved workplace safety, and increased investment in sustainable practices (Delmas et al. 2010; Bennear and Olmstead 2008; Chen et al. 2018; Downar et al. 2021). Related research also shows spillover effects along supply chains and across borders, suggesting that disclosure man- dates can influence behavior beyond directly regulated firms (She 2022; Kim et al. 2025). In addition, mandatory sustain- ability reporting is found to be value relevant. Importantly, firms with stronger sustainability performance and more credible disclosures tend to benefit from mandatory regimes, whereas firms with poor performance or low transparency may face negative market reactions (Baboukardos 2017; Grewal et al. 2019; Jouvenot and Krueger 2019; Mittelbach- -Hörmanseder et al. 2021; Vishnu Nampoothiri et al. 2024). https://mab-online.nlOlga Ihl-Deviv’e, Thomas Thijssens: PFAS disclosure practices of Dutch listed companiesMaandblad voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie 100(3): 101–116 103 2.3. Mandatory reporting and disclosure quality P

  Keywords: reporting sustainability mandatory disclosure firms voluntary concerns hahn hnen performance stakeholder dienes disclosures tend negative
• Financial sustainability in the context of ESG disclosure: A comprehensive analysis of Chinese‐listed firms (2024) · doi

  Abstract This study examines the pivotal role of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure in the financial sustainability of Chinese‐listed companies, addressing a significant gap in the literature regarding the impact of corporate governance mechanisms on this relationship.

  Keywords: governance abstract examines pivotal role environmental social disclosure financial sustainability chinese listed companies addressing significant
• WIG-20 Warsaw Stock Exchange Companies: Are They Ready for Governance Matters Disclosures Based on EU Sustainable Reporting Standards? (2023) · doi

  Main findings: The results of the study have shown that the scope and level of reported disclosures by WIG-20 companies – that are best performing and positive toward sustainability – is insufficient and reporting practices do not meet proposed EFRAG draft standards.

  Keywords: main scope level reported disclosures companies best performing positive toward sustainability insufficient reporting practices meet
• Signals and structures (2026) · doi

  This study provides an insightful, empirically ground- ed overview of Slovenia’s corporate governance land- scape. However, the view is not without its limits. Some are methodological, others conceptual—and all are essential for interpreting results and guiding future research. First, operationalising institutional logics required abstraction and reduction. The final subset of five in- dicators was selected from a broader pool based on theoretical relevance, statistical coherence, and data quality. This ensured conceptual clarity but inevitably introduced simplification. For example, Sustainability Signalling captured references to sustainability frame- works without assessing implementation depth, while Board Committee Complexity captured the number of committees rather than function or overlap. These proxies reflect observable governance signals but only partially capture lived organisational practice. Because the indicators rely on public disclosures, they may re- flect reporting choices as much as underlying govern- ance realities. Second, the use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a small sample of 24 publicly traded firms across a ten-year period limits statistical generalisabil- ity. Although the design maximised within-firm varia- tion, the small-N structure necessarily trades breadth for depth. These findings should therefore be treated as field-specific and exploratory, not generalisable be- yond similar small, state-influenced markets without further validation (Gouvea, 2017; Mahoney, 2000; Smith & Little, 2018). This limitation is also partly by design. All firms in the sample are publicly listed, which shapes gov- ernance per se and regardless of ownership structure. Public listing imposes a shared baseline of disclosure, transparency, and procedural compliance that inevita- bly reduces variation in governance arrangements. As such, while ownership differences remain analytically meaningful, they occur within a uniformly regulated and visibility-driven environment—one that tends to amplify symbolic governance practices across the board. Third, while the factor model fit was adequate (TLI = 0.934; RMSEA = 0.113; RMSR = 0.01), the Kai- ser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) score of 0.64 indicates medi- journal of contemporary management issuesmanagement, vol. 31, 2026, no. 1, pp. 1-3021 ocre sampling adequacy—acceptable but not strong— consistent with small-N factor models. This suggests minor cross-loading and measurement noise, indicat- ing the need for future research with larger samples and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate con- struct stability. Fourth, the study analyses firm-year observations as pooled cross-sections (without firm fixed effects or clustered errors), simplifying estimation but limiting control for unobserved,

  Keywords: governance without factor small firm limits conceptual future statistical sustainability captured depth board public exploratory