Sustainability reporting in justice systems: a comparative research in two European countries

Abstract

Purpose That on accountability in public organizations is quite an old debate. Its introduction in judicial systems is, however, still viewed with some suspicion, due to its potential trade-off with independence and impartiality. Nevertheless, the need to respond to the demands for greater transparency and accountability has also pushed judicial organizations to establish a dialogue with a wide range of subjects. This study aims to explore the understanding and the current practices of sustainability reporting currently in place in judicial systems. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a comparative approach, conducting an online survey in two European countries (Italy and Poland). The survey was built around the research questions and literature and administered between February and March 2020. Specifically, 804 courts were involved, of which 430 are in Italy and 374 in Poland. Findings Findings show that the current practices are still not widespread and there is still a lack of understanding of what sustainability reporting is, and therefore, of what its potential usefulness within the courts could be. Moreover, many differences between the two countries are pointed out, so it is possible to assume that the different cultural and institutional settings influence sustainability reporting practices. Finally, some interesting implications for policymakers are provided. Originality/value Judicial organizations are still poorly investigated in the literature, despite being at the center of a wide public and political debate. Moreover, the international comparative perspective adopted constitutes a further aspect of novelty.

Strengthening accountability and sustainability reporting: does stakeholder engagement really work? Evidence from the judicial sector

“…It had published the first sustainability report five years earlier; hence, it could be defined as an early adopter in the Italian judicial system. Although it then stopped this practice, as in most cases in PSOs (Fusco et al , 2022; Farneti et al , 2019; Vinnari and Laine, 2013), it showed the willingness to resume it by being firmly convinced of its necessity in the relationship between the office and the community, thus offering a particular awareness and maturity on the topic. It was, therefore, considered an interesting research laboratory in a sector (i.e.…”

“…It was, therefore, considered an interesting research laboratory in a sector (i.e. the judicial one) highly under investigated in literature and a country with a fair amount of ferment in these practices, which, however, seems to have experienced a slowdown after an initial impulse (Greco et al , 2015; Farneti et al , 2019; Fusco et al , 2022).…”

“…Some studies have been carried out, mainly focused on Italy, where there has been a fair diffusion of the tool, initially as a result of public incentives (Ricci and Fusco, 2016); whereas, to the best of our knowledge, the studies carried out in other countries are limited (Banasik et al , 2022). Although some beneficial effects on internal and external accountability have been highlighted (Ricci and Pavone, 2020), extant literature stressed several weaknesses and criticalities in current practices, also due to poor understanding of the tool, a lack of resources (human and/or economic) or difficulties in using or adapting existing models (Fusco et al , 2022; Ricci and Pavone, 2022). The disclosure seemed to be driven by “self-induced” and “self-referential” approaches without taking into account the “demand” perspective (Ricci and Pavone, 2020).…”

Justice systems and sustainability: factors that influence reporting

“…Research into sustainability reporting of judicial systems is somewhat embryonic. Therefore, Fusco et al (2021) carry out a comparative study of the process between courts in Italy and Poland. Prior evidence reveals the justice system in Italy to be inefficient, with civil and commercial cases taking longer to resolve than the average time in other EU nations.…”

Sustainable Development Reporting in Emergency Situations

“…[9], Abela M. [10], Nasreen T., Baker R., Rezania D. [11] and others);  standardization of approaches to disclosure of information on the sustainable development of entities (de Villiers C., La Torre M., Molinari M. [12], de Villers C., Dimes R. [13] and others);  improvement of the regulatory and organizational model of preparation, collection and quality control of corporate sustainability reporting (Amoako K. O., Amoako I. O., Tuff our J., Marfo E. O. [14], Fusco F., Civitillo R., Ricci P., Morawska S., Pustulka K., Banasik P. [15], Iefymenko T., Lovinska L., Kucheriava M. [16] and others);  empirical studies of the corporate reporting practices on sustainable development by sectors and regions (Tumwebaze Z., Bananuka J., Orobia L., Kinatta M. [17], Leo D., Sfodera F., Cucari N. Mattia G., Dezi L. [18], Buallay A. [19], Alsahali K. F., Malagueno R. [20] and others).…”