Policymakers, academics, and practitioners are increasingly discussing non-financial reporting (NFR) initiatives, i.e., reporting initiatives that are related to environmental and social matters. The implementation of NFR initiatives in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is a key topic. Based on a systematic literature review, this article first synthesizes what we know about the mechanisms underlying NFR initiatives implemented by SMEs. A thematic analysis led to the identification and examination of drivers, enabling factors, and challenges for NFR initiatives. Relevant drivers include legitimacy-based motivations, competitive advantage, and stakeholder engagement. Enabling factors include specific guidelines and tools for NFR. Lack of capabilities and lack of standardization are significant challenges. Second, drawing on the thematic analysis and on what we do not know about NFR in the context of SMEs, a novel conceptualization of NFR as a process characterized by three main phases is presented. Last, this article suggests future research opportunities.

This research aims to analyse the links and potential limiting and supporting factors between sustainability actions and sustainability reporting. Comparing companies involved in sustainability actions and those whose reporting practices lack a formal reporting system, this analysis focuses on Italian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the meat and cured meat industry, identifying the perspective (formative) that links sustainability action to communication in these SMEs. The qualitative interpretative approach, based on semistructured interviews, highlights the relevant strengths and weaknesses concerning substantive sustainability actions and the effect of communication on them, providing implications for international and sectoral policies and management choices. Filling a gap in the SME literature concerning their approaches to sustainability reporting and action (and the relationship thereof), this study also introduces, as a widely used practice, ‘greenhushing’, i.e., the deliberate absence of or limited communication on effectively implemented sustainability practices or their salient results.

The increasing focus on business and human rights (BHR) in civil society and policymaking has not been matched by research on corporate actions to respect and protect human rights. The lack of research on BHR is especially acute outside of Western Europe and Anglo-centric contexts. This paper seeks to investigate how the largest Russian firms conceptualize and fulfil their human rights obligations under the UN Guiding Principles and the extent to which internationalization of those firms may have impacted these behaviours. I use a unique dataset created from a sample made of the 100 largest firms listed on the Moscow Stock Exchange. Using the theoretical construct of institutional conflict, I find that cross-listing on other stock exchanges and the extent to which firms frame their broader social responsibility issues as ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ rather than ‘corporate social responsibility’ has a substantial impact on firm attention to human rights. While this attention is encouraging, firm disclosure of actions taken to mitigate against violations and protect human rights is extremely limited and the strength of domestic institutional pressures has resulted in very little firm action in the face of the extreme and widespread human rights violations being committed in Ukraine by Russia.

This article investigates the Bangladeshi garment industry that supplies ready-made garments for global brands and the corporate social responsibilities (CSRs) of the brands/multinational corporations (MNCs) towards their supply chains. Although outsourcing and global trade have boosted the living standards of many people in the Bangladeshi garment industry, there are some significant concerns regarding the working conditions and treatment of workers in these supply chains. This, in turn, cannot, and should not, be detached from the legal relationship between the Bangladeshi supply chains and the MNCs contracting with them. This article examines the impact of COVID-19, which has exposed the fragility and the pre-existing flaws in the relationship between the MNCs and their suppliers more clearly than at any other time in history. There is a huge governance gap between MNCs and supply chains that needs to be addressed urgently. This article assesses the legality of the cancellation of orders by the brands that invoked the force majeure clause. In doing so, this paper briefly deals with the responses of three American retail companies, namely Sears, Kohl’s, and the Arcadia Group, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. It illustrates that the power asymmetry between the MNCs and their suppliers has put the supply chains in an unreasonably disadvantageous position, creating unfair and even unconscionable conduct by several MNCs. This article also looks at solutions for the existing problems, focusing, inter alia, on non-financial reporting requirements in the US and the EU to implement CSR in supply chains. However, disappointingly, the authors had to conclude that MNCs typically have the propensity to disregard CSR, whenever it is convenient for them and use CSR for mere “greenwashing” purposes for their strategic benefit only. It is a problem that requires constant attention and continuing research to find long-term solutions. The article employs doctrinal methodology and, by conducting a meta-analysis of literature and case-studies, it provides a comprehensive understanding of how the industry works.

Firms’ human rights due diligence (HRDD) and communication on their human rights impacts are not only elements in the Corporate Responsibility to Respect human rights (Pillar Two), but also to be promoted by States as part of their State Duty to Protect (Pillar One) through regulatory strategies aiming at shaping business conduct. Analysing the EU’s 2014 Non-Financial Reporting Directive as an example of governmental regulation for promoting responsible business conduct, the article discusses conditions for HRDD and reporting as a communication process to stimulate organizational change in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles to avoid harm, including through affected-stakeholder engagement. Applying socio-legal regulatory theory along with organizational and accounting literature, the article finds that the Directive’s predominant focus on ex-post measures appears to be a neglected opportunity to induce ex-ante organizational learning and changed business conduct to prevent adverse human rights impact. It offers recommendations for regulators and stakeholders for stronger regulation.