Sustainability Reporting in Public Sector : a comparative study in the Italian Justice System

The study aims to analyse social, environmental and sustainability reporting practices in Italian Justice System, with specific reference to what and how is reported, the implicit and/or expressed purpose of this type of reporting, and who is, if there is, a privileged audience. A qualitative analysis was carried out on three sustainability reports, through a manual and assisted content analysis, using Nvivo software (software for qualitative data management and analysis), version 11. The choice of reports was driven by temporal, contextual and dimensional factors, which allowed to identify three Judicial Offices, namely the Ordinary Courts of Milan, Naples and Perugia, and the related sustainability reports, referring to the year 2014. The findings do not show noteworthy (qualitative) differences due to the territorial and/or dimensional factors. None of the three analysed reports declare to refer to national or international guidelines and standard; moreover, they mainly describe the activities carried out, focusing on an economic perspective rather than a social or environmental ones. Although the explicit reason to engage in the this kind of reporting is due to an accountability desire towards main stakeholders, the reading of documents points out a strong "legitimative" component, since the justice system has been - and still is - at the centre of strong criticism from the public opinion. In fact, the focus on the hot topics of the public debate is preponderant, that is, a reduction in the timing of proceedings, disposal of the "warehouse" and efficient use of resources. The audience is quite unclear and it seems to be different in the three cases analysed. The study gives its contribute to empirical and theoretical knowledge on social, environmental and sustainability reporting in public sector. First of all, it focuses on a kind of organisation little investigated and with strongly distinctive features, such as the judicial offices; secondly, it supports the usefulness of an adequate combination of accountability, legitimacy and institutional theories, rather than one, to explain the complex phenomenon of social, environmental and sustainability reporting