Afficher la notice abrégée

Powstanie i rozwój standardów sprawozdawczości zrównoważonego rozwoju w świetle teorii koalicji rzeczniczych

dc.contributor.authorMichalak, Jan
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-16T10:00:26Z
dc.date.available2026-06-16T10:00:26Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.identifierONIX_20260612T144849_9788383319391_47
dc.identifier.urihttps://doab-dev.siscern.org/handle/20.500.12854/209261
dc.languagePolish
dc.relation.ispartofseriesZarządzanie
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::K Economics, Finance, Business and Management::KF Finance and accounting::KFC Accounting::KFCR Financial reporting, financial statements
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::R Earth Sciences, Geography, Environment, Planning::RN The environment::RNU Sustainability
dc.subject.otherSustainable development
dc.subject.otherReporting standards
dc.subject.otherGlobal Reporting Initiative
dc.subject.otherEuropean Sustainability Reporting Standards
dc.subject.otherInternational Sustainability Reporting Standards Board
dc.titlePowstanie i rozwój standardów sprawozdawczości zrównoważonego rozwoju w świetle teorii koalicji rzeczniczych
dc.typebook
oapen.abstract.otherlanguageThe monograph addresses sustainable development reporting standards development, analyzing their origins, structure, and interrelationships from the perspective of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). The starting point is the evolution of the idea of sustainable development at the UN and EU forums. An important tool for implementing this idea are reporting systems, which enable the assessment of the effectiveness of actions and transparency towards stakeholders. In this context, three sustainable development reporting standards systems play a special role: GRI, EFRAG, and ISSB.Author or the monograph advances the thesis that the development of reporting standards is not solely technical in nature, but is in fact a political and institutional process shaped by the clash of two advocacy coalitions: the precautionary coalition and the economic growth coalition. The research methods applied include comparative analysis of the standards, case studies of the organizations responsible for their development, and content analysis of comment letters submitted during public consultations.The findings reveal substantial differences in the processes of developing GRI, EFRAG, and ISSB standards. These differences, in turn, translated into divergences in the final shape of the standards in terms of their purpose, target user groups, mandatory versus voluntary nature, scope of required disclosures, and approaches to materiality and time horizons. The monograph contributes to the scholarly literature by demonstrating that the formation of sustainability reporting standards should be understood as the outcome of interactions between advocacy coalitions and their influence on the design of sustainability reporting frameworks.
oapen.identifier.doi10.18778/8331-939-1
oapen.relation.isbn9788383319391
oapen.relation.isbn9788383319384
oapen.imprintelectronic


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

FichiersTailleFormatVue

Il n'y a pas de fichiers associés à ce document.

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Excepté là où spécifié autrement, la license de ce document est décrite en tant que https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/