Svensk hållbarhetsrapportering - Potentiella effekter av EU-direktivet 2014/95/EU

Summary Title: Sustainability reporting in Sweden - Possible effects from EU-directive 2014/95/EU Amount of words: 25 807 Authors: Albin Askman Junhede, Tobias Carlsson och Viktor Johansson Advisor: Per Magnus Andersson Key words: Sustainable development, sustainability report, guidelines for sustainability reporting, comparability, EU-directive 2014/95/EU. Purpose: With the basis in an analysis of current sustainability reporting in Sweden the authors set out to investigate what effects might come off EU-directive 2014/95/EU,mainly focusing on comparability. Theoretical perspectives: Stakeholder theory, isomorphism. Regulations: EU-directive 2014/95/EU, Memorandum Ds 2014/45, GRI, ISO 26000, IR, Global Compact. Methodology: The method has been divided into two segments; starting with a collective casestudy which aims to present a picture of how swedish companies listed on the stock exchange work with sustainability reporting today. The second step will consist of instrumental interviews with stakeholders chosen with help of the stakeholder theory. Results: The mapping study shows clear differences on how swedish companies work with sustainability reporting from such variables as company size and industry. During the interviews the current situation was discussed as well as possible future effects after the introduction of legislation. Conclusions: The authors reach the conclusion that the strongest effect will be that the new legislation will work as a catalyst to the whole subject of sustainability reporting. Through the introduction of new legislation sustainability reporting will reach a higher level of legitimacy and timeliness which will contribute to further development. The authors also speculate in a number of criterias that might need fulfillment if the goal of the legislation should be met. Firstly the authors recommend an external audit of the sustainability reports. Secondly the authors see a need of a common international framework in order to reach a high level of harmonization. The authors also questions the need for Sweden to introduce more strict legislation compared to the EU regarding number of companies included. It is questioned if smaller companies will receive a high enough added value to justify expenses