Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists

Series on Engineering Sciences

ISSN 2066-6950

Volume 18, Number 1/2026

74

SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING AND FINANCIAL

TRANSPARENCY: DISCLOSING OPEX, CAPEX,

AND TURNOVER IN LINE WITH THE EU TAXONOMY

Gabriel VASILESCU¹, Larisa BASICA²,

Cristina TATARCAN³, Augustin SEMENESCU⁴

Rezumat. Acest articol se concentrează pe domeniul aflat în continuă evoluție a raportării

privind sustenabilitatea corporativă, concentrându-se pe practicile de publicare a cheltu-

ielilor operaționale (OPEX), a cheltuielilor de capital (CAPEX) și a cifrei de afaceri în

conformitate cu Taxonomia UE. Având în vedere că Taxonomia UE stabilește standardele

pentru ceea ce constituie activități durabile din punct de vedere ecologic, în consecință,

companiile se confruntă cu o presiune tot mai mare pentru a-și alinia declarațiile financi-

are. Articolul studiază cerințele de raportare ale Taxonomiei UE, explorând date despre

modul în care companiile își aliniază declarațiile financiare cu criteriile specifice stabilite

de Taxonomia UE. În corpul de conținut al articolului sunt evidențiate provocările comune

cu care se confruntă companiile atunci când încearcă să își alinieze declarațiile financiare

cu Taxonomia UE.

Abstract. This article concentrates on the evolving landscape of corporate sustainability

reporting, focusing on practices for disclosing operational expenditure (OPEX), capital

expenditure (CAPEX), and turnover in compliance with the EU Taxonomy. With the EU

Taxonomy setting the standards for what constitutes environmentally sustainable activities,

companies face increasing pressure to align their financial disclosures accordingly. The

article studies the EU Taxonomy reporting requirements exploring data on how companies

align their financial disclosures with the specific criteria set out by the EU Taxonomy.

Common challenges that companies face when trying to align their financial disclosures

with the EU Taxonomy are highlighted in the body of the article.

Keywords: sustainability reporting, financial transparency, EU Taxonomy

DOI

10.56082/annalsarscieng.2026.1.74

¹Senior Researcher I, Habil. PhD, Eng., National Institute for Research and Development in Mine

Safety and Protection to Explosion, Chief Laboratory of Explosives Materials and Pyrotechnic

Articles – INCD INSEMEX of Petrosani, Petrosani, Romania (e-mail:

dragos.vasilescu@insemex.ro ).

²PhD, Independent Researcher, Bucharest, Romania (larisagavrila@gmail.com )

³PhD, National Science and Technology University Politehnica Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

(e-mail: cristina.tatarcan@gmail.com ).

⁴Professor, PhD, Eng. Mat. Ec., National Science and Technology University Politehnica

Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania, Full Member of Academy of Romanian Scientists; (e-mail:

augustin.semenescu@upb.ro ).

74

Sustainability reporting and financial transparency: disclosing OPEX, CAPEX,

and turnover in line with the EU taxonomy

75

1. Introduction

The accelerating shift toward sustainable business practices has transformed

the way companies measure, manage, and communicate their economic and envi-

ronmental performance. As global stakeholders demand clearer evidence of corpo-

rate responsibility, sustainability reporting has evolved from a voluntary exercise

into a strategic imperative. This transformation is particularly visible in the Euro-

pean Union, where regulatory initiatives such as the EU Taxonomy have redefined

expectations for transparency in financial and non-financial disclosures. By estab-

lishing a unified classification system for environmentally sustainable activities, the

EU Taxonomy compels companies to reassess how they report operational expendi-

ture (OPEX), capital expenditure (CAPEX), and turnover in relation to sustainabil-

ity objectives.

This article examines the evolving landscape of sustainability reporting with

a focus on the disclosure of OPEX, CAPEX, and turnover in accordance with the

EU Taxonomy. It explores the regulatory foundations of Taxonomy, outlines best

practices for transparent reporting, and analyzes the practical difficulties companies

encounter in achieving alignment. Through this lens, the study underscores the crit-

ical role of robust, taxonomy-aligned financial disclosures in fostering sustainable

economic development and enhancing stakeholder trust.

2. Literature Review

Evolution of Sustainability Reporting

Sustainability reporting has become central to corporate governance, reflect-

ing the recognition that long‑term success depends on environmental and social re-

sponsibility—a shift that accelerated in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Hahn &

Kühnen, 2013).

Growing pressures from climate change, resource scarcity, and inequality

have further elevated its importance, with frameworks like TCFD promoting clearer

and more comparable disclosures. Empirical evidence links sustainability perfor-

mance to financial outcomes, with Eccles et al. showing that firms with strong sus-

tainability practices outperform peers, and broader studies confirming positive cor-

relations with stock market performance (Eccles et al., 2014; Friede et al., 2015).

The EU Taxonomy reinforces this trend by requiring companies to report OPEX,

CAPEX, and turnover against environmental objectives, embedding sustainability

directly into financial metrics.

Financial Transparency as a Foundation for Sustainable Governance

Financial transparency is a cornerstone of effective corporate governance

and a prerequisite for building trust with stakeholders. It involves the open disclo-

sure of financial information that enables investors, regulators, and the public to

76

Gabriel Vasilescu, Larisa Basica, Cristina Tatarcan, Augustin Semenescu

understand an organization’s operations and performance. Bushman et. al. highlight

that transparent firms tend to exhibit stronger governance practices and superior

financial outcomes (Bushman et. al., 2010).

Transparency reduces information asymmetry and supports informed stake-

holder decisions, with Ernst & Young reporting that 60% of institutional investors

see insufficient transparency as a major barrier to investment (Ernst & Young,

2017). It is also essential for regulatory compliance, lowering legal risks and

strengthening reputational capital; Francis et al. show that transparency‑driven

compliance improves stakeholder relationships and builds brand loyalty (Francis et

al., 2004). In addition, financial transparency enhances risk management by reveal-

ing issues early and enabling timely corrective action.

The digitalization of financial reporting has amplified expectations for trans-

parency. With real-time access to information, stakeholders demand timely and ac-

curate disclosures. McKinsey notes that companies embracing digital transparency

outperform competitors by building stronger customer and investor relationships in

an information-driven economy (McKinsey & Company, 2021).

The EU Taxonomy: Purpose, Structure, and Implications

The EU Taxonomy represents one of the most ambitious regulatory initia-

tives in sustainable finance. It establishes a unified classification system for envi-

ronmentally sustainable economic activities, aiming to redirect capital flows toward

investments that support the EU’s climate and environmental objectives. Alessi et

al. describe Taxonomy as a tool that guides investors and companies through the

transition to a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy (Alessi et al., 2021).

The EU Taxonomy supports the European Green Deal’s 2050 climate‑neu-

tral goal by steering private capital toward sustainable activities, but it also brings

challenges, including limited data, complex screening criteria, and the need for spe-

cialized expertise. Nevertheless, Schütze et al. argue that the Taxonomy has the

potential to transform investment practices and accelerate sustainable economic

growth (Schütze et al., 2023).

Operational Expenditure (OPEX) in Sustainability Reporting

OPEX refers to the day-to-day expenses required to operate a business, in-

cluding salaries, utilities, maintenance, and rent. Garrison et al. [17] define OPEX

as the ongoing cost of running a product, business, or system. Effective OPEX man-

agement is essential for profitability and operational efficiency. Bragg emphasizes

that optimizing OPEX is crucial for maintaining competitive advantage and

long-term sustainability.

OPEX is central to financial reporting, shaping metrics like operating mar-

gin and EBITDA, which investors widely use to assess performance (Drury). Under

the EU Taxonomy, firms must disclose the share of OPEX tied to taxonomy‑eligible

Sustainability reporting and financial transparency: disclosing OPEX, CAPEX,

and turnover in line with the EU taxonomy

77

and taxonomy‑aligned activities—a shift in reporting highlighted by Dusík and

Streurer. Eligibility refers to activities listed in the regulation, while alignment re-

quires meeting technical screening criteria, a distinction Alessi et al. stress as es-

sential for accurately evaluating sustainability performance. The Taxonomy focuses

on OPEX linked to maintaining and operating assets that support sustainable activ-

ities, ensuring disclosures reflect environmental performance rather than general

operating costs, as argued by LaꢀTorre et al.

Best practices for OPEX reporting include robust data collection systems,

cross-functional collaboration, transparent methodologies, and integration of Tax-

onomy criteria into budgeting processes. Muñoz-Torres et al. emphasize the need

for granular data, while Zannakis et al. highlight the importance of breaking down

organizational silos.

Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Long-Term Sustainability

CAPEX refers to investments in long-term assets such as equipment, build-

ings, and technology. Berk and DeMarzo define CAPEX as expenditures that en-

hance or maintain productive capacity. CAPEX decisions significantly influence

future cash flow and firm valuation. Damodaran underscores the strategic im-

portance of CAPEX in shaping long-term growth.

Unlike OPEX, which is expensed immediately, CAPEX is capitalized and

depreciated over time, reflecting its long-term contribution to earnings. Weygandt

et al. explain that this accounting treatment aligns with the enduring nature of cap-

ital investments.

At the macroeconomic level, CAPEX is a key indicator of economic health.

Aghion et al. show that aggregate CAPEX levels correlate with growth prospects,

prompting governments to use fiscal policies to stimulate investment.

Under the EU Taxonomy, companies must disclose the share of CAPEX that is

taxonomy‑aligned, a requirement applying to firms under the NFRD (Freiberg et al.).

CAPEX alignment is crucial because it signals a company’s future sustainability path-

way, and Schütze et al. stress that it must support at least one environmental objective

without harming others. Best practices include integrating sustainability into capital

allocation, creating classification systems aligned with technical criteria, establishing

strong governance, and offering transparent explanations of investment choices. Eccles

and Klimenko highlight the need for strategic integration, while Christensen et al. em-

phasize transparency. Scenario analysis is increasingly used to test CAPEX resilience

under varying climate and regulatory conditions, as noted by Chenet et al.

Turnover and Its Role in Sustainability Assessment

Turnover represents the total revenue generated from a company’s primary

activities. Kotler and Armstrong define turnover as gross sales income before de-

ductions. Turnover is a key indicator of market performance, growth, and

78

Gabriel Vasilescu, Larisa Basica, Cristina Tatarcan, Augustin Semenescu

competitive positioning. Novy-Marx finds that turnover can predict stock returns,

while Porter argues that turnover relative to competitors reveals strategic strength.

Turnover also plays a role in financial ratios such as asset turnover, which

measures how efficiently a company uses its assets to generate revenue. Fairfield

and Yohn show that changes in asset turnover can predict future profitability.

Under the EU Taxonomy, companies must report the share of turnover from

taxonomy‑aligned activities, a key indicator of a firm’s current sustainability profile

(Schütze et al.). Turnover, together with CAPEX and OPEX, provides a compre-

hensive view of alignment (LaꢀTorre et al.). Assessing turnover requires evaluating

activities against technical screening criteria and ensuring they contribute to envi-

ronmental objectives without causing significant harm, guided by the six objectives

outlined by Tölös et al.

Challenges in Aligning Financial Disclosures with EU Taxonomy

Aligning financial disclosures with the EU Taxonomy presents significant

challenges. Taxonomy’s breadth and complexity require companies to analyze di-

verse activities across multiple sectors.

Integrating the Taxonomy into existing reporting systems demands new pro-

cesses, metrics, and coordination, often requiring upgraded data systems, new

methodologies, and staff training. Evolving delegated acts add regulatory uncer-

tainty, while meeting minimum social safeguards increases complexity. Still, re-

search shows that Taxonomy alignment ultimately improves data quality, govern-

ance, and strategic planning.

Summary of Literature Review Findings

The literature demonstrates that sustainability reporting and financial tran-

sparency have become essential components of modern corporate governance. The

EU Taxonomy represents a transformative regulatory framework that integrates en-

vironmental sustainability into financial reporting through the disclosure of OPEX,

CAPEX, and turnover.

While Taxonomy offers significant benefits—enhanced transparency, im-

proved investor confidence, and alignment with environmental objectives, it also

presents substantial challenges. Companies must navigate complex technical crite-

ria, address data gaps, integrate new reporting processes, and adapt to evolving re-

gulatory expectations.

3. Methodology

This study adopts a quantitative, exploratory research design aimed at exa-

mining how companies disclose OPEX, CAPEX, and turnover in alignment with

the EU Taxonomy and how these disclosures relate to sustainability performance,

as measured through ESG Risk Ratings. The methodology combines descriptive

Sustainability reporting and financial transparency: disclosing OPEX, CAPEX,

and turnover in line with the EU taxonomy

79

analysis, comparative assessment, and statistical modelling, enabling both a struc-

tural overview of reporting practices and an evaluation of relationships between

Taxonomy‑related financial indicators and ESG risk.

The research design is structured around two main components: A cross‑in-

dustry case study of EU Taxonomy disclosures for the 2023 reporting year; A mul-

tiple linear regression analysis assessing the relationship between taxonomy‑eligi-

ble but not aligned financial indicators and ESG Risk Ratings.

4. Case Study

For the next case study, we have considered thirty-six companies that have

issued their 2023 EU Taxonomy Annual reports. The selected companies cover a

wide range of industries like auto components, automobiles, chemicals, construc-

tion & engineering, construction materials, diversified financials, electrical

equipment, healthcare, household products, machinery, paper & forestry, pharma-

ceuticals, retailing, semi-conductors, steel industry, software, technology hardware,

telecommunications, transportation, and utilities.

In Figure 1 we can notice that 44% of the companies analyzed have zero

taxonomy-my aligned turnover activities, meaning no sales activities are generated

by sustainable activities, 31% of the companies have taxonomy aligned sales acti-

vities that make less than 10% of their total turnover. Only 25% of the companies

exceed the 10% and even fewer (3 companies) exceed 50% of their total turnover

from sustainable activities. Only two companies have their entire turnover genera-

ted by sustainable activities, Alfen that operates in the electrical equipment sector

and Scatec, who activities in the utilities sector.

Turnover of environmentally sustainable activities

(taxonomy-aligned) (A.1)

Companies with ZERO

taxonomy alligned

turnover activities

25%

31%

Companies having below

10% taxanomy aligned

turnover activities

44%

Companies having above

10% taxanomy aligned

turnover activities

Fig. 1. The company’s distribution based on declared turnover of environmentally sustainable

activities (taxonomy-aligned).⁵

⁵Source: Authors’ own research

80

Gabriel Vasilescu, Larisa Basica, Cristina Tatarcan, Augustin Semenescu

Figure 2 depicts the company’s distribution based on declared turnover of

taxonomy-eligible but not environmentally sustainable activities (not taxonomy-

aligned activities) and it demonstrates the scale of improvement that is possible to

turn eligible but environmentally sustainable activities into taxonomy-aligned acti-

vities. Only 11% of companies have declared that there are no sustainable activities

eligible as part of the turnover, 28% companies can reach up to 10% improvement

in the field while 61% of the companies can look at even higher rates of impro-

vements to accommodate sustainable growth. 31% of the companies can improve

their turnover markup by more than 50%, and three companies that activate in the

sectors of transportation, healthcare and semiconductors production can go over

90%.

Turnover of taxonomy-eligible but not

environmentally sustainable activities (not

taxonomy-aligned activities) (A.2)

Companies with no

turnover activities that are

taxonomy eligible

11%

Companies with the

28%

potential to align up to 10%

of turnover

61%

Companies with the

potential to align more than

10% of turnover

Fig. 2. The company’s distribution based on declared turnover of taxonomy-eligible

but not environmentally sustainable activities (not taxonomy-aligned activities).⁶

Figures 3 and Figure 4 focus on how capitalized investments are made from

the perspective of sustainability. 39% of the companies have not made investments

in acquiring, upgrading, or maintaining long-term assets such as property, plant,

and equipment that are taxonomy aligned. 22% of the companies have invested less

than 10% of their CAPEX in environmentally sustainable activities. It is also wor-

thwhile mentioning that there are two companies in the utilities sector that have

managed to concentrate almost their entire CAPEX spend (96.4% and 97%) on sus-

tainable activities as part of their investment strategy.

6

Source: Authors’ own research

Sustainability reporting and financial transparency: disclosing OPEX, CAPEX,

and turnover in line with the EU taxonomy

81

CAPEX of environmentally sustainable

activities (taxonomy-aligned) (A.1)

Companies with ZERO

taxonomy alligned CAPEX

activities

Companies having below

10% taxanomy aligned

CAPEX activities

39%

Companies having above

10% taxanomy aligned

CAPEX activities

22%

Fig. 3. The company’s distribution based on declared CAPEX of environmentally

sustainable activities (taxonomy-aligned).⁷

Figure 4 demonstrates the scale of improvement that can be achieved when

it comes to sustainable investments. Only 3% of the companies declared that there

are no CAPEX activities that are taxonomy eligible while more than 25% can im-

prove their CAPEX spend percentage to 10% and most of the companies (72%) can

exceed the 10%. Two companies have declared that potentially their entire CAPEX

investment could turn into sustainable activities as they are already eligible accor-

ding to EU Taxonomy.

CAPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not

environmentally sustainable activities (not

taxonomy-aligned activities) (A.2)

Companies with no CAPEX

activities that are taxonomy

eligible

3%

25%

Companies with the potential

to align up to 10% of their

CAPEX

72%

Companies with the potential

to align more than 10% of

their CAPEX

Fig. 4. The company’s distribution based on declared CAPEX of taxonomy-eligible

but not environmentally sustainable activities (not taxonomy-aligned activities).⁸

Figure 5 depicts what percentages of the ongoing cost for running the busi-

ness go into sustainable activities. 44% have no OPEX transactions aligned with

the EU taxonomy while 31% of the companies spend less than 10% of their daily

operations on sustainable activities but there also companies (25%) that exceed the

10% cap and two companies have declared impressive percentages such as 97%

⁷Source: Authors’ own research

⁸Source: Authors’ own research

82

Gabriel Vasilescu, Larisa Basica, Cristina Tatarcan, Augustin Semenescu

and 100%, meaning that almost all their entire operations activities cost is taxonomy

aligned.

OPEX of environmentally sustainable

activities (taxonomy-aligned) (A.1)

Companies with ZERO

taxonomy alligned OPEX

activities

Companies having below

10% taxanomy aligned

25%

44%

OPEX activities

Companies having above

31%

10% taxanomy aligned

OPEX activities

Fig. 5. The company’s distribution based on declared OPEX of environmentally

sustainable activities (taxonomy-aligned).⁹

Figure 6 demonstrates areas of improvement, even though 19% companies

have declared that there are no OPEX activities that are taxonomy eligible, 25% of

the companies mentioned that they could align up to 10% of their OPEX while 56%

could go higher than 10%.

OPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not

environmentally sustainable activities (not

taxonomy-aligned activities) (A.2)

Companies with no OPEX

activities that are taxonomy

eligible

19%

Companies with the potential

to align up to 10% of their

OPEX

56%

25%

Companies with the potential

to align more than 10% of their

OPEX

Fig. 6. The company’s distribution based on declared OPEX of taxonomy-eligible

but not environmentally sustainable activities (not taxonomy-aligned activities).¹⁰

Moving forward, we created a multiple linear regression between the vari-

ables ESG Risk Rating (source: Sustainalytics), CAPEX of taxonomy-eligible but

not environmentally sustainable activities and OPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not

environmentally sustainable activities. Main purpose is to determine whether there

is a relationship between them and what is the nature of that relationship.

⁹Source: Authors’ own research

¹⁰Source: Authors’ own research

Sustainability reporting and financial transparency: disclosing OPEX, CAPEX,

and turnover in line with the EU taxonomy

83

ESG Risk Rating = 18.612816 + 0.13652 CAPEX of taxonomy-eligible but

not environmentally sustainable activities - 0.12531 OPEX of taxonomy-eligible

but not environmentally sustainable activities.

An ESG risk rating evaluates how well a company manages its Environmen-

tal, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors, such as its impact on the environment,

its relationship with employees and communities, and the quality of its corporate

governance. The purpose of this rating is to help investors assess the non-financial

risks that may affect the company's long-term performance and sustainability,

beyond traditional financial metrics.

Results of the multiple linear regression indicated that there was a moderate

collective significant effect between the CAPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not en-

vironmentally sustainable activities, OPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not environ-

mentally sustainable activities, and ESG Risk Rating, (F(2, 33) = 6.09, p = 0.006,

R2 = 0.27, R2adj = 0.23). The individual predictors were examined further and

indicated that CAPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not environmentally sustainable

activities (t = 3.235, p = 0.003) and OPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not environ-

mentally sustainable activities (t = -3.153, p = 0.003).

In our model a high ESG Risk Rating means a severe risk. Investors want to

avoid companies that could face future liabilities or operational risks due to poor

ESG practices, such as environmental lawsuits, labor strikes, or regulatory penal-

ties. On the other hand, a strong ESG performance can open doors to new market

opportunities, like green energy solutions or socially responsible products. A com-

pany with strong ESG performance is often seen as being more adaptable to chan-

ging global trends and better at maintaining long-term profitability.

The above-mentioned linear regression demonstrates that if a company

wants to lower the ESG Risk Rating, making it more attractive for potential inves-

tors it needs to decrease the CAPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not environmentally

sustainable activities and increase the OPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not environ-

mentally sustainable activities.

Table 1. Correlation Matrix

A

1

B

0.222155

1

C

ESG Risk Rating (A)

CAPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not envi-

ronmentally sustainable activities (B)

-0.194192

0.678038

0.222155

OPEX of taxonomy-eligible but not environ-

mentally sustainable activities (C)

-0.194192

0.678038

1

Source: Authors’ own research

R square (R2) equals 0.269432. It means that the predictors (푋_푖)) explain

26.9% of the variance of Y. Adjusted R square equals 0.225156. The coefficient of

84

Gabriel Vasilescu, Larisa Basica, Cristina Tatarcan, Augustin Semenescu

multiple correlation (R) equals 0.519069. It means that there is a moderate correla-

tion between the predicted data (ŷ) and the observed data (y).

(

)

Overall

regression:

right-tailed,

퐹 2,33 = 6.085182, p-value

=

0.00562854. Since p-value < 훼(0.05), we reject the H0. The linear regression mo-

del, 푌 = 푏₀+ 푏₁푋₁+ ⋯ + 푏_푝푋_푝+ 휀, provides a better fit than the model without

the independent variables resulting in, 푌 = 푏₀+ 휀. All the independent variables

(푋_푖) are significant. The Y-intercept (b): two-tailed, T = 14.430029, p-value =

8.88178e-16. Hence b is significantly different from zero.

Fig. 7. Fdistribution¹¹

Residual normality

Linear regression assumes normality for residual errors. Shapiro Wilk p-va-

lue equals 0.9878. It is assumed that the data is normally distributed.

Homoscedasticity - homogeneity of variance

The White test p-value equals 0.0000221656 (F=15.091046). It is assumed

that the variance is not homogeneous. The coefficients' estimators are unbiased but

inefficient estimators with large inaccurate standard errors, hence the statistical tests

over the model and the coefficients are not accurate.

Multicollinearity - intercorrelations among the predictors (푋_푖)

There is no multicollinearity concern as all the VIF values are smaller than 2.5.

5. Conclusions

The EU Taxonomy stands as a pivotal initiative in the realm of sustainable fi-

nance, offering a standardized framework for defining and promoting environmentally

sustainable economic activities. As it continues to evolve and be implemented, its im-

pact on investment decisions, corporate strategies, and environmental outcomes will be

profound, shaping the trajectory of sustainable development in the EU.

¹¹Source: Authors’ own research

Sustainability reporting and financial transparency: disclosing OPEX, CAPEX,

and turnover in line with the EU taxonomy

85

The EU Taxonomy provides a structured and comprehensive approach to

defining environmentally sustainable activities. By establishing specific criteria

across six key environmental objectives and adhering to the DNSH (do no signifi-

cant harm) principle, it aims to promote transparency, consistency, and credibility

in sustainable investment. This framework not only helps investors make informed

decisions but also encourages companies to align their operations with broader en-

vironmental goals, thereby contributing to a more sustainable future.

The EU Taxonomy’s OPEX disclosure rules will have wide‑reaching effects

by standardizing how companies report sustainability‑related operating expenses,

improving transparency and comparability. Its CAPEX requirements similarly push

firms to show how investment supports long‑term sustainable value creation, while

turnover disclosures mark a major shift toward linking revenue directly to environ-

mentally sustainable activities.

REFERENCES

[1]

Hahn, R., Kühnen, M. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, the-

ory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research, 2013, Journal of Cleaner Production,

59,457791.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P. (2010) One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy,

John Wiley & Sons.

Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M. (2017) Managing the business case for sustainability: The integra-

tion of social, environmental and economic performance. Routledge.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational

processes and performance, 2014, Management Science, 60(11), 2835-2857.

Friede, G., Busch, T., Bassen, A. ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from

more than 2000 empirical studies, 2015, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4),

210-233.

[6]

[7]

Bushman, R., Landsman, W. R. Financial Accounting Measurement, Model, and Policy, 2010,

Foundations and Trends in Accounting, 5(3), 201-266.

Ernst & Young (2017) Institutional investors’ preferences for financial reporting. Retrieved

from the official EY website.

[8]

Francis, J., Khurana, I. K., Pereira, R. Disclosure and the Cost of Capital: An International

Comparison, 2004, The Accounting Review, 79(4), 1125-1161.

[9]

McKinsey & Company. (2021). The Great Accelerations: How the COVID-19 pandemic has

transformed businesses and technology. Retrieved from the official McKinsey website.

Alessi, L., Ossola, E., Panzica, R. The greenium matters: Evidence on the pricing of climate

risk, 2021, Journal of Financial Stability, 54, 100873.

Dusík, J., Streurer, R. The EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities: An Innovative but Com-

plex Tool for Sustainable Finance, 2022, Sustainability, 14(6), 3405.

La Torre, M., Mango, F., Cafaro, A., Leo, S. Does the EU Taxonomy Regulation Foster Sus-

tainable Corporate Governance? 2020, Sustainability, 12(13), 5277.

Schütze, F., Stede, J., Blauert, M., Erdmann, K. EU Taxonomy increasing transparency of sus-

tainable activities for companies, investors, and policymakers, 2023, Business Strategyand

theEnvironment,32(3), 1518-1530

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]