Empirical insights regarding Romanian companies' preparedness for CSRD

Nichita, Elena-Mirela; Manea, Cristina-Lidia; Apostu, Simona Andreea; Irimescu, Alina-Mihaela Article Empirical insights regarding Romanian companies' preparedness for CSRD Amfiteatru Economic Provided in Cooperation with: The Bucharest University of Economic Studies Suggested Citation: Nichita, Elena-Mirela; Manea, Cristina-Lidia; Apostu, Simona Andreea; Irimescu, Alina-Mihaela (2025) : Empirical insights regarding Romanian companies' preparedness for CSRD, Amfiteatru Economic, ISSN 2247-9104, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Vol. 27, Iss. 70, pp. 788-809, https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2025/70/788 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/328021 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/ AE Empirical insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD 788 Amfiteatru Economic EMPIRICAL INSIGHTS REGARDING ROMANIAN COMPANIES' PREPAREDNESS FOR CSRD Elena-Mirela Nichita 1 *, Cristina-Lidia Manea2, Simona Andreea Apostu3 and Alina-Mihaela Irimescu4 1)2)3)4) Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania 3) Institute of National Economy, Romanian Academy Please cite this article as: Nichita, E.M., Manea, C.L., Apostu, S.A. and Irimescu, A.M, 2025. Empirical Insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD. Amfiteatru Economic, 27(70), pp. 788-809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2025/70/788 Article History Received: 30 March 2025 Revised: 12 May 2025 Accepted: 30 May 2025 Abstract Sustainability reporting is the subject of substantial improvements with the adoption at the European level of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive 2022/2464/EU. Companies must prepare well in advance, under the pressure of a tight timeline, to implement this directive. In this context, the paper aims to achieve two research objectives. The first objective is to investigate the preparedness level of Romanian companies for sustainability reporting in the ex-ante phase of CSRD implementation (2020-2023), including the associated organisational challenges. The second objective is to identify the drivers that influence sustainability reporting among Romanian companies. The sample consists of 37 Romanian companies. The sustainability reporting data were collected manually, and the financial data were taken from the Orbis platform for 2020-2023. The applied research methods are content analysis, which formed the basis for the development of an original composite score, and panel regression analysis. The research results revealed that over 60% of the companies analysed managed to report, to a significant extent, the requirements introduced by the CSRD, but certain aspects, such as limited external assurance of reports and double materiality assessment, remain challenging. Furthermore, they highlighted that in addition to the non-financial reporting drivers (regulations, profitability, and company size), a key factor in sustainability reporting is the involvement of a team in the report preparation, thereby enhancing the original value of the research. The paper makes several contributions in the field for researchers, managers, and regulators, providing relevant support for possible future support measures and legislative improvements. * Corresponding author, Elena-Mirela Nichita – e-mail: mirela.nichit[email protected]se.ro This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 789 Keywords: sustainability reporting, The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), The Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), drivers, double materiality, stakeholders, Romania. JEL Classification: Q 01, Q 56, M 14, M 41, M 48. Introduction Under the pressure of both climate change, which represents one of the greatest threats to the environment, social and economic framework (EEA, 2024), and stakeholders whose attention to non-financial information has intensified over time (Amel-Zadeh and Serafeim, 2018), companies must adopt a responsible behaviour towards the environment (EC, 2024) and towards employees (EC, 2023) and present their efforts towards a sustainable future. In this sense, companies have started to prepare various reports, including a variety of details related to the environmental, social, and governance aspects of their activities, voluntarily, following more or less different standards (Dyduch and Krasodomska, 2017), which has led to low comparability of the reported information (Breijer and Orij, 2022; Hao et al., 2023). In this context, sustainability reporting becomes essential to ensure transparency and increase the comparability of non-financial information reported by companies. Therefore, sustainability reporting requirements have been subject to substantial improvements with the adoption at the European level of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive 2022/2464/EU. Given that the implementation of the previous NonFinancial Reporting Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD) suffered from several deficiencies (EPRS, 2021), the effectiveness of the new European regulation is questionable, also considering the pressure of the strict timetable for the CSRD implementation. The aspects related to the improvement of sustainability reporting introduced by CSRD have been analysed in the literature both by researchers (Baumüller and Sopp, 2021; Dragomir et al., 2024; Manolescu et al., 2024) and by large professional services companies (EY, 2022; KPMG, 2022; Deloitte, 2023; PwC, 2025). However, given the novelty and complexity of the issue, the literature is limited in terms of studies investigating the companies' preparedness for such new reporting. In this context, the paper aims to achieve two research objectives. The first objective is to investigate Romanian companies' preparedness level for sustainability reporting in the ex-ante phase of CSRD implementation (2020-2023), including the associated organisational challenges. The second objective is designed to identify the drivers that influence the effort of Romanian companies to comply with the new stringent sustainability reporting regulations. The sample for this research consists of 37 Romanian companies that fall under the CSRD. Data on sustainability reporting were collected manually, and financial data were collected electronically for 2020-2023, which covers two distinct equal intervals, one for the period of application of the prior directive (NFRD) and the other for the transition period preceding the CSRD implementation. In order to achieve the two proposed objectives, the research methodology included two stages. In the first stage, a content analysis was implemented to create a composite score on sustainability reporting. In the second stage, panel regression analysis was used to identify the drivers in sustainability reporting within Romanian companies. AE Empirical insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD 790 Amfiteatru Economic The research results revealed that most of the analysed companies managed to report, to a significant extent, the requirements introduced by the CSRD, which indicates an adequate level of preparedness among Romanian companies in the ex-ante phase of CSRD implementation. Regarding the drivers in sustainability reporting, the research confirmed the key factors that influence non-financial reporting presented in the literature, namely regulations, profitability and company size (Dumitru et al., 2017; Ikpor et al., 2022; AlDosari et al., 2023; Kosi and Relard, 2024), but also highlighted an additional key factor, represented by the involvement of an internal (cross-departmental), external (sustainability consultants) or mixed (internal departments and external consultants) team in the sustainability report preparation, underlining the original nature of the approach to the analysis at this stage. The paper makes several contributions to the field for researchers, managers, and regulators. Firstly, the study enriches the literature with valuable information on a current issue related to sustainability reporting, providing researchers with an overview of the level of preparedness for this type of reporting by companies in an emerging economy with a difficult past, but open to progress and development. Secondly, the approach from an original perspective, given the inclusion of a new variable related to the diversity of the reporting team, transmits useful information to managers for the company-wide planning of the reporting process. Thirdly, through the national-level analysis, the research captures an exhaustive image regarding the level of Romanian companies' preparedness for the new directive implementation, thus providing relevant assistance for possible support measures that regulators can introduce. The study also highlights the difficulties companies encounter in the ex-ante phase of CSRD implementation, which creates an appropriate basis for future legislative improvements. The researched aspects are then structured into several sections. Section 1 describes the international and national reporting framework and relevant studies in the field being researched. Section 2 presents the research methodology and includes detailed information on the data collection and analysis methods. Section 3 presents the interpretation of the results and their validation, and the entire research process is summarised in the Conclusions Section. 1. Literature review 1.1. Stakeholder theory and institutional theory in sustainability reporting To achieve this paper's objectives, we consider stakeholder theory and institutional theory relevant. They explain why organisations engage in sustainability reporting in addition to financial reporting and how external pressures (institutional factors) shape their reporting practices. Stakeholder theory, proposed by Freeman (1984), suggests that organisations should consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. The growing demand for sustainability information has led to the need for entities to consult stakeholders to identify their concerns and engage them in their activities (CSRD, 2022). Stakeholder engagement involves incorporating their perspectives and views to assess the meaningful and impactful information communicated in the sustainability report (Freeman et al., 2017). The academic Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 791 literature highlights that stakeholder engagement helps the sustainability reporting process (Petruzzelli and Badia, 2024). In addition to stakeholder engagement, we acknowledge that institutional factors are critical in implementing and improving corporate sustainability reporting. Therefore, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argued that institutional theory explains why organisations behave similarly and that institutional pressures result in more homogeneous organisational structures. Institutional theory focuses on analysing external factors of the social and economic environment and their impact on the company (de Villiers et al., 2014). As Deegan (2009) pointed out, institutional theory is fundamental in explaining why companies strive to balance sustainability efforts with financial performance by developing multidimensional organisational structures that align with stakeholder demands. Prior studies (Somoza, 2023) suggest that the country of origin can influence sustainability reporting due to differences in institutional characteristics, such as political and legal systems, economy, sociocultural norms, education system, and labour laws. Similarly, Dumitru et al. (2017) demonstrated that institutional factors and isomorphism mechanisms influenced non-financial reporting in both Poland and Romania. Therefore, stakeholder theory and institutional theory provide the theoretical framework for this research. Current research aims to investigate Romanian companies' level of preparedness for sustainability reporting and the associated organisational challenges in the ex-ante phase of CSRD implementation. 1.2. Overview of European and national regulations on sustainability reporting The beginning of sustainability reporting can be considered in the early 1970s, when companies voluntarily disclosed environmental information (Rimmel, 2020). In Europe, the first sustainability reporting programme was implemented in 1995, but it was not successful due to its voluntary nature. A period followed in which voluntary non-financial reporting evolved into mandatory reporting for certain companies in the European Union (EU), with the adoption of Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD) in 2014. As an EU member state, Romania has transposed into national legislation the provisions of European regulations regarding mandatory non-financial reporting. Thus, OMFP no. 1938/2016 and OMFP 3456/2018 transposed NFRD provisions. As a result, the obligation to present the non-financial statement within the administrators' report was introduced for entities which, at the individual or consolidated level, exceed an average number of 500 employees at the balance sheet date. In addition, the statutory auditor or audit firm was obliged to verify the existence of the nonfinancial statement. The Paris Agreement (2015) and the European Green Deal (2019) had a major impact on sustainability reporting, with the aim of holding companies accountable for implementing greenhouse gas emission reduction measures by 2030, to keep the effects of global warming under control. Sustainability reporting has also been influenced by the introduction of the EU Taxonomy (Regulation 2020/852/EU), which establishes a framework to facilitate sustainable investments, transposed into Romanian legislation through OMFP 1239/2021. The EU Taxonomy requires companies to disclose information on key performance indicators, including capital expenditures (CapEx) and operational expenditures (OpEx) related to assets or processes associated with economic activities considered environmentally sustainable. AE Empirical insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD 792 Amfiteatru Economic The next key milestone in sustainability reporting was the adoption of Directive 2022/2464/EU (CSRD). This directive regulates sustainability reporting and is accompanied by the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), aiming to standardise sustainability reporting. At the national level, the new measures mandated by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) have been enacted through OMFP 85/2024. The CSRD establishes additional reporting requirements, which are detailed in Appendix 1. Consequently, the novelties introduced by the CSRD constitute the basis for this research, focusing on the preparedness of Romanian companies to implement the directive. 1.3. Dimensions of sustainability reporting in the context of recent regulations The literature on sustainability reporting highlights the mixed effects of this reporting on performance (Velte, 2022; Coelho et al., 2023; Xue et al., 2023; Makau, 2024), reputation (Hetze, 2016) and transparency of reporting (Hao et al., 2023). Other research investigates the internal and external determinants of sustainability reporting, highlighting the key role of regulations and legislation (Somoza, 2023). The investigation of companies' preparedness for sustainability reporting, particularly within emerging economies in Southeastern Europe, is underrepresented in the existing literature. To address this gap, the paper aims to investigate the preparedness level of Romanian companies for sustainability reporting in the context of CSRD implementation. Recent legislative changes regarding sustainability reporting have highlighted relevant aspects, such as (1) the reporting framework applied, (2) the existence of limited assurance of the report, (3) materiality assessment, (4) stakeholder involvement in the reporting process, (5) the business model and transition plans towards a sustainable economy, (6) sustainability policies and objectives, and (7) alignment of due diligence related disclosures. With the adoption of the CSRD, the option of choosing a reporting framework (1) from those existing in the field (GRI, SASB, etc.) is replaced by the requirement to apply the ESRS framework, contributing to the standardisation of sustainability reporting. In addition, to increase the credibility of this reporting, the CSRD requires the existence of limited assurance of the report (2), which implies an additional financial effort for the companies. Double materiality (3) not only changes terminology but also implies a different understanding of the purposes of sustainability reporting and the objectives of carrying out such reporting (Baumüller and Sopp, 2021). The disclosure of sustainability aspects must intertwine the dimensions of materiality (impact and financial), thus reconciling the divergent interests of investors and other stakeholders (Delgado-Ceballos et al., 2022). We consider that the double materiality assessment involves a complex process that not all companies can complete. In this regard, the study by Correa-Mejía et al. (2024) highlighted that 67% of the European companies under study declared that they applied double materiality. Furthermore, Dragomir et al. (2024) showed that most companies report information about their materiality assessment process, but less about financial materiality. The impact materiality assessment is not limited to the company's operations. It is extended to the value chain, upstream and downstream, to identify significant actors and their real and negative impact on the environment (CSRD, 2022). Companies use traditional and environmental performance-based selection criteria to choose suppliers (Hajiaghaei-Keshteli et al., 2023). Thus, as part of the due diligence process (7), companies must ensure that they are working with other entities that respect human rights, combat corruption and bribery, strive to reduce energy consumption, or implement recycling practices. In this process, companies may Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 793 encounter difficulties in collecting information from actors throughout their value chain (CSRD, 2022). In this regard, de Villiers (2002) drew attention to the complexity of regulations related to this process, which may lead to undermining their potential impact. Thus, companies will have to face important governance challenges that have reduced the potential of previous regulations, such as limited stakeholder involvement (SchillingVacaflor and Lenschow, 2023). We thus consider that the stakeholders' engagement in the reporting process (4) is essential for both the materiality assessment and the due diligence process. In addition to disclosing information on policies and initiatives under the NFRD, companies must establish policies and objectives related to sustainability aspects (6), with specific deadlines, and report on progress in achieving them (CSRD, 2022), thus demonstrating their commitment to stakeholders. Companies must also disclose their plans to ensure that their business model and strategy (5) are compatible with the transition to a sustainable economy and with the objectives of limiting global warming (CSRD, 2022). These plans must also include a financial and investment perspective supporting actions to limit global warming. Not every investment can be considered in this regard. We consider that sustainable investments improve environmental quality and can, therefore, be used for effective actions in combating climate change (Caglar et al., 2024). In this context, information on CapEx or OpEx detailed by activities aligned with the EU Taxonomy can support financial and investment plans towards a sustainable economy (CSRD, 2022). Collectively, these dimensions of sustainability reporting under the CSRD provide indisputable benefits for companies, but they can also represent challenges. However, it should not be neglected that all companies implementing the CSRD requirements in the first wave, including those in Romania, have been subject to the NFRD implementation. This prior experience has contributed to the development of a solid reporting foundation, providing companies with a significant advantage in the CSRD implementation process. Furthermore, the transposition of the NFRD into Romanian legislation was carried out coherently, aligned with European standards, which directly supports the first research hypothesis, namely: H1: Romanian companies are prepared for sustainability reporting according to CSRD. The paper also aims to identify the drivers in companies’ preparedness for CSRD sustainability reporting. Previous studies have highlighted a series of key factors both internally, such as business model, ownership form, industry (Dumitru et al., 2017; Dyduch and Krasodomska, 2017; Ikpor et al., 2022), and externally: regulations and legislation, reputation, customer requirements, and expectations, auditors Dumitru et al., 2017; Kosi and Relard, 2024). Nevertheless, the CSRD introduces a set of requirements that entail a higher degree of standardisation of reported information. Accordingly, we consider that the adoption of the CSRD will lead to an increased level of compliance and a substantial improvement in sustainability reporting. Based on these considerations, the second research hypothesis is articulated as follows: H2: CSRD adoption enhances sustainability reporting at the company level. In addition to the factors highlighted by previous studies, which were based on non-financial reporting according to NFRD, we believe that the impact of the reporting team involved in carrying out sustainability reporting should also be analysed, given the increasing complexity of sustainability reporting aspects according to CSRD. In addition to the financial experience AE Empirical insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD 794 Amfiteatru Economic of directors, which positively influences non-financial reporting activities (Li et al., 2022), the knowledge and expertise of the reporting team are important (An, 2023). Consequently, the internal team should be composed of individuals from all departments, ensuring crossdepartmental collaboration for data collection and information processing. In addition, in support of this reporting approach, companies can call on external consultants who have extensive experience in sustainability issues and can provide appropriate advice in the field. Therefore, a well-structured team enables the efficient integration of information, ensuring compliance with sustainability reporting requirements. Based on these premises, the third research hypothesis is articulated as follows: H3: The involvement of a reporting team positively influences sustainability reporting at the company level. 2. Research Methodology 2.1. Sampling and data collection The research methodology was built in two stages to create a composite score on sustainability reporting and identify the drivers of sustainability reporting according to CSRD among Romanian companies. The research focused on Romanian companies that were already subject to reporting according to the NFRD and fall under the CSRD, i.e., listed companies with over 500 employees. The initial sample included 741 Romanian companies, with a minimum number of 500 employees available on the Orbis platform, a company-level database with good coverage. It was refined after considering several factors. The first relates to the listing of companies on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE). The second refers to avoiding the influence of special regulations. Thus, banks and SIFs, subject to strict requirements specific to the financial sector, were eliminated to increase the comparability between the companies analysed. The third aimed to remove the overlap of information reported at the individual and group levels. Therefore, one company was eliminated to avoid redundancy, as it was a subsidiary of another company in the sample. The final sample consisted of 37 companies. It was unnecessary to adjust the sample regarding the language used to disclose sustainability information since the reports were published in Romanian, except for one company, which reported the information in English. Consequently, the linguistic coherence of the analysis process was ensured. The steps regarding the sample modelling are presented in Table no. 1. Table no. 1. Sampling Criteria Number of companies Romanian companies with over 500 employees (Orbis Platform) 741 Companies not listed on the BSE (703) Companies in the financial sector (banks, SIFs) (3) Overlapping companies with the subsidiary or parent company (1) Final sample 37 For these companies, the sustainability aspects reported in the non-financial reports and/or statements were analysed, namely: sustainability report, non-financial report, integrated annual report, annual report with incorporated non-financial statement, annual report of the administrators, environmental, social and governance report, and non-financial statement. Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 795 These were downloaded from the companies' websites or from the BSE database. The data were collected for the reporting period 2020-2023. This period was chosen to cover the relevant intervals that capture the transition from the NFRD application to the CSRD implementation. The NFRD has allowed companies to adjust their reporting practices gradually, while the CSRD provides a strict implementation calendar that requires companies to prepare in advance. In this regard, the year of the new directive adoption was considered, which influences sustainability reporting for 2022 and 2023, since sustainability reporting is always carried out for the previous year. Thus, the analysed period covers two distinct equal intervals, one for the application period of the prior directive (2020-2021) and the other for the transition period preceding the CSRD implementation (2022-2023). In the first stage of the research, the unavailability of sustainability information for the analysed period did not affect the number of companies in the sample in terms of determining the composite score. Instead, to ensure the robustness of the statistical model, only companies that disclosed sustainability information for the entire analysed period were retained, which led to a sample of 29 companies with 115 observations in the second stage of the research. 2.2. Composite score methodology Creating a composite score was necessary because sustainability reports do not provide a key indicator aggregating all sustainability aspects disclosed, equivalent to the profit in financial reporting (Wagenhofer, 2024). Such a score is supported by the literature (Dumitru et al., 2017; Kosi and Relard, 2024), as it allows for the objective assessment of companies, comparable analysis, monitoring of progress, and identification of weaknesses that require improvement. To provide an original perspective on the evolution of non-financial reporting, the score was developed by considering both reporting aspects common to the two NFRD and CSRD directives, as well as reporting requirements introduced by CSRD, as significant novelties or additions to existing ones. This research investigated aspects such as (1) the reporting framework applied; (2) the existence of limited assurance of the report; (3) materiality assessment, similar to Dragomir et al. (2024) and Correa-Mejía et al. (2024); (4) stakeholder engagement in the reporting process, consistent with Dragomir and Dumitru (2022) and Ștefănescu et al. (2020); (5) the business model and transition plans towards a sustainable economy, such as Caglar et al. (2024); (6) sustainability policies and objectives and (7) alignment of due diligence related disclosures. These seven components were tracked in detail based on individual scores, determining possible score values ranging from 0 to 14 (Appendix 2). Components (2) and (4) exclusively concerned new elements introduced by the CSRD, while the remaining components, respectively (1), (3), (5), (6), and (7), followed information existing in both directives: scored with 1 for those from the prior directive, and scored with 2 or 3 for those additionally required by CSRD. Thus, regarding the reporting framework (1), an extra point was awarded for the early application of the CSRD provisions and another point for reporting according to ESRS standards. The rating for the materiality assessment (3) was awarded depending on the perspective used for the analysis, with double materiality being scored additionally. The alignment of the business model to a sustainable economy (5) was followed and assessed on levels that considered transition plans supported or not by sustainable investment plans highlighted by the CapEx or OpEx presentation. Regarding sustainability policies and objectives (6), additional points were awarded for disclosing objectives with specific deadlines, as they increase confidence in the company's commitment. AE Empirical insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD 802 Amfiteatru Economic The statistical results validate the hypothesis H2 that advances that the adoption of CSRD enhances sustainability reporting at the company level. The legislative framework has a significant positive effect on sustainability reporting; therefore, the research confirms that institutional theory is relevant in the sustainability reporting process. When preparing sustainability reports, companies can have internal (cross-departmental), external (sustainability consultants), or mixed teams. Therefore, in this paper, we formulated hypothesis H3 that examines the diversity of the reporting team. The statistical results confirm hypothesis H3, emphasising the fact that the diversity of the reporting team has a positive effect on sustainability reporting. The variable Report_Preparation is an original element of this study. We consider this paper makes a noteworthy contribution to the specialised literature and offers valuable practical insights, especially since Romania is part of a region with “collective geographical significance” (Krivogorsky et al., 2023), and research referring to Central and Eastern European countries remains scarce in prestigious journals (Albu et al., 2024). Through the analysis carried out at the national level, this study provides a comprehensive view of Romania’s preparedness for CSRD implementation. The study also highlights the difficulties encountered by companies in the pre-implementation phase of the CSRD, providing strong arguments for future legislative improvements, but also for supplementing the regulations with implementation guidance and adequate training. By including a new variable, related to the diversity of the reporting team, the study provides managers with valuable insights for company-wide planning of the reporting process. The results obtained from this research should be interpreted with caution, as the study has inherent limitations related to company selection and research methodology, which refers to the manual collection of data from company reports, the subjectivity of the content analysis, the construction of a composite score with seven dimensions, and use of panel regression analysis. Future research could explore sustainability reporting by using a larger sample size, allowing for more observations over an extended period for longitudinal analyses. Adding other countries to the study would create the premises for comparative, cross-country analyses that identify local institutional determinants of sustainability reporting. References Adu, P., 2022. Understanding the use, strengths, and limitations of automated text analysis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359324324_Understanding_the_Use_ Strengths_and_Limitations_of_Automated_Text_Analysis, [Accessed on 10 January 2025]. Albu, C.N., Albu, N., Dumitru, M., Fota, M.S., and Guşe, R.G., 2024. Sustainability reporting in Central and Eastern European countries. In Research Handbook on Sustainability Reporting, pp.400-417. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781035316267.00034 [Accessed on 10 March 2025]. Al-Dosari, M., Marques, A. and Fairbrass, J., 2023. The effect of the EU’s directive on nonfinancial disclosures of the oil and gas industry. Accounting Forum, 47(2), pp.166-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2023.2198179 Alro 2023. Raport de sustenabilitate. https://www.alro.ro/storage/ 2024/9/2186/GrupulALRO-Raport-de-Sustenabilitate-2023.pdf [Accessed on 10 January 2025]. Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 803 Amel-Zadeh, A. and Serafeim, G., 2018. Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), pp.87-103. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v74.n3.2 An, E.S., 2023. Accelerating sustainability through better reporting. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 14(4), pp.904-914, https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-08-2022-0453 Baumüller, J. and Sopp, K., 2022. Double materiality and the shift from non-financial to European sustainability reporting: review, outlook and implications. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 23(1), pp.8-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2021-0114 Breijer, R. and Orij, R.P., 2022. The Comparability of Non-Financial Information: An Exploration of the Impact of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD, 2014/95/EU). Accounting in Europe, 19(2), pp.332-361. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17449480.2022.2065645 Caglar, A.E., Avci, S.B., Ahmed, Z. and Gökçe, N., 2024. Assessing the role of green investments and green innovation in ecological sustainability: From a climate action perspective on European countries. Science of the Total Environment, 928, art. no. 172527, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172527 Coelho, R., Jayantilal, S. and Ferreira, J.J., 2023. The impact of social responsibility on corporate financial performance: A systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(4), pp.1535-1560. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2446 Correa-Mejía, D.A., Correa-García, J.A. and García-Benau, M.A., 2024. Analysis of double materiality in early adopters. Are companies walking the talk?. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 15(2), pp.299-329, https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-072023-0469 CSRD, Directiva 2022/2464/UE în ceea ce priveşte raportarea privind durabilitatea de către întreprinderi (Directiva CSRD), publicată în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene seria L, 322 din data de 16.12.2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/ HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464&from=EN#d1e2949-15-1 [Accessed on 10 December 2024]. de Villiers, C., 2022. New Directions in the European Union's Regulatory Framework for Corporate Reporting, Due Diligence and Accountability: The Challenge of Complexity. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 13(4), pp.548-566. https://doi.org/10.1017/ err.2022.25 de Villiers, C., Lowa, M. and Samkina, G., 2014. The institutionalisation of mining company sustainability disclosures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84(1), pp.51-58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.089 Deegan, C. 2009. Financial accounting theory. Australia, McGraw Hill Australia Pty Ltd Delgado-Ceballos, J., Ortiz-De-Mandojana, N., Antolín-López, R., and Montiel, I., 2022. Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals to firm-level sustainability and ESG factors: The need for double materiality. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 26(1), pp.2-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444221140919. Deloitte, 2023. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive – Latest insights. https://www.deloitte.com/nl/en/issues/climate/the-corporate-sustainability-reportingdirective-latest-insights.html, [Accessed on 10 February 2025]. AE Empirical insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD 804 Amfiteatru Economic DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp.147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 Distribuție Oltenia 2023. Raport de sustenabilitate. https://www.distributieoltenia.ro/ resources/files/documents/DEO_Sustenabilitate_2023_Final_MarcaGri.pdf [Accessed on 20 January 2025]. Dragomir, V.D. and Dumitru, M., 2022. Practical solutions for circular business models in the fashion industry. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 4, art. no. 100040, pp.1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2022.100040 Dragomir, V.D., Dumitru, M., Chersan, I.C., Gorgan, C. and Păunescu, M., 2024, Double Materiality Disclosure as an Emerging Practice: The Assessment Process, Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities. Accounting in Europe, 22(1), pp.103-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17449480.2024.2339264. Dumitru, M., Dyduch, J., Gușe, R.G. and Krasodomska, J., 2017. Corporate reporting practices in Poland and Romania – An ex-ante study to the new non-financial reporting European Directive. Accounting in Europe, 14(3), pp.279-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2017.1378427 Dyduch, J. and Krasodomska, J., 2017. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: an empirical study of Polish listed companies. Sustainability. 9(11), art. no. 1934. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111934 EC, 2023. The European Pillar of Social Rights in 20 principles, https://employment-socialaffairs.ec.europa.eu/european-pillar-social-rights-20-principles_en, [Accessed on 9 January 2025]. EC, 2024. New rules fostering sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour enter into force. https://commission.europa.eu/news/new-rules-fostering-sustainable-andresponsible-corporate-behaviour-enter-force-2024-07-25_en, [Accessed on 9 January 2025]. EEA, 2024. European Climate Risk Assessment, https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/ publications/european-climate-risk-assessmentb, [Accessed on 20 February 2025]. EPRS, 2021. Non-financial Reporting Directive, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/ BRIE/2021/654213/EPRS_BRI(2021)654213_EN.pdf, [Accessed on 9 January 2025]. EY, 2022. How the EU’s new sustainability directive is becoming a game changer. https://www.ey.com/en_uk/insights/assurance/how-the-eu-s-new-sustainabilitydirective-is-becoming-a-game-changer, [Accessed on 5 January 2025]. Freeman, R.E., Kujala, J., and Sachs, S., 2017. Stakeholder engagement: Clinical research cases. (46). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Publishing, Boston, SUA Greene, W.H., 2003. Econometric Analysis. 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, SUA Grimmer, J. and Stewart, B.M., 2013. Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), pp.267-297. https://doi.org//10.1093/pan/mps028 Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 805 Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., Cenk, Z., Erdebilli, B., Özdemir, Y.S. and Gholian-Jouybari, F., 2023. Pythagorean fuzzy topsis method for green supplier selection in the food industry. Expert Systems With Applications, 224, art. no. 120036. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eswa.2023.120036 Hao, N.S., Dragomir, V.D. and Radu, O.M., 2023. Effects on corporate stakeholders and limitations of the implementation of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (2014/95/EU). Accounting and Management Information Systems, 22(4), pp.609-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.24818/jamis.2023.04002 Hetze, K., 2016. Effects on the (CSR) Reputation: CSR Reporting Discussed in the Light of Signalling and Stakeholder Perception Theories. Corporate Reputation Review, 19(3), pp.281-296. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-016-0002-3 Ikpor, I.M., Bracci, E., Kanu, C.I., Ievoli, R., Okezie, B., Mlanga, S. and Ogbaekirigwe, C., 2022. Drivers of Sustainability Accounting and Reporting in Emerging Economies: Evidence from Nigeria. Sustainability, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073780 Kosi, U. and Relard, P., 2024. Are firms (getting) ready for the corporate sustainability reporting directive?. Sustainability Nexus Forum, 32(5), pp.1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-024-00541-1 KPMG, 2022. Raportarea de sustenabilitate - Catalizator al schimbării și rol vital pentru construirea viitorului. https://kpmg.com/ro/ro/home/presa/ comunicatepresa/2022/12/raportarea-sustenabilitate-catalizator-schimbarii-rol-vital-construireaviitorului.html, [Accessed on 4 February 2025]. Krivogorsky, V., Mintchik, N. and Alon, A., 2023. Accounting research in former Soviet bloc countries: past trends and current and future developments. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 50, art. no. 100529. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.intaccaudtax.2023.100529 Li, Z., Wang, B. and Zhou, D., 2022. Financial experts of top management teams and corporate social responsibility: evidence from China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 59, pp.1335-1386, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-022-01077-5 Makau, S., 2024. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting on Firm Performance. American Journal of Accounting, 6 (1), pp.13-24. https://doi.org/10.47672/ajacc.1784 Manolescu, M., Petre, G. and Lazăr, A., 2024. Evoluţii la zi şi perspective privind raportarea financiară în România. Exigenţe calitative pentru auditorii financiari. Audit Financiar, 23(1), pp.99-115, https://doi.org/10.20869/AUDITF/2024/173/001 Milne, M.J. and Adler, R.W., 1999. Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), pp.237-256. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579910270138 NFRD, Directiva 2014/95/UE în ceea ce priveşte prezentarea de informaţii nefinanciare şi de informaţii privind diversitatea de către anumite întreprinderi şi grupuri mari, publicată în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene seria L, nr. 330 din data de 15.11.2014. https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095&from=EN, [Accessed on 10 December 2024]. Ordinul ministrului finanţelor publice nr. 1938/2016 privind modificarea şi completarea unor reglementări contabile, publicat în Monitorul Oficial al României nr. 680/2.11.2016. AE Empirical insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD 806 Amfiteatru Economic Ordinul ministrului finanţelor publice nr. 3456/2018 privind modificarea și completarea unor reglementări contabile, publicat în Monitorul Oficial al României nr. 942/ 7.11.2018. Ordinul ministrului finanţelor publice nr. 85/2024 pentru reglementarea aspectelor referitoare la raportarea privind durabilitatea, publicat în Monitorul Oficial al României nr.75/26.01.2024. Petruzzelli, S. and Badia, F., 2024. The quality assessment of stakeholder engagement disclosure in the EU mandatory non-financial reporting framework. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 25(1), pp.126-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-11-2022-0290 Pham, D.C., Do, T.N.A., Doan, T.N., Nguyen, T.X.H. and Pham, T.K.Y., 2021. The impact of sustainability practices on financial performance: empirical evidence from Sweden. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2021.1912526 PwC, 2025. CSRD și ESRS, noua eră a raportării corporative. Scurt ghid pentru companii. https://blog.pwc.ro/2025/01/21/csrd-si-esrs-noua-era-a-raportarii-corporative-scurtghid-pentru-companii/, [Accessed on 11 February 2025]. Qian, W., Parker, L. and Zhu, J.Y., 2024. Corporate environmental reporting in the China context: The interplay of stakeholder salience, socialist ideology and state power. British Accounting Review, 56(1), art. no. 101198. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.bar.2023.101198 Rimmel, G., 2020. Accounting for sustainability – historical development of the field, in Gunnar Rimmel (ed.), Accounting for Sustainability, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Romcarbon Grup 2023. Raport de sustenabilitate. https://www.romcarbon.com/ rapoarte-desustenabilitate/ [Accessed on 10 January 2025]. Rompetrol 2023. Raport de sustenabilitate. https://www.rompetrol.com/ro/mediaroom/ comunicate-de-presa/rompetrol-publica-raportul-de-sustenabilitate-2023-id-1915cmsid-733 [Accessed on 11 January 2025]. Schilling-Vacaflor, A. and Lenschow, A., 2023. Hardening foreign corporate accountability through mandatory due diligence in the European Union? New trends and persisting challenges. Regulation & Governance, 17(3), pp.677-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/ rego.12402 Somoza, A. 2023. Voluntary sustainability assurance in small and medium-sized entities: The role of country origin in Europe, Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(1), pp.462483. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3155 Setia, N., Abhayawansa, S., Joshi, M. and Wasantha Pathiranage, N., 2024. Shifting perspectives: unveiling the dual nature of sustainability materiality in integrated reports. Meditari Accountancy Research, 32(4), pp.1291-1323. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR08-2023-2128 Ştefănescu, C.A., Tiron-Tudor, A. and Moise, E.M., 2020. EU non-financial reporting research – Insights, gaps, patterns and future agenda. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 22(1), pp.257-276. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.13479 Velte, P., 2022. Meta analyses on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): a literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 72, pp.627-675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-02100211-2 Vrancart Grup 2023. Raport de sustenabilitate. https://www.vrancart.ro/images/PDF/ rapoarte-curente/2024/VRANCART_-_Raport_de_sustenabilitate_2023.pdf [Accessed on 10 January 2025]. Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 807 Wagenhofer, A., 2024. Sustainability Reporting: A Financial Reporting Perspective. Accounting in Europe, 21(1), p.1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17449480.2023.2218398 Xue, S., Chang, Q. and Xu, J., 2023. The effect of voluntary and mandatory corporate social responsibility disclosure on firm profitability: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 77, art. no. 101919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2022.101919 Yilmaz, M., 2008. Panel data analysis of the relationship between foreign direct investments and economic growth in developing countries. Master’s Thesis. Dokuz Eylül University Social Sciences Institute. 148 Appendix 1 From simple to complex in sustainability reporting Topics Directive 2014/95/EU Directive 2022/2464/EU Scope and applicability Companies with an average number of employees greater than 500 Companies with an average number of employees greater than 500 in the first year of implementation and extension of the applicability area, according to the implementation timeline Timeline implementation Gradually implementation Tight timeline implementation Reporting frameworks Option to rely on existing frameworks (GRI, SASB, etc.) Requirement to apply ESRS Sustainability report Non-financial statement within the management report Integrating sustainability reporting into the management report Reporting format No standardized format Standardized, digital reporting format (single electronic format) External assurance of non-financial disclosures No Yes Materiality assessment Disclosure of relevant sustainability topics Double materiality assessment targeting impact and financial materiality Stakeholders engagement Communication with stakeholders to ensure transparency Stakeholder engagement in the reporting process Business model and transition plans towards a sustainable economy Presentation of the business model Integrating the company's business model and strategy into the transition process towards a sustainable economy Sustainability policies and objectives Disclosure of sustainability policies and objectives Disclosure policies and setting sustainability objectives with clear deadlines Due diligence process Assessing and reporting on the impact on human rights, environmental and anticorruption issues A detailed due diligence process, which considers the impact of company activities and extends to that of partners in the value chain AE Empirical insights Regarding Romanian Companies' Preparedness for CSRD 808 Amfiteatru Economic Topics Directive 2014/95/EU Directive 2022/2464/EU Key performance indicators Relevant performance indicators Expanding the number of key performance indicators Source: Authors' processing Appendix 2 Methodology for calculating the composite score (1) Sustainability reporting frameworks 0 – No sustainability framework explicitly mentioned 1 – GRI and/or Other framework 2 – GRI and/or Other, including CSRD framework 3 – CSRD/ESRS framework (2) External assurance on non-financial disclosures (CSRD) 0 – No 1 – Yes (3) Materiality assessment 0 – No information related to materiality assessment 1 – Materiality assessment / Relevant topics (NFRD) 2 – Double materiality assessment (CSRD) (4) Stakeholder Engagement in the reporting process (CSRD) 0 – No 1 – Yes (5) Business models and transition plans to a sustainable economy 0 – No information related to business model 1 – Business model presentation (NFRD) 2 – Any transition plans disclosure (CSRD) 3 – Relevant and necessary evidence to support the transition plans: CapEx or OpEx detailed according to EU Taxonomy (CSRD) (6) Sustainability policies and objectives 0 – No information related to sustainability policies and objectives 1 – Policies and objectives disclosure (NFRD) 2 – Setting objectives with specific deadlines (CSRD) (7) Alignment of due diligence-related disclosures 0 – No information related to due diligence 1 – Due diligence – briefly/general disclosure (NFRD) 2 – Due diligence – detailed disclosure, including value chain/supply chain (CSRD) Min Score 0 points Max Score 5 points NFRD Max Score 14 points CSRD Source: Authors' processing Sustainability Reporting: Catalyst for Organisational and Professional Change AE Vol. 27 • No. 70 • August 2025 809 Appendix 3 Descriptive statistics of the Score components Score component Year Mean Median Standard deviation Minim Maxim (1) 2020 0.6666 1 0.5466 0 2 2021 0.8181 1 0.4646 0 2 2022 0.9393 1 0.5556 0 2 2023 1.2702 1 0.7691 0 3 (2) 2020 0.0333 0 0.1825 0 1 2021 0.0606 0 0.2423 0 1 2022 0.0606 0 0.2423 0 1 2023 0.0810 0 0.2767 0 1 (3) 2020 0.4000 0 0.4982 0 1 2021 0.6363 1 0.6990 0 2 2022 0.8787 1 0.8199 0 2 2023 1.0810 1 0.8621 0 2 (4) 2020 0.5000 0.5 0.5085 0 1 2021 0.5757 1 0.5018 0 1 2022 0.6363 1 0.4885 0 1 2023 0.6756 1 0.4745 0 1 (5) 2020 1.5000 1.5 0.6297 0 3 2021 1.6363 2 0.6990 0 3 2022 2.0000 2 0.8660 0 3 2023 2.2972 3 0.9087 0 3 (6) 2020 1.2666 1 0.4497 1 2 2021 1.4242 1 0.5018 1 2 2022 1.5151 2 0.5075 1 2 2023 1.5945 2 0.4977 1 2 (7) 2020 1.2666 1 0.4497 1 2 2021 1.4242 1 0.5018 1 2 2022 1.5757 2 0.5018 1 2 2023 1.6216 2 0.4916 1 2 Source: Authors' processing