Global top e-commerce companies: Transparency analysis based on annual reports

Bostan, Ionel; Bîrcă, Alic; Bîrcă, Aliona; Sandu, Christiana Brigitte Article Global top e-commerce companies: Transparency analysis based on annual reports Journal of Risk and Financial Management Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Bostan, Ionel; Bîrcă, Alic; Bîrcă, Aliona; Sandu, Christiana Brigitte (2022) : Global top e-commerce companies: Transparency analysis based on annual reports, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, ISSN 1911-8074, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 7, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15070313 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/274835 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Bostan, Ionel, Alic Bîrcă, Aliona Bîrcă, and Christiana Brigitte Sandu. 2022. Global Top E-Commerce Companies: Transparency Analysis Based on Annual Reports. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15: 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jrfm15070313 Academic Editors: Yasir Shahab, Peng Wang, Yasir Riaz, Collins Ntim and Daniel Chai Received: 10 June 2022 Accepted: 13 July 2022 Published: 17 July 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article Global Top E-Commerce Companies: Transparency Analysis Based on Annual Reports Ionel Bostan 1,* , Alic Bîrcă2, Aliona Bîrcă2and Christiana Brigitte Sandu 3 1Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences, Stefan cel Mare University, Universitatii 13, 720229 Suceava, Romania 2 Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova, 61 Mitropolit Gavriil Banulescu-Bodoni, 2005 Chisinau, Moldova; [email protected] (A.B.); aliona.bir[email protected] (A.B.) 3Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, 11 Carol I, 700506 Ia¸si, Romania; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected].ro; Tel.: +40-230-216-147 Abstract: This paper analyzes the transparency of reporting in e-commerce companies, which has a high impact on decision making. Stakeholders make sure that companies are as transparent as possible in their actions, and the information disclosed in annual reports is very credible. In this context, the highly asked for information refers to the structure of corporate governance, the activity of committees set by the board of directors, managerial strategies, human resource and sustainability policies, risks, financial reporting, financial and non-financial performance, etc. To test and validate the results of our research, we identified the 31 most efficient global e-commerce companies. For this purpose, 31 annual corporate reports were analyzed for 2019 and 2020 by extracting several independent variables: corporate governance, human resource policies, sustainable development, performance, risks and financial reporting. The results of the analysis were validated by using SmartPLS (v. 3.3.3) software. Keywords: companies/businesses; financial reporting; performance; corporate governance 1. Introduction Information has been viewed lately as a resource or value required in decision making by internal (employees, management, unions) and external stakeholders (shareholders, investors, suppliers, local community, etc.). Considering the importance and value of information, it is evident that it should be transparent and objective to become credible for the stakeholders. Additionally, transparent, objective and conclusive information included in company reports could be seen as an element of marketing, which could create a good impression about a company in society. This is the reason why it is essential that the information disclosed by companies in different reports (financial, social responsibility, environmental) should be transparent, irrespective of its nature. Since the more transparency there is, the better, we need to investigate whether high transparency should be expected from companies. So, transparency is needed for company operations, whether in terms of its strategy, leadership or corporate governance (Janning et al. 2020) . By reviewing the literature in the field on organizational transparency, we found that Schnackenberg and Tomlinson (2016) had shown that a useful definition of the concept should be broad, theoretical and also quite specific to become informative for the managerial practice. The authors argued that most definitions of transparency in this context require a disclosure of information about data, forecasting, prices, offers, decisions and reports on assets. They also stress the salience of the quality of information as a perceived feature of transparency, and socially, higher transparency could develop corporate coherence as a standard, being beneficial as a regulator of social behavior. Transparency is J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15070313 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 2 of 16 often erroneously replaced by such terms as disclosure or reporting, affecting its meaning (Baraibar-Diez et al. 2015). The degree of company transparency cannot be directly measured but could be perceived through the degree of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure by the stakeholders (López-Arceiz et al. 2017). The study of these issues began with the analysis of the transparency notion from both the perspective of researchers and that of the regulatory framework. The authors used the main categories of information found in the annual reports referring to: corporate governance, managerial strategies, human resources, financial and non-financial resources, financial reporting. Additionally, the theoretical grounding was validated using the information provided by the e-commerce companies in their reports. 2. Literature Review Transparency is needed in the disclosure of both financial and non-financial information. So, both non-financial and financial information is relevant for any company’s decision making. In 1994, The American Institute of Chartered Public Accountants set up a financial reporting committee (The Jenkins Committee) that recommended the use of non-financial information. Additionally, the European Union issued a directive on the disclosure of non-financial information and diversity that became effective in 2017. The Directive’s goal is to lay the foundation of a new corporate reporting model that supplements financial transparency with environmental and social information needed to understand the company’s development, performance and standing, as well as the impact of its activities on society (Bold 2017). In line with this Directive, the information on non-financial performance comprises environmental, social and human rights issues, employee-related problems, issues related to fight against corruption and bribery, supply chains and diversity (only for companies listed on the stock exchange). Stakeholders’ need for transparency has been increasing, corporate governance failing to understand or meet such needs adequately. In this sense, corporate governance should try to meet the transparency requirements, considering that having an understanding of any company’s governance structure is useful when the quality of information is assessed, also being used as a guideline for stakeholders enabling them to have more specific expectations regarding future performance (Bhat et al. 2006). Corporate governance is a set of “rules of the game” by means of which companies are managed internally and supervised by the board of directors so as to protect the interests of all stakeholders (Feleagăet al. 2011). Corporate governance is defined as a set of relationships developed between the company management, in the broader sense, and all its stakeholders, its principles aiming to help decision makers assess and develop legal regulatory and institutional framework for corporate governance with the purpose of supporting economic efficiency, sustainable growth and financial stability (OECD 2004). So, the principles of corporate governance are a set of guidelines, a set of good practice rules for company operations and their relationships with third parties. Therefore, corporate governance framework should ensure a timely and accurate disclosure of all key company-related information, including its financial situation, performance, property and management (OECD 2015). Since its appearance, researchers have studied and provided in-depth analysis of several aspects of corporate governance. These researchers analyzed: • The board, the CEO and the audit committee (Klein 2002;Brennan 2006;Christopher 2010;Allegrini and Greco 2011;Cucari et al. 2017;Kolev et al. 2019); • Implications of corporate governance on company performance (Erhardt et al. 2003; Bauer et al. 2004;Renders et al. 2010); • Relationships between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Arora and Dharwadkar 2011;Simpson and Taylor 2013;Pucheta-Martínez and Gallego-Álvarez 2019;Naciti et al. 2022); •Corporate governance and information disclosure (Tiron Tudor 2006;Bauwhede and Willekens 2008;Roychowdhury et al. 2019). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 3 of 16 In their reporting process, companies should submit a huge volume of information referring both to corporate governance and other company operations, such as: managerial strategies, financial situations, human resources, sustainable development and organizational performance. A strategy is a clearly formulated action undertaken by managers to reach one or several organizational goals. Accordingly, strategic management comprises the activities of identifying and describing strategies that managers could use to achieve higher performance and competitive advantage for their companies. By reviewing the literature, we found that several authors have been interested in researching the implementation of strategic management in companies (Pearce and Robinson 2011;Furrer et al. 2008; Ansoff et al. 2019 ). Other authors looked into the process of strategy implementation, including the factors and barriers influencing it (Kaplan and Norton 2006;Helfat and Martin 2015;Radomska 2014). Additionally, there have been studies researching the involvement of the board of directors in the process of company strategy implementation (Fiegener 2005;Ruigrok et al. 2006;Brauer and Schmidt 2008). The ”involvement” of the board of directors in strategy implementation was studied in terms of its influence (Ford 1988;Li and Yang 2019), frequency of its interactions (Sapienza and Gupta 1994), effort and usefulness (Rosenstein et al. 1993;Park et al. 2018). Financial reports are also another area of annual reporting found in the research. Under IFRS 1, the financial statements shall present fairly the entity’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows. Fair presentation requires accurate representation of the effects of transactions, other events and conditions, in accordance with the definitions and recognition criteria for assets, liabilities, income and expense set out in the framework. It is assumed that the application of IFRSs, with additional information presented when necessary, results in financial statements that present a true and fair view (IFRS 2001). Needles and Powers (2007) state that financial statements connected with ownership transactions present the financial position from the view of capital maintenance, going concern, efficiency, liquidity, and they are very important for stakeholders, such as business partners, investors, etc. Additionally, users of financial statements consider corporate reputation as important in assessing the quality of financial statements (Francis et al. 2008). A number of previous studies have been conducted related to the quality of financial statement disclosures (Chiu and Wang 2015;Scaltrito 2015;Easley 2010;Valaskova et al. 2021). Studies of the information disclosure influence on company results provided final, reasoned conclusions, and to date, there has been no consensus reached about the factors determining a voluntary disclosure (Prince and Dwivedi 2013). The annual reports also include information on human resources. Human resources reporting comprises the main and specific information on company’s employees, providing a general overview on the activities of human resources and their performance. The human resources reporting system is an integral part of any annual report, as the employees are seen as the most active part of a company. In fact, a well-structured and operational HR system is used as a support in employment, training, performance management, management of employee information and HR event organization. Consequently, the concern of researchers about the content of human resource reporting is not surprising. The information on human resources is important both for investors and employees of corporations, as well as for the society overall (Choi and Mueller 1992). The authors argue that investors are interested in having access to human resources information, as they want to be sure that the labor force is efficiently managed and used, and their investment will be able to generate good profit. Similarly, employees and other stakeholders want to make sure that the company’s human assets are developed, which leads to a higher level of employment security and payment. Society is interested in human resources information, as it expects companies to develop the employment opportunities for the growing workforce, especially for women and minorities. Several studies investigate various aspects of human resources in annual reports. For instance, Subba and Zeghal (1997) used content analysis as a research method to investigate J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 4 of 16 120 annual reports of companies in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Japan and South Korea, which were produced between 1993 and 1994. The authors investigated the training, the added value, the fairness, the relations among the employees and the rewards. Birca (2018) analyzed the disclosure of information regarding human resources in the annual reports of 40 biggest companies listed on the Paris Stock Exchange. The study included the human resource sections in the annual reports. The first section comprised the information regarding the rights of employees (the employee code of ethics, compliance with employee human rights, support for diversity, cultural and gender diversity, people with special needs). The second section included the information referring to the organization of work and health of employees (permanent and temporary workers, full and part-time workers, organization of work, well-being of employees, employee health and security). The third section generally included information referring to social commitment (training, talent management, career development, employee compensation, employee rewards and appreciation). From the accounting perspective, we operate with the notion of human capital, its measurement having proved to be quite a challenge for many researchers (McCracken et al. 2018). A human capital refers to a set of factors related to individuals and to a collective labor force of a company (Abeysekera and Guthrie 2004). Some authors argued that lack of internationally recognized accounting standards for the disclosure of human capital has undermined the credibility of corporate accounting reports (Khan and Khan 2010). More recently, the importance of human resource reporting has been outlined in a study on responsible innovation (Scherer and Voegtlin 2020). The authors state that the big challenges the humanity has been facing comprise poverty, inequality, famine, conflicts, climate change, deforestation, the pandemic affecting the progress of sustainable development. These issues could be approached only through fundamental changes in behavior and in the way the production and business processes occur, in general (Scherer and Voegtlin 2020). Moreover, Grove et al. (2021) recommended to boards of directors that the annual reports comprising human resources should be produced, considering the UN’s sustainable development objectives of leading companies toward a sustainable future. The next element of corporate reporting refers to sustainable development. Companies use various terms for their sustainable development activities: “sustainability”, “corporate responsibility”, “sustainable development”, “corporate social responsibility”. Corporate sustainability was defined as meeting the needs of the company’s direct or indirect stakeholders without compromising the company’s capacity to meet the future needs of stakeholders (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). As companies do not operate in isolation but interact with the stakeholders, sustainable development issues have become one of their major concerns. On the other hand, Herzig and Schaltegger (2006) argue that through sustainable development reporting, companies aim to reach their specific objectives and gain benefits related to the legitimization of corporate operations where products and services have an impact on the environment and society, growth of corporate reputation and value of work, competitive advantage acquisition, signaling the superior competitiveness by reporting sustainability as a proxy indicator of general performance; growth of transparency and liability within a company; setting and supporting the employee motivation, as well as the internal processes of information and control. A company reporting on its sustainable development comprises a wide range of information that should be organized in a specific way. In this context, Siew (2015) analyzed the framework, the standards, the indices and the assessments needed to disclose and report information. Considering the diversity of issues that are not part of sustainable development, the researchers analyzed its various aspects, such as the environmental management (Onkila 2009), the regulation of the environment (Céspedes-Lorente et al. 2004), the environmental protection (King 2007), the concern of stakeholders over sustainable development (Bradford et al. 2017), the effects of pressure of stakeholders on the transparency of sustainability reports (Manetti and Toccafondi 2012; J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 5 of 16 Fernandez-Feijoo et al. 2014), client relations as the principal stakeholder influencing the company’s sustainable development. The study of Theyel and Hofmann (2012) showed that sustainable development practices adopted by most of the studied companies were influenced mainly by clients, employees and suppliers. Barkemeyer et al. (2014) analyzed the statements of executive directors in sustainability and corporate financial reports and found that “sustainability reporting failed to reach maturity over the studied period [2001–2010], and the rhetoric used in the CEO Statement of sustainability reports is more in line with management impression than commitment to sustainability.” Furthermore, Nielsen and Thomsen (2007) suggest that corporate sustainability is based on the personal values of managers. While some authors studied the impact of sustainability corporate reporting on company performance, finding that it was positive and significant (Burhan and Rahmanti 2012; Tracy et al. 2010;Jones et al. 2007), others investigated its impact on financial performance (Oncioiu Holban et al. 2010;McWilliams and Siegel 2000;Hategan et al. 2018). Financial performance itself is a behavior that is broadly presented in the process of corporate reporting. There have been several in-depth studies on this topic (Van Horne and Wachowicz 2005;Lasher 2014;Brigham and Daves 2007;Arnold and Lewis 2019). Financial performance is expressed by a multitude of indices used by corporations. While some authors studied conventional indices, describing such financial performance indicators as income growth, earnings before interest and taxes EBIT (Fernandes et al. 2006), gross and net operational profit (Edwards 2016;Beuren et al. 2008), liquidity and profitability indices (Beuren et al. 2008;Eljelly 2004;Goldmann 2016), others analyzed the correlation between financial performance and corporate social responsibility (McWilliams and Siegel 2000;Cochran and Wood 1984;Aras et al. 2010), corporate environment (Moneva and Ortas 2010), environmental performance (Nakao et al. 2006;Iwata and Okada 2011; Alexopoulos et al. 2018 ), environmental disclosures (Stanwick and Stanwick 2000;Qiu et al. 2016), environmental policies (Elsayed and Paton 2009;De Burgos-Jiménez et al. 2013). Non-financial performance could also be found in corporate annual reporting. In this context, reference is made to the non-financial performance indices and measures undertaken by companies for their improvement. In the European Union, the Directive 2014/95/EU on non-financial information set the goal of increasing the coherence and comparability of non-financial information and the need for a concise and standardized index (EU 2014). Authors studied non-financial performance by analyzing the use of non-financial performance indicators in reporting (Goram et al. 2011;Raucci et al. 2020), the non-financial performance measures adopted by companies (Abdel-Maksoud et al. 2005; Fullerton and Wempe 2009), the non-financial performance measures and the future value of a company (Gan et al. 2020), the relationship between the disclosure of non-financial performance measures and corporate financial performance (Omran et al. 2020). Consequently, annual reports are among the main tools used by researchers in examining any company’s transparency, as well as a tool used by companies to present their main performance over a specific reporting period. The theoretical framework presented above will be verified by the research methodology employed. 3. Methods The earlier discussed company transparency is tested and validated, considering the nature of information found in the annual reports. The selected sample comprises the most profitable global companies, and its final size is the result of some stages. Initially, the following top international rankings were consulted: 10 World’s Biggest E-commerce Companies, Ecommerce Stocks List Euronext EU 2021, Top eCommerce Platforms online. Further, the annual reports of the entities included in these top rankings were uploaded from their website. In the qualitative data analysis process, the sample kept the entities whose reports complied with the following conditions: can be directly downloaded from the company’s website; 2019 and 2020 reports are available; contain complete information, specific to an annual report, in order to be sufficiently comparable (Table A1, Appendix A). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 6 of 16 The empirical analysis of transparency of e-commerce companies was studied in terms of the quality of information included in the annual reports referring to corporate governance, human resources development policies, sustainable development, performance, risks and financial reporting. For this purpose, four research hypotheses were formulated: - H1: the structure of corporate governance has a significant influence on company transparency; - H2: the content of human resource policies has a positive impact on the level of company transparency; - H3: there is a direct proportional ratio between the degree of company transparency and sustainable development policies; - H4: the accounting and risk management policies, as well as the system of performance appraisal, have a significant impact on company transparency in its decisionmaking process. Testing and validation of the research hypotheses was conducted using the categories mentioned in Table 1, and the relationships between the constructs are shown in Figure 1. Table 1. The list of variables in the study (latent and observables variables). No. Line The Symbol of Main Categories List of Independent Variables I. CG Corporate governance 1.1. CG1 Corporate governance structure 1.2. CG2 Managerial strategies 1.3. CG3 Advising committees of the Board of Directors II. HR Human Resources 2.1. HR1 Number of employees 2.2. HR2 Company’s personnel reward policy 2.3. HR3 Innovations and initiatives 2.4. HR4 Professional experience of top managers III. SD Sustainable development 3.1. SD1 Business overview 3.2. SD2 Key events 3.3. SD3 Research and Development IV. PRFR Performance, risks and financial reports 4.1. PRFR1 Financial performance 4.2. PRFR2 Risk management 4.3. PRFR3 Financial reports Source: Processed by authors. We applied structural equation modeling based on partial least-square for testing the relationship between the constructs. The SEM method implies the design of two models: first, the measurement model that consists of the observable (measurement) variables that are linked to latent variables (constructs); second, the structural model that assesses the correlation and the influence of the relationship among the latent variables. The constructs should be reflected by reliable and valid indicators. The structural model computes the path coefficients that assess the correlation between the constructs (Hair et al. 2013,2014). The SmartPLS (v. 3.3.3) software (Ringle et al. 2015) was used for data treatment. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 7 of 16 J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Figure 1. Structural model. Source: Authors’ calculation with SmartPLS (v. 3.3.3) software. We applied structural equation modeling based on partial least-square for testing the relationship between the constructs. The SEM method implies the design of two models: first, the measurement model that consists of the observable (measurement) variables that are linked to latent variables (constructs); second, the structural model that assesses the correlation and the influence of the relationship among the latent variables. The constructs should be reflected by reliable and valid indicators. The structural model computes the path coefficients that assess the correlation between the constructs (Hair et al. 2013, 2014). The SmartPLS (v. 3.3.3) software (Ringle et al. 2015) was used for data treatment. The constructs (listed using Roman numerals) that define company transparency and the observable variables (listed using Arabic numerals) corresponding to each construct are shown in Table 1. 4. Results The values of the convergent reliability and validity indicators show a high degree of consistency of the items (Table 2). Table 2. Convergent reliability and validity indicators. No. Line Construct Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 1. CG 0.620 0.702 0.794 0.568 2. HR 0.635 0.685 0.802 0.578 3. PRFR 0.604 0.670 0.770 0.526 4. SD 0.618 0.540 0.758 0.517 Source: Authors’ calculation with SmartPLS (v. 3.3.3) software. The measurement model is valid and reliable, as indicated by these results: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.6, AVE—average variance extracted > 0.5 and CR—composite reliability > 0.7. Three out of four path coefficients are significant (Table 3). Thus, there are significant relationships between the constructs of transparency of e-commerce companies considered in this study. Figure 1. Structural model. Source: Authors’ calculation with SmartPLS (v. 3.3.3) software. The constructs (listed using Roman numerals) that define company transparency and the observable variables (listed using Arabic numerals) corresponding to each construct are shown in Table 1. 4. Results The values of the convergent reliability and validity indicators show a high degree of consistency of the items (Table 2). Table 2. Convergent reliability and validity indicators. No. Line Construct Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 1. CG 0.620 0.702 0.794 0.568 2. HR 0.635 0.685 0.802 0.578 3. PRFR 0.604 0.670 0.770 0.526 4. SD 0.618 0.540 0.758 0.517 Source: Authors’ calculation with SmartPLS (v. 3.3.3) software. The measurement model is valid and reliable, as indicated by these results: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.6, AVE—average variance extracted > 0.5 and CR—composite reliability > 0.7. Three out of four path coefficients are significant (Table 3). Thus, there are significant relationships between the constructs of transparency of e-commerce companies considered in this study. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 8 of 16 Table 3. Testing the significance of path coefficients. No. Line Relationship Path Coefficient T Statistics pValues Validation of the Hypothesis 1. CG → Transparency 0.394 4.521 0.000 Yes 2. HR → Transparency 0.300 2.800 0.005 Yes 3. PFS → Transparency 0.214 2.414 0.016 Yes 4. SD →Transparency 0.158 1.691 0.091 No Source: Authors’ calculation with SmartPLS (v. 3.3.3) software. The results of this study on transparency and reporting of e-commerce companies confirm that three out of four research hypotheses are validated. H1. The structure of corporate governance has a significant influence on company transparency. The path coefficient “CG → Transparency” equal to 0.394 shows that corporate governance is explained by corporate governance structure, management strategies and advisory committees of the Board of Directors. It can be noticed that the structure of corporate governance has a positive effect on Transparency. Thus, the first hypothesis of the study is supported by data. H2. The content of human resource policies has a positive impact on the level of company transparency. The path coefficient “HR → Transparency” equal to 0.300 shows that human resources have an impact on Transparency of e-commerce companies. Therefore, the results show a strong support for the second hypothesis. There is a positive and significant effect of Human Resources on Transparency. H3. There is a direct proportional ratio between the degree of company transparency and sustainable development policies. The path coefficient SD → Transparency equal to 0.158 shows a weak impact of sustainable development policies on Transparency of e-commerce companies. Therefore, the third research hypothesis is not validated. H4. The accounting and risk management policies, as well as the system of performance appraisal, have a significant impact on company transparency in its decision-making process. The path coefficient “PFS → Transparency” with a value of 0.214 shows that performance and financial situation have a positive effect on Transparency. Consequently, the fourth hypothesis of our study is validated. Figure 1shows the coefficients of the structural equation model using PLS analysis. The values of the path coefficients presented both in Table 3and Figure 1are higher than 0.1 (Lohmöller 1989). We can conclude that the transparency of e-commerce companies has multiple determinants that act with various intensity. 5. Discussion The analysis of factors influencing the transparency of e-commerce companies demonstrates both theoretically and practically its importance in the decision-making process. Its complexity is determined by the influence of several factors. The coefficient of 0.749 in Figure 1indicates that in addition to corporate governance, human resources, risk management and performance and accounting appraisal policies, several other factors have an influence on transparency, which were not included in the econometric model. H1. Corporate governance (CG). Statistically, H1 hypothesis validation also requires testing the intensity of dependence between the dependent variable and the three specific items (CG1, CG2, CG3) seen as independent variables. The study results show that the structure of corporate governance is the factor with the most significant influence on transparency. All analyzed annual reports contained information referring to the structure of the management team, although an organizational chart was included only in 52% and 48% of the annual reports in 2019 and 2020, respectively. A high number of reports underline sustainable development goals and change of priorities through a transfer from J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 15 of 16 Kolev, Kalin, David B. Wangrow, Vincent L. Barker, and Donald J. Schepker. 2019. Board Committees in Corporate Governance: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Agenda for the Future. Journal of Management Studies 56: 1138–93. [CrossRef] Lasher, William R. 2014. Practical Financial Management, 8th ed. Boston: CENGAGE Learning. Li, Mengge, and Jinxin Yang. 2019. Effects of CEO duality and tenure on innovation. Journal of Strategy and Management 12: 536–52. [CrossRef] Lohmöller, Jan-Bernd. 1989. Latent Variable Path Modelling with Partial Least Squares. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. López-Arceiz, Francisco José, Ana JoséBellostas-Pérezgrueso, JoséMariano Moneva-Abadía, and María Pilar Rivera-Torres. 2017. The role of corporate governance and transparency in the generation of financial performance in socially responsible companies. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting/Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 47: 44–80. [CrossRef] Manetti, Giacomo, and Simone Toccafondi. 2012. The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics 107: 363–77. [CrossRef] McCracken, Martin, Ronan McIvor, Raymond Treacy, and Tony Wall. 2018. A study of human capital reporting in the United Kingdom. Accounting Forum 42: 130–41. [CrossRef] McWilliams, Abagail, and Donald Siegel. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal 21: 603–9. [CrossRef] Moneva, Jose M., and Eduardo Ortas. 2010. Corporate environmental and financial performance: A multivariate approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems 110: 193–210. Naciti, Valeria, Fabrizio Cesaroni, and Luisa Pulejo. 2022. Corporate governance and sustainability: A review of the existing literature. Journal of Management and Governance 26: 55–74. [CrossRef] Nakao, Yuriko, Akihiro Amano, Kanichiro Matsumura, Kiminori Genba, and Makiko Nakano. 2006. Relationship between environmental performance and financial performance: An empirical analysis of japanese corporations. Business Strategies and the Environment 16: 106–18. [CrossRef] Needles, Belverd E., and Marian Powers. 2007. Financial Accounting, 9th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Nielsen, Anne Ellerup, and Christa Thomsen. 2007. Reporting CSR: What and how to say it? Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12: 25–40. [CrossRef] OECD/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2004. Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publications Service. OECD/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2015. G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing. Omran, Mohamed A., Ashraf Khallaf, Kimberly C. Gleason, and Tahat Yasean Tahat. 2020. Non-financial performance measures disclosure, quality strategy, and organizational financial performance: A mediating model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 2: 652–75. Oncioiu Holban, Ionica, Anca-Gabriela Petrescu, Florentina-Raluca Bîlcan, Marius Petrescu, and Delia-Mioara Popescu. 2010. Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Financial Performance. Sustainability 12: 4297. [CrossRef] Onkila, Tiina Johanna. 2009. Corporate argumentation for acceptability: Reflections of environmental values and stakeholder relations in corporate environmental statements. Journal of Business Ethics 87: 285–98. [CrossRef] Park, Jong-Hun, Changsu Kim, Young Kyun Chang, Dong-Hyun Lee, and Yun-Dal Sung. 2018. CEO hubris and firm performance: Exploring the moderating roles of CEO power and board vigilance. Journal of Business Ethics 147: 919–33. [CrossRef] Pearce, John A., and Richard B. Robinson. 2011. Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation & Control, 12th ed. New York: Mcgraw Hill Higher Education, 992p. Prince, John Ben, and Neeraj Dwivedi. 2013. A third dimension to understanding voluntary disclosures. Journal of Business Strategy 34: 48–54. [CrossRef] Pucheta-Martínez, María Consuelo, and Isabel Gallego-Álvarez. 2019. An international approach of the relationship between board attributes and the discclosure of corporate social responsability issues. Corporate Social Responsability and Environmental Management 26: 612–27. [CrossRef] Qiu, Yan, Amama Shaukat, and Rajesh Tharyan. 2016. Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. The British Accounting Review 48: 102–16. [CrossRef] Radomska, Joanna. 2014. Operational risk associated with the strategy implementation. Management 18: 31–43. [CrossRef] Raucci, Domenico Raucci, Lara Tarquinio, Daniela Rupo, and Salvatore Loprevite. 2020. Non-Financial Performance Indicators: The Power of Measures to Operationalize the Law. In Sustainability and Law. Edited by Volker Mauerhofer, Daniela Rupo and Lara Tarquinio. Cham: Springer, pp. 275–91. Renders, Annelies, Ann Gaeremynck, and Piet Sercu. 2010. Corporate-governance ratings and company performance: A cross- European study. Corporate Governance: An International Review 18: 87–106. [CrossRef] Ringle, Christian M., Sven Wende, and Jan-Michael Becker. 2015. Smart PLS 3. Smart PLS GmbH Boenningstedt. Available online: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 6 June 2022). Rosenstein, Joseph, Albert V. Bruno, William D. Bygrave, and Natalie T. Taylor. 1993. The CEO, venture capitalists, and the board. Journal of Business Venturing 8: 99–113. [CrossRef] Roychowdhury, Sugata, Nemit Shroff, and Rodrigo S. Verdi. 2019. The Effects of Financial Reporting and Disclosure on Corporate Investment: A Review. Journal of Accounting and Economics 68: 101246. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 313 16 of 16 Ruigrok, Winfried, Simon I. Peck, and Hansueli Keller. 2006. Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision-making: Evidence from Swiss companies. Journal of Management Studies 43: 1201–26. [CrossRef] Sapienza, Harry J., and Anil K. Gupta. 1994. Impact of agency risks and task uncertainty on venture capitalist–CEO interactions. Academy of Management Journal 37: 1618–32. Scaltrito, Davide. 2015. Assessing Disclosure Quality: A Methodological Issue. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing 11: 466–75. [CrossRef] Scherer, Andreas Georg, and Christian Voegtlin. 2020. Corporate governance for responsible innovation: Approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives 34: 182–208. [CrossRef] Schnackenberg, Andrew K., and Edward C. Tomlinson. 2016. Organizational Transparency a New Perspective on Managing Trust in Organization-Stakeholder Relationships. Journal of Management 42: 1784–810. [CrossRef] Siew, Renard Y. J. 2015. A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Journal of Environmental Management 164: 180–95. [CrossRef] Simpson, Justine, and John R. Taylor. 2013. Corporate Governance, Ethics and CSR, 1st ed. London: Kogan Page, 297p, ISBN 978-0749463854. Stanwick, Sarah D., and Peter A. Stanwick. 2000. The relationship between environmental disclosures and financial performance: An empirical study of US firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 7: 155–64. [CrossRef] Subba, Rao A. V., and Daniel Zeghal. 1997. Human resource Information Disclosure in Annual reports: An international Comparison. Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting 2: 53–73. [CrossRef] Theyel, Gregory, and Kay Hofmann. 2012. Stakeholder relations and sustainability practices of U.S. small and medium-sized manufacturers. Management Research Review 35: 1110–33. [CrossRef] Tiron Tudor, Adriana. 2006. Disclosure and Transparency of Romanian Listed Companies. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=920580 (accessed on 9 June 2022). Tracy, Artiach, Darren Lee, David Nelson, and Julie Walker. 2010. The determinants of corporate sustainability performance. Accounting and Finance 50: 31–51. UN/United Nations. 2016. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Official Journal of the European Union L 282/4. Available online :https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22016A1019(01)&from=EN (accessed on 10 June 2022). Valaskova, Katarina, Tomas Kliestik, and Dominika Gajdosikova. 2021. Distinctive determinants of financial indebtedness: Evidence from Slovak and Czech enterprises. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy 16: 639–59. [CrossRef] Van Horne, James C., and John M. Wachowicz Jr. 2005. Fundamentals of Financial Management, 12th ed. London: Pearson Education Limited.