research about financial sustainability

A Review of Sustainable Finance and Financial Performance Literature: Mini-Review Approach

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Universiti Malaysia Terengganu

• Universitas Mercu Buana

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Int J Sustain Dev Plann
• Nurul Amira Shuhada Mazlan

• Rapat Piter Sony Hutauruk

• Piers Weston
• Matthias Nnadi

• Al Reem Al Ahbabi

• Alia Almansoori

• J CLEAN PROD

• Rusnah Muhamad
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

FALL COURSE REGISTRATION  is open through August 29. Explore courses today.

What Is Sustainable Finance and Why Is It Important?

As the climate crisis deepens, the finance sector will play a key role.

Rebecca Bakken

Creating a more sustainable future requires an all-hands-on-deck approach from most industries—finance chief among them. Enter: sustainable finance.

The financial sector holds enormous power in funding and bringing awareness to issues of sustainability, whether by allowing for research and development of alternative energy sources or supporting businesses that follow fair and sustainable labor practices. 

Sustainable finance is defined as investment decisions that take into account the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors of an economic activity or project.

Environmental factors include mitigation of the climate crisis or use of sustainable resources. Social factors include human and animal rights, as well as consumer protection and diverse hiring practices. Governance factors refer to the management, employee relations, and compensation practices of both public and private organizations. 

Sustainable Finance Jobs on the Rise

Investing in businesses and projects with sustainable ESG practices is already on the rise , as is demand for finance professionals with expertise in this niche yet rapidly growing field. Bloomberg recently reported on the trend, stating that it’s already one of Asia’s most in-demand fields.

“Clients do understand that the talent pool is very thin, particularly in finding candidates with a proven track-record and relevant ESG experience in both private and public sectors,” said Arthur Leung, a consultant covering financial services at leadership advisory firm Egon Zehnder in Hong Kong, quoted by Bloomberg Green . “They understand the rarity of talent and most are willing to pay for the roles.”

Harvard Extension School offers a master’s degree program in sustainability as well as six graduate certificates in the field. These programs aim to prepare the future workforce for a more sustainable future as climate change increasingly poses threats to public health. 

A recent report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes the urgent case for integrating ESG, among other factors, into investment decisions for fast, actionable impact on the environment. 

Learn More About Our Sustainability Microcertificate

We asked three of our instructors why it’s important for finance professionals to build expertise in ESG and sustainable finance. Here’s what they had to say.

Kevin Hagen, Vice President of Environment, Social, & Governance (ESG) Strategy at Iron Mountain

Instructor of Creating, Implementing, and Improving Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance Reporting

Sustainable business thinking is a disruptive force in business. At one time, folks may have thought of it as marketing or storytelling. Today, the leaders in the space are demonstrating that thinking differently about environmental and social performance can drive change that delivers more business value while harnessing the power of enterprise to deliver better outcomes for people and the planet. 

If learning new sustainable business skills and competencies is making companies more successful, the same is true for us as business professionals. Perhaps nowhere is that more true than in the accounting and financial world. 

For example, the accounting functions need to add skills for gathering, managing, analyzing, and reporting a whole new genre of business metrics, such as greenhouse gas emissions , gender pay gap results, and ethics and anticorruption indicators. 

Finance functions need to model renewable energy contract risks or do the analysis of the balance sheet versus profit-and-loss implications of investing in everything from electric vehicle conversion to energy efficiency to inclusion training for employees. Treasury teams need to understand Green Bonds and how climate risk assessment might impact credit facilities or insurance considerations. 

In short, ESG thinking is rapidly changing the job of financial professionals across the board. While that disruption could leave some folks behind, people who learn (or help invent) this new space are likely to help their company create more value, accelerate their own careers, and create the opportunity to use their day job to make a big difference in the world.

Dr. Carlos Vargas, Lecturer of Sustainable Finance and Investments; and Environmental Economics

Instructor of Introduction to Sustainable Finance and Investments and Sustainability and Impact Investments  

Sustainable finance has emerged as a response to a world that’s finally seeking to bridge social, racial, and gender gaps. We are already undergoing a green revolution from which we can learn every day. New milestones are frequently added that lead us to a better understanding of sustainability. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the four largest accounting firms in the world, announced its intention to incorporate more than 100,000 new employees to assist on ESG issues in a strategy they called “the new equation.” 

Find Graduate Degrees and Certificates in Sustainability

In addition, the investment giant Blackrock proposes reaching its plea of “net-zero” by 2050 , which implies a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That a leading global investment manager is pursuing such an ambitious goal is significant. The world has to pause for a second, take a deep breath, and think about how to cater options given the more than $9 trillion in assets that Blackrock manages. This might be just the beginning of the unprecedented opportunity for sustainable finance. It may even be just the push that global economies need to truly align with the Paris Agreement.

Graham Sinclair, ESG Architect

Instructor of Making the Sustainable Investment Case

The future of finance is stakeholder capitalism. Companies can no longer operate by prioritizing shareholders as the dominant audience. Now, employees, communities, customers, regulators, and the planet itself all require their “voices” to be heard. That means decision-making needs to be fluent in integrating all factors—including environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors—when making choices about where to allocate capital. 

Sustainable finance is important for at least two reasons:

First, good practice has shifted to where it always should have been: valuing all forms of capital. Every business on planet Earth directly or indirectly relies upon biodiversity and natural ecosystems. But population sizes of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles have seen an alarming average drop of 68 percent since 1970 . 

Historically, typical business behavior has centered on for-profit businesses seeking to capture as much profit as possible while pushing as much of the costs onto society—and onto nature. For example, only 9 percent of plastics made are ever recycled . The reality is that all lives and livelihoods are made on one planet, relying upon humans to make/do/buy/sell stuff and the rules of law to protect the contractual relationships of all market participants. The SEC will be implementing increased ESG reporting standards soon. The Climate Action 100 initiative counts 575 investors managing $54 trillion. These investors are demanding their 167 portfolio companies—which account for 80% of global industrial climate pollution—to take “necessary action.”

Second, investors are demanding more transparency and accountability from companies, not less. Self-described ESG-branded assets are on track to reach $53 trillion by 2025 , driven in part by demand from the increasing influence of women and millennial investors. 

The customer value proposition is changing . The increase in trillion-dollar investment firms with growing passive investment strategies that cannot exit stocks has also driven these profe s sional investors to be better stewards . They are now looking more critically at management and engaging with companies to improve performance. 

BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity, and State Street Global Advisors together manage 20 percent of global publicly listed securities , an aggregate $20 trillion assets under management at the end of 2020. These investors’ dissatisfaction was significant in the paradigm-shifting vote against Exxon Mobil directors on May 26, 2021.

The fundamental question asked by investors is: Why should I deploy my limited assets today to support your business growth tomorrow? Without ESG, the answer is, you shouldn’t. 

  SOURCE: G.Sinclair 2021, adapted from CFA Institute , July 2021.

About the Author

Digital Content Producer

8 Tips to Start Your Semester Off Right

Whether you're taking a class online or studying on campus, these tips can help set you up for success this semester.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

• Understanding Poverty
• Financial Sector

Sustainable Finance

Landscape of fields and homes. Indonesia. Photo: © Curt Carnemark / World Bank

Sustainable Finance is the process of taking due account of environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations when making investment decisions in the financial sector, leading to increased longer-term investments into sustainable economic activities and projects (European Commission). It has become a powerful movement led by regulators,  institutional investors and asset managers globally. 

Sustainability, however, is a complex and evolving topic. The World Bank Group long-term finance unit has been at the forefront of promoting Sustainable Finance globally – though data provision, analytical work, instrument design and technical assistance to  support regulators and investors in our client countries to ‘green’ their financial systems.

The team’s work on sustainable finance  contributes to several initiatives - namely:

1.  The Global Program on Sustainability  which promotes  the use of high quality-data and analysis on natural capital, ecosystem services and sustainability to better inform decisions made by governments, the private sector and financial institutions.  The GPS program consists of 3 key pillars:

Pillar 1: Information-improving global measurements of natural capital and ecosystem services

Pillar 2: Building countries capacity to produce and use natural capital accounting for policy and planning decisions. It currently works with 18 countries to measure and value natural resources

Pillar 3: Incentives- Promoting research on how environmental Factors impact risk and financial return in fixed income markets.

Below is a sample of recent publications contributed to the GPS Knowledge Center including:

• A new Dawn: Rethinking Sovereign ESG
• Riding the Wave: Navigating the ESG landscape for Sovereign Debt Managers 
• Demystifying ESG, Paving Path: Lessons from Chile’s Experience as a Sovereign Issuer for Sustainable Actions
• Unlocking Private Finance for Nature  

2.  The Sovereign ESG Data Portal  is part of the work supported by the Global Program on Sustainability (GPS), which aims to provide governments and investors with information and tools that improve their understanding of sustainability criteria, including through natural capital accounting.  

3.  Climate Support Facility  is a new flagship trust fund which was launched on December 10, 2020.  The facility manages funding provided under a Green Recovery Initiative aimed at helping countries building a low-carbon, climate-resilient recovery from COVID 19. Germany, the United Kingdom and Austria are its first contributors. The facility support technical assistance and advisory services. This new trust fund will:

• Embed specialized economic advisors in key government ministries to assist with climate-informed national recovery strategies;
• Help countries develop macroeconomic models that incorporate climate into national budgets, enhance their NDCs, and support the development of long-term strategies for decarbonization; and
• Generate new analytical work: including geospatial data on climate risk, the impact of COVID-19 on carbon emissions, and the effect of climate policies on jobs and livelihoods.  

4.  IFC Edge . An innovation of IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, EDGE (“Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies”) provides market leaders with the opportunity to gain a competitive advantage by differentiating their products and adding value to the lives of their customers. EDGE brings speed, market intelligence and an investment focus to the next generation of green building certification in more than 170 countries. IFC created EDGE to respond to the need for a measurable and credible solution to prove the business case for building green and unlock financial investment.

5. J-CAP is a five-year program initially focused on six priority countries and one sub-region: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Peru, Vietnam, and the West African Economic & Monetary Union. Going forward, the program will also work with other countries, including Argentina, to support local capital markets development. 

Under the program, country-specific action plans have been produced that mobilize the World Bank’s technical assistance alongside IFC's demonstration transactions and local currency solutions.  Support for green bond issuance and market development, as well as green regulatory frameworks are a core part of the program.

🌐  Long-term Finance

📗  The emerging application of geospatial data for gaining ‘environmental’ insights on the asset, corporate and sovereign level

📘  Striking the Right Note : Key Performance Indicators for Sovereign Sustainability-Linked Bonds (English)

📙  Sovereign Climate and Nature Reporting: Proposal for a Risks and Opportunities Disclosure Framework (English)

📕  Credit Worthy: ESG Factors and Sovereign Credit Ratings

Research financial sustainability

The long-term financial sustainability of the research and innovation (R&I) ecosystem is critical to maintaining the UK’s global position and ensuring it delivers new ideas that lead to economic growth.

A sustainable system meets today’s R&I needs without depleting its ability to meet them in the future; maintaining the agility, capability, and flexibility needed to withstand shocks, deliver long-term goals and capture new opportunities.

Financial sustainability features strongly in our five-year strategy transforming tomorrow together , as part of the resilience principle for change, which prioritises improving the financial sustainability of R&I in organisations across the UK.

Video  credit: UKRI        Video  transcript and on-screen captions are available by watching on YouTube

Working closely with partners in government and across the sector, our work aims to:

• build awareness of the complexity of the UK’s research system
• understand the different financial pressures it faces
• make robust, evidence-based policy recommendations to improve financial sustainability

The research sustainability team works in collaboration with teams across:

• UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
• Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
• Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland
• Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
• Scottish Funding Council
• Office for Students
• devolved funders
• UK universities, institutes and other research organisations

We identify, understand and build evidence around the financial sustainability of the UK research base and ensure financial sustainability is a key consideration across the breadth of the R&D landscape.

Key areas of our work include:

• understanding how funding flows through UK research-performing organisations
• monitoring indicators of change across the sector
• exploring and addressing sustainability challenges

Read our blog about how UKRI can play its part in overcoming the barriers to creating a more financially sustainable research system .

Financial sustainability of research in universities

Universities play a pivotal role in the UK R&I system through their teaching, research and knowledge exchange activities. However, they are facing a range of financial pressures which may require them to make difficult decisions about how much they can continue to support and invest in research activities.

We commissioned research to explore changes to the costs of research over the past decade and to consider the ‘estimated unit cost of research activity’. The project, undertaken by know.consulting, used qualitative and quantitative data and showed that the average research council or UKRI grant increased in size from £480,000 to £730,000 between 2010 and 2019, with real terms increases across all cost categories.

Our own data analysis shows reveals a ‘sustainability gap’ across the university sector whereby the total amount of research income doesn’t cover the full economic costs of universities’ research activities. To manage this, universities use other income streams (such as tuition fees and commercial income) to cross-subsidise their research activities in line with their strategic missions.

This includes the data obtained through a method called Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC), which is used by universities to understand the costs of their research and teaching and provides a consistent framework for:

• calculating the cost of teaching activities
• assessing the full economic cost of research projects
• reporting the costs of teaching, research and other activities to the relevant funding bodies

Please see our TRAC explainer for further information. The latest published TRAC data can be found on the Office for Students website.

Using a systems thinking approach, UKRI has engaged with universities across the UK to understand what factors influence and incentivise their decision making around research, including the inter-relationship with teaching and other activities. Combined with other feedback from universities, this helps us to inform our policy thinking around long-term financial sustainability

Sustainability of research in UKRI’s institutes

UKRI has a large and growing portfolio of strategically important institutes, spanning the breadth of our scientific remit.

For more information see our explainer on how UKRI’s institutes support research and innovation .

We work in partnership to:

• demonstrate their importance to the R&I ecosystem
• raise the profile of the research they undertake
• build a robust evidence base from which to assess their financial sustainability

Our governance

The Financial Sustainability of Research Group (FSRG) is a sector-wide group of experts who can provide independent, evidence-based advice on challenges to financial sustainability and discuss strategic policy issues, such as:

• the financial sustainability of research
• efficiency of funding flows
• the changing, diverse funding environment

FSRG meet three times a year and work closely with the Regulators and Funders Group  and the TRAC Development Group  to ensure that analysis, advice or policy recommendations across these groups is complementary.

FSRG membership

• Professor Mark E. Smith (Chair), University of Southampton
• Harriet Barnes, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
• Morag Campbell, Scottish Funding Council
• Erica Conway, University of Birmingham
• Neville Ford (Deputy Chair), University of Chester
• Paul Fox, independent
• Jackie Labbe, University of Gloucestershire
• Paul Murphy, Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland
• Margaret Monckton, University of Nottingham
• Bob Rabone, independent
• Sarah Randall-Paley, University of Lancaster
• Nolan Smith OBE, Office for Students
• Robert van de Noort, University of Reading
• Daniel Wake, Universities UK

For further information on the work UKRI are doing please contact the research sustainability team.

Email: [email protected]

Last updated: 19 July 2024

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

Advertisement

Sustainability and Financial Accounting: a Critical Review on the ESG Dynamics

• Short Research and Discussion Article
• Published: 13 January 2022
• Volume 29 , pages 16758–16761, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Patrizia Tettamanzi 1 ,
• Giorgio Venturini 2 &
• Michael Murgolo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6328-4053 1  

21k Accesses

39 Citations

Explore all metrics

This study gives a depiction of what are the general directions taken by international institutions so to tackle the current health emergency and the most pressing environmental issues, such as climate change and COVID-19 (Schaltegger, 2020; Adebayo et al., 2021).

The role of companies is crucial under disruptive events, such as a crisis or, more in line with the present time, a pandemic, and the pursue of the shareholder value cannot be the essence and the only objective in doing business anymore, since also ESG (i.e., environmental, social, and governance) dynamics have to be taken in due consideration. Moreover, an adequate and effective corporate governance should lead to higher disclosure quality, which subsequently should help protect the entire planet and ecosystems as well. In this context, the principal role of accounting and corporate reporting activities should be oriented towards making emerge what is and what is not done by companies in their business operations, and the disclosure of financial information is currently deemed inappropriate for pursuing a sustainable growth in the medium and long run (Schaltegger, J Account Org Change 16:613–619, 2020; Kirikkaleli & Adebayo, Sustain Dev 29:583–594, 2020; Tettamanzi, Venturini & Murgolo Wider corporate reporting: La possibile evoluzione della Relazione sulla Gestione Bilancio e Revisione, IPSOA - Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia, 2021). Thus, the objective of this study is to investigate what international and European institutions have planned to do in order to align corporate objectives with environmental and societal needs in the coming years (Biondi et al., Meditari Account Res 28:889–914, 2020; Songini L et al. Integrated reporting quality and BoD characteristics: an empirical analysis. J Manag Govern, 2021).

As of today, our analysis finds that IFRS Foundation (at global level) and EFRAG (at European one) have been taking steps toward the aforementioned issues so to propose disclosure standards more in line with sustainability and environmental needed improvements. In fact, we tried to give a depiction of what are the actual and future strategies that both these institutions are going to put in place: this snapshot will give scientists, engineers, lawyers, and business people an overview of what should be like the corporate world of the near future, from a corporate reporting/accounting perspective (so to better understand what will be expected from companies of all the industries worldwide).

Similar content being viewed by others

Theoretical Insights on Integrated Reporting: Valuing the Financial, Social and Sustainability Disclosures

Corporate reporting practices concerning non-financial aspects: a possible prolix.

Sustainability Accounting: Upgrading Corporate Social Responsibility

Explore related subjects.

• Environmental Chemistry

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

As it is apparent in the international arena, a relevant review of the general rules and the standards of corporate reporting is taking place. The major drivers of it are the climate issues urgency and a “deeper and more focused” stakeholders’ engagement (Shan et al. 2021 ; Adebayo et al. 2021a , b ).

Both public and private entities and institutions worldwide have been trying so far to tackle these issues in the most effective way, but only with COVID-19 spreading across the globe, we could maintain that these actions have begun to be more tangible and explicit. Consider the COP26 meeting as an example (UK Government 2021 ). In November 2021, UK and Italy hosted an event considered the world last chance to get runaway climate change under control. Indeed, for nearly three decades, the UN has been bringing together almost every country on earth for global climate summits — called COPs, which stands for “Conference of the Parties” — and climate change, in that time, has “only” gone from being a fringe issue to a global priority. The COP held in November 2021 was the 26th annual summit and intended to reach an agreement with every nation on how to tackle climate change: 197 countries have agreed upon it, signing the “Glasgow Climate Pact”. The set of decisions consists of a range of agreed items, such as strengthened efforts to build resilience to climate change, to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and to provide the necessary finance for both (UN Climate Change 2021a , b ).

The UN 2030 Agenda as well as the most important international organizations have, therefore, managed to find an explicit solution to the issue in order to define a limit to, among others, those economic activities that — albeit profitable from a mere financial point of view — have, indeed, as a consequence, a negative impact for the environment and for the referential communities. In this, academic and scientific communities confirmed that accounting, reporting, and disclosure practices play a pivotal role in aligning the goals of the several stakeholders’ strategies adopted at corporate level (Schaltegger 2020 ; La Torre et al. 2020 ; Kose & Agdeniz 2021 ; Songini et al. 2021 ; Tettamanzi et al. 2021 ). In this regard, one of the COP26 outcomes was indeed related to “Transparency and Reporting”, making emerge a set of rules through which countries shall be held accountable for delivering results related to their climate action plans and self-set targets under their nationally determined contributions (Kirikkaleli & Adebayo, 2020 ; UN Climate Change 2021a , b ; Adebayo et al. 2021a , b ).

In Europe, this challenge has been faced by the European Commission which proposed in April 21, 2021 the draft for a directive regarding sustainability (i.e., CSRD “Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive”) that would essentially amend the requirements already defined in the area of “non-financial disclosure” within the framework of another directive, the NFRD “Non-Financial Reporting Directive”. At the end of this drafting and enforcement legal procedure, we will be provided with a first set of sustainability accounting standards and principles to be potentially adopted starting from next October 2022. EFRAG “European Financial Reporting Advisory Group” (which is an association established in 2001 with the encouragement of the European Commission to serve the public interest with regards to international financial reporting standard initiatives at European level) has been appointed to define the aforementioned standards. Also the IFRS Foundation has been taking steps towards this issue, by means of the IASB “International Accounting Standards Board” (founded in 2001 and responsible for the development, promotion and adoption of international financial reporting standard rules IFRS Foundation 2021 ). In this discussion article, we shall provide a snapshot of some of the most relevant global activities regarding sustainability at corporate level (Biondi et al. 2020 ; Songini et al. 2021 ), since only if disclosure and reporting activities expected by companies in the coming years are finally effective and in line with all the aforementioned needed improvements and objectives, business choices and practices — from which environmental and social concerns might arise — shall come more easily under scrutiny and be appropriately monitored.

Sustainability Accounting: Initiatives at Global Level

In essence, through this study, we will make emerge where the IASB (IFRS Foundation) and the EFRAG are heading towards with regards to sustainability reporting.

In general, since 2005, Regulation 1606/02 requires Europe to apply, under certain conditions, the IAS/IFRS (i.e., the international accounting standards) drawn up by the IASB and endorsed by EFRAG (Biondi et al. 2020 ). Having said that, with regard to sustainability reporting at European level, EFRAG appears to have been also entrusted with the corporate sustainability standard setting. Yet, since the scope of the IASB activities is wider and potentially covers the entire globe (with companies, for instance, in Japan and China, among the others, applying IAS/IFRS), it is also worth analyzing the IASB initiatives on this topic so to propose a broader perspective. That said, IASB/IFRS Foundation focus is mostly on listed companies, whereas the aforementioned CSRD proposal should address also privately-held ones; this makes emerge the reasons that stand behind the difference in their current set objectives also in terms of different final adopter (Biondi et al. 2020 ; La Torre et al. 2020 ; Songini et al. 2021 ).

Both at international level, with regard to the activities of the IASB and the IFRS Foundation, and at European level, through EFRAG, the direction of corporate reporting seems to be going in an increasingly value-oriented direction that goes beyond the financial results and beyond the creation of value for shareholders alone (UK HM Treasury 2021 ).

IFRS Foundation has announced the establishment under its control of a new board, the ISSB “International Sustainability Standards Board,” which will be responsible for defining sustainability accounting standards to be applied in the coming financial years. This new board, whose members should possess specific expertise on ESG dynamics, will focus its drafting activity on material information for investors’ decisions and other stakeholders in the world capital markets and on the urgent need for better information about climate-related matters (Schaltegger 2020 ; Adebayo et al. 2021a , b ). In fact, the ISSB would initially focus on climate-related reporting, extending then its work towards the information needs of investors on other environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters. EFRAG proposed to make its structure “dichotomous” as well, adding to the FRB “Financial Reporting Body”, the NFRB “Non-Financial Reporting Body” — both appointed to carry out the required technical work according to their respective assigned tasks. In this context, it is worth stressing the importance of the interconnections between IASB and EFRAG, since in case of a complete independent development of ESG reporting standards by these two important institutions, the related standards might turn out to be incoherent and hardly comparable — which is necessarily something to avoid (La Torre et al. 2020 ; Kirikkaleli et al. 2021 ; Songini et al. 2021 ).

More in detail, the IFRS Foundation/IASB, as of today, has highlighted the strategic macro-decisions that should guide the future action of the ISSB, defining guidelines at a global level and basing the new standards first of all on the climatic issue, to be extended to the whole sustainability/ESG sector in a broader sense. Furthermore, the creation of this new board has been announced at the UN Climate Change Conference (also known as COP26), held in November 2021. In essence, IFRS Foundation, by means of this and entrusting this board to set IFRS sustainability standards, will undergo a process of robust amendment of its governance, arranging its structure so to be better able to tackle the current and future ESG and sustainability challenges that the entire world has and will increasingly have to face (El Barnoussi 2020 ; García-Sánchez et al. 2020 ; Adebayo et al. 2021a , b ; Shan et al. 2021 ).

EFRAG, on the other hand, with the objective of addressing the action plan for financing sustainable growth and facilitating dialog among stakeholders (European Reporting Lab – EFRAG 2021 ), has already been:

promoting the attitude that should be adopted by corporations towards the interest and public welfare (i.e., “public good”), through the disclosure of quality information, that should be both “retrospective” and “forward-looking”;

calibrating the levels and boundaries of reporting on the uniqueness of each entity; and

recalling the concepts of double materiality and connectivity of information.

Please note that these mentioned points are key principles for drafting the most advanced global reports, such as integrated reporting. Moreover, EFRAG is pushing for producing an increasingly digitized and digitizable information that would definitely allow to overcome many anachronistic procedures still perpetrated in the accounting profession worldwide.

Conclusions

Underlining once again the apparent diversity, as of today, of set goals by the two institutions in discussion (i.e., EFRAG and IASB/ISSB), what does emerge at the moment is the willingness of both institutions to finally manage ESG dynamics also from an accounting and reporting perspective (UK HM Treasury 2021 ). In so doing, companies are increasingly required to provide high quality information that is also clear and comparable — potentially contrasting, subsequently, the “greenwashing” phenomenon. In this context, EFRAG concretely proposed a time plan of actions they have outlined and publicly declared (European Reporting Lab — EFRAG 2021 ) that covers the next 6 years of activity. By 2022, they shall provide the final draft of two “conceptual frameworks” and the “core” topical standards, to be applied to FY23 for reports to be published in 2024. EFRAG has also planned to treat the so-called advanced issues (if any) to be applied to FY25 and subsequent years, by 2024.

To conclude, all these sustainability ventures will, sooner or later, also reach small and medium-sized companies (i.e., “SMEs”) — mainly as the natural consequence of supply chain dynamics. Thus, the scope of application of the new sustainability reporting system shall potentially have a pervasive impact on the entire economic and social fabric of post COVID-19 Europe and the new millennium as well. Having said that, since this phenomenon is still evolving around the globe, from a legislative point of view, the matter in discussion is still in process and under scrutiny. Therefore, the snapshot should be taken as an overview of what will be potentially asked to companies in the coming future, being aware of the fact that radical changes to the above could be brought as well.

In fact, whether and what the actual impacts will be can only be defined in retrospect. Yet, it is worth underlining the actual (apparent) beginning towards a slightly broader and long-term vision of international institutions, making the principles of sustainability their own, without seeing them as the umpteenth “red tape” at global scale — moving, therefore, definitively on from a short termism attitude. That said, only by aligning integrated thinking with action will it be possible to definitively put in place sustainable and successful economic activities for all the communities involved. Otherwise, the price to be paid will be, once again, and increasingly unexpectedly, finding ourselves reliving devastating moments, similar to those that are still scourging the entire planet today, due to the ongoing pandemic crisis.

Availability of data and materials

All data are available in the main text and mentioned in the references.

Adebayo TS, Oladipupo SD, Adeshola I, Rjoub H (2021) Wavelet analysis of impact of renewable energy consumption and technological innovation on CO 2 emissions: evidence from Portugal. Environ Sci Pollut Res

Adebayo TS, Rjoub H, Akinsola GD, Oladipupo SD (2021) The asymmetric effects of renewable energy consumption and trade openness on carbon emissions in Sweden: new evidence from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res

Biondi L, Dumay J, Monciardini D (2020) Using the international integrated reporting framework to comply with EU Directive 2014/95/EU: can we afford another reporting façade? Meditari Account Res 28:889–914

Article   Google Scholar  

El Barnoussi A, Howieson B, Van Beest F (2020) Prudential application of IFRS 9: (Un)fair reporting in COVID-19 crisis for banks worldwide? Aust Account Rev 30:178–192

European Reporting Lab – EFRAG (2021) Final report on proposals for a relevant and dynamic EU sustainability reporting standard-setting. EFRAG,

García-Sánchez I-M, Raimo N, Marrone A, Vitolla F (2020) How does integrated reporting change in light of COVID-19? A revisiting of the content of the integrated reports. Sustainability. 12:7605

IFRS Foundation (2021). Sustainability reporting – Agenda Paper of Lee White, IFRS Advisory Council

Kirikkaleli D, Adebayo TS (2020) Do renewable energy consumption and financial development matter for environmental sustainability? New global evidence. Sustain Dev 29:583–594

Kirikkaleli D, Güngör H, Adebayo TS (2021) Consumption-based carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in Chile. Bus Strat Environ 2021:1–15

Google Scholar  

Kose T, Agdeniz S (2021) Analysis of data about COVID-19 disease in integrated reporting. J Account Tax Stud

La Torre M, Sabelfeld S, Blomkvist M, Dumay J (2020) Rebuilding trust: sustainability and non-financial reporting and the European Union regulation. Medit Account Res 28:701–125

Schaltegger S (2020) Unsustainability as a key source of epi- and pandemics: conclusions for sustainability and ecosystems accounting. J Account Org Change 16:613–619

Shan S, Ahmad M, Tan Z, Adebayo TS, Li RYM, Kirikkaleli D (2021) The role of energy prices and non-linear fiscal decentralization in limiting carbon emissions: tracking environmental sustainability. Energy 234:121–243

Songini L, Pistoni A, Tettamanzi P, Fratini F, Minutiello V (2021) Integrated reporting quality and BoD characteristics: an empirical analysis. J Manag Govern

Tettamanzi P, Venturini G, Murgolo M (2021) Wider corporate reporting: La possibile evoluzione della Relazione sulla Gestione. Bilancio e Revisione. IPSOA - Wolters Kluwer

Tettamanzi P, Venturini G, Murgolo M (Forthcoming) Accounting for sustainability: la Convergente (?) Dialettica tra IASB e EFRAG. Bilancio e Revisione. IPSOA - Wolters Kluwer

UK Government (2021) COP26 explained. UN Climate Change Conference UK 2021

UK HM Treasury (2021) UK welcomes work to develop global sustainability reporting standards alongside 40 international partners. Gov.uk.

UN Climate Change (2021) The Glasgow climate pact – key outcomes from COP26. UNFCCC Sites and Platforms, Brazil

UN Climate Change (2021) COP26 outcomes: transparency and reporting. UNFCCC Sites and Platforms, Brazil

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics and Management, LIUC – Cattaneo University, Varese, Italy

Patrizia Tettamanzi & Michael Murgolo

Department of Accounting, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

Giorgio Venturini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

This proposal of short discussion article was written only by the three aforementioned authors, i.e., Patrizia Tettamanzi (PT), Giorgio Venturini (GV), and Michael Murgolo (MM). More in detail, MM analyzed and interpreted the original documents drafted by IFRS Foundation and EFRAG. GV informed MM about the issue in analysis, giving him the documentary support needed for the first draft of the document. Besides, GV reviewed the initial work, proposing venues for necessary changes. PT as associate professor of Business Administration and PhD reviewed the final draft of the work, approving its submission. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Murgolo .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Consent to publish, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Nicholas Apergis

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tettamanzi, P., Venturini, G. & Murgolo, M. Sustainability and Financial Accounting: a Critical Review on the ESG Dynamics. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29 , 16758–16761 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18596-2

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 06 January 2022

Published : 13 January 2022

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18596-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• ESG Dynamics
• Sustainability Reporting
• Environment and Climate
• Health Emergency
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Enhancing the Value and Sustainability of Field Stations and Marine Laboratories in the 21st Century (2014)

Chapter: 5 strategies for financial sustainability.

5 Strategies for Financial Sustainability

Don’t put all your eggs in one basket .

—Proverb

Many field stations need a substantive transformation of their business practices and a long-term vision and strategy if they are to be financially sustainable. A report of the National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) and the Organization of Biological Field Stations (OBFS) and the details the future directions for science at field stations and provides some guidance to ensure that field stations are well positioned to advance research and innovation, education and training, and outreach in the 21st century (Billick et al. 2013). The NAML-OBFS report recommends that field stations increase their operational effectiveness, but it does not outline strategies on how to do it. In this chapter, the committee outlines how field stations should combine visionary leadership with strategic science and business planning to ensure long-term viability.

The goal of a comprehensive planning effort is to identify and articulate a compelling strategic vision and mission, to identify the assets of a given field station (or network of stations), to identify the future research challenges that it is uniquely positioned to address, to identify its unique education and outreach goals, metrics for measuring progress toward its goals, and to identify its value proposition (see Box 5-1 ). A programmatic planning effort should be supplemented with a business plan that makes explicit the field station’s value proposition and that includes strategies that contribute to its financial sustainability.

In developing a business plan, a field station should start by identifying its assets, including the products and services that it provides. In the aggregate, these become key elements of the field station’s value proposition and can lead to

BOX 5-1 Definition of Value Proposition

“[In marketing,] an innovation, service, or feature intended to make a company or product attractive to customers.” (Oxford Dictionary)

A field station’s value proposition can include elements as varied as longitudinal datasets, housing and conference facilities, extension and outreach learning opportunities for local communities, stewardardship of local natural history, and provision of rich research experiences at the convergence of disparate scientific disciplines. A field station’s value proposition will be of interest to an array of stakeholders, including scientists, funding agencies, alumni, local or nearby business owners and communities, citizen scientists, and possibly major corporations.

revenue that adds to the core support providing a hedge against fluctuations in any one source of support. Potential assets that can be monetized include educational programs, room and board, personnel (such as technicians), access to laboratory equipment, biological collections, and even access to data that have been collected at a site and that provide the context for a visiting investigator’s work. Each field station may have a different set of assets given its location, size and array of facilities, available long-term datasets, research equipment. personnel, and other resources. Assets that reflect the unique qualities of field stations, such as their physical location and access to distinctive ecosystems and their capability to merge science, education, and outreach unlike other institutions are particularly important for developing their value proposition. Executing the process identifying and assigning value to assets not only will allow a field station to inventory and document its assets, but will provide the information to market the assets to generate diverse sources of funding in support of its facilities and programs. However, careful consideration should be given to whether assets should be monetized for logistical, historical, or other strategic reasons. Successful expansion of public–private partnerships depends on a stable core of support that can be leveraged through a diversified value proposition that attracts an array of funding streams. It also depends on the visionary entrepreneurship of field station leaders who can attract and inspire funders and other partners.

Visionary Leadership

Effective leadership is one of the most critical factors in financial sustainability of field stations (Lohr 2001, NRC 2005). If field stations are to survive in the 21st century, they need leaders who will make them indispensable to their parent institutions. The idea of a field station as a separate and independent unit, often so remote as to be forgotten, is a thing of the past. The increasing sophistication of science, challenging economic realities, and the demand for greater accountability conspire to increase the demands and expectations of field station leadership. It behooves parent institutions and trustees to choose directors wisely and to place appropriate emphasis on the skill set a director will need to succeed.

There are parallels between the management needs of field stations and the management needs of businesses. One could say that field stations are in the “business” of scientific research, conservation, education, and public outreach. As such, the management of a field station requires individuals not only with scientific credentials, but also skills and experience in running successful businesses.

Often, the most common criterion in selecting the director of a field station, particularly one affiliated with a university, is the person’s stature as a scholar who will command the respect of participating faculty. Equally important, however, is that the director have strong leadership and management skills and is able to gain the respect of employees, students, potential funders, and members of the public. The leader needs to be willing to put the success of the organization that he or she leads ahead of—or at least on a par with—his or her own success as a scholar. The metrics for assessing the director’s performance should be clear and explicit before

hiring. For example, if a leader is hired as a tenured or tenure-track faculty member at a university-supported field station, it is important that tenure criteria and performance metrics reflect the roles and mission of the field station, which may differ in part from the roles and responsibilities of on-campus faculty. Many of the skills needed for success in leading a field station are not part of the skill set of the typical academic scholar, and they may need to be enhanced or provided by another member of the field station’s leadership/management team.

Field station directors are responsible both for building and sustaining the infrastructure that allows emerging science to thrive and for cultivating durable relationships with the parent organizations, the primary source of core support for most field stations. This requires that directors spend a significant amount of time working with key decision makers to develop a shared vision and trust while emphasizing the station’s critical contributions to the parent institution’s high-priority initiatives. This takes on particular importance for a field station affiliated with a university if it is to receive the same financial benefits and services as on-campus units. It also requires inviting university leaders and administrators to the field station, which is more easily accomplished once the relationship has developed.

Field station leadership may be implemented by using a variety of models. Depending on the size of the facility, various support staff may also be required to run and maintain it. In some cases, the dual roles—leader and manager of the field station—are held by one person, but in many cases the two roles are separated. The leader, or “champion,” is likely to be a tenured academic who has a reputation as a researcher in a field relevant to the field station. The academic leader’s salary often is a permanent line in a university budget. An operations manager, in contrast, is likely to be a person whose entire salary comes from the field station budget and may need more frequent justification to be established or maintained over the long term. A group of faculty that is committed to the success of the field station can often provide the energy and enthusiasm to sustain and support the leadership team and field station staff. Such a group can be vital in securing funds for research and for new infrastructure, in using the field station for classes, and in assisting in decision making and in securing institutional support. Finally, it is essential to plan for leadership succession. A change in a field station’s director should not cause the business or programmatic underpinnings of a field station to falter. If a field station lacks adequate leadership, its long-term sustainability will be compromised.

Various models are available for leading and managing field stations. Data from the NAML-OBFS survey of field stations (227 responses from 444 potential field stations) indicate that 72% have station directors, 62% have maintenance staff, 51% have office staff, and 49% have research technicians (NAML-OBSF 2013b). Those were the most commonly reported staff positions. Much smaller percentages of the facilities have information technology staff (21%), research directors (21%), data managers (21%), or education staff (27%). These data are insufficient for developing the best performance model, which varies with the size, complexity, and management scheme, but they identify the models that are used

most often.

Many directors will need training if they are to accomplish the leadership goals expected of them. Training is also critical for developing the next generation of effective science administrators. Training can be in the form of workshops that focus on creating vision and mission statements and business plans to support them, and that highlight successful leadership models that can be scaled to meet the needs of different kinds and sizes of field stations. Field stations associated with universities can work with their on-campus business schools in developing business plans. Those without business schools can turn to such organizations as the Senior Executive Service Corps that provide expert assistance to nonprofits at little or no cost to their clients. Workshops could be supported by NAML, OBFS, the National Science Foundation (NSF), or by other organizations. We applaud the recently launched Ecological Society of America Sustaining Biological Infrastructures initiative, funded by NSF. 36 Its first activity will be a workshop to train project directors in strategies for success. It is important to point out, however, that project management and program leadership and management are different challenges.

Success in a Time of Declining Resources

Funding from federal government grants and from most parent organizations, particularly universities, to support daily operations of field stations will continue to be a serious challenge for at least the near future. The bulk of support for most field stations generally comes from field stations’ host institutions, but field stations have come to depend upon other sources to push their research and education agendas forward. Among them is the NSF program Improvements in Facilities, Communications, and Equipment at Biological Field Stations and Marine Laboratories. The program has provided more than $47 million in support over the last 15 years, specifically for the infrastructure needs of individual field stations at accredited U.S. universities and nonacademic organizations and should be continued ( Figure 5-1 37 ). But the present financial situation of many field stations may not be sustainable. The committee believes that many field stations need to stabilize their base funding and diversify their funding portfolios.

If they are to be sustainable, many field stations need to make a more compelling case for their importance from the perspective not only of science and education, but also from other contributions they make to society if they are to be sustainable. Field stations can be important parts of local culture. They often maintain the best records of how the natural environment of a region has changed, and they may employ generations of local youth as field assistants or station workers. Evidence of a cognitive and physical health benefit from experiences in

__________________

36 http://esa.org/sbi

37 Information on the NSF awards was obtained from its public awards database, http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ .

FIGURE 5-1. NSF field station and marine laboratory award history (1999-2013) .The red line indicates the number of awards; the blue line indicates the total award amounts. The dip in 2011 reflects a change in the proposal deadline from early in the year to December. Data for this chart was obtained from the NSF public award database: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ .

nature is growing (Bratman et al. 2012). In some nations, forests are being established as a form of medicine. 38 Field stations have a role to play in this growing sense of the major health benefits of interaction with nature. Field stations are also employers. For example, aquariums and marine laboratories in the Monterey Bay Crescent combined have 1,726 employees whose wages total more than $77.7 million (Miller 2007). Thus, thinking of the value of field stations simply in terms of scientific publications or even number of students taught yields too narrow a perspective. Field stations should make as broad a case as possible for the public good that they deliver.

A November 2013 report released by Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell showed that national wildlife refuges contributed $2.4 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 35,000 jobs in 2013 (Carver and Caudill 2013). Field stations—particularly networks of field stations—would benefit from evaluating and sharing the links among their infrastructure and activities, stakeholder communities, and economic benefits (see Figure 5-2 ). Because a field station’s infrastructure underlies all of its program and activities, a field station’s value proposition, funding portfolio, and potential economic impacts are anchored in maintaining and upgrading its infrastructure. Economic impact analyses do not necessarily need to be conducted at each field station, but rather could be a coordinated effort of networks of field stations, to which economic multipliers can be applied for similar types of operations.

38 http://infom.org

Field stations also generate indirect economic benefits, such as providing expertise and data for use by industry (such as commercial and recreational fishing, aquaculture, and renewable energy) and helping to create the next-generation workforce of scientists and technicians.

Return on Investment

Before a station’s leaders develop strategies for long-term, sustainable support, they need to be able to answer a basic question: What is the return on investment?

Return on investment is a performance measure that is used to evaluate the efficacy of an investment. Field stations should be cognizant of the needs of their primary funding source (usually a university), local communities, and society at large and should actively and regularly seek their input. Knowing and understanding the community and societal needs can help field stations construct better and more effective research, education, and public-outreach programs and fundraising efforts. Appropriate metrics of the programs enable field stations to measure and articulate the returns on investment to current and future funders.

Stabilizing the Base

A stable, predictable, and adequate level of base support is a prerequisite for planning and is central to securing support from other sources to diversify a field station’s funding portfolio. Stabilizing base funding support of field stations is essential, particularly for those affiliated with academic institutions. Universities and other funders not only should commit to a sustained level of base support for their field stations, but also need to provide professional financial and fundraising assistance to field station leaders, many of whom have had little experience in financial management and fundraising.

Continuity of support for field station infrastructure—including information technology, base maintenance and operations, and long-term operations—is essential for addressing our nation’s environmental challenges in light of ever-increasing human pressures. Field stations should work together more effectively to share relevant data and other resources in a timely way. As discussed in Chapter 3 , networking can make such efforts more efficient and effective.

Importance of a Diversified Funding Portfolio

One of the key factors in ensuring the stability and sustainability of field stations will be the development of diversified portfolios of funding sources that will be more resilient in challenging economic times. Diversity of funding sources reduces an institution’s vulnerability to fluctuations in any one source of funding. Many field stations, particularly those affiliated with universities, depend too heavily on a single funding source for their support. As pointed out above, it is important that parent institutions provide a stable core of base support for their field

stations, but they should expect that this support will be leveraged. Most field stations have many opportunities to diversify and supplement their sources of funding.

The first step in creating a diversified funding base is the development of a solid business plan. Many potential funders will insist on this before they will consider making an award. A business plan should also help in securing and stabilizing core support from a host university. The importance of this approach became clear to members of the committee in discussions with the former directors of the Wrigley Institute of the University of Southern California, the Hopkins Marine Station, the Mote Marine Laboratory, and the Duke University Marine Lab and with the present director of the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.

FIGURE 5-2. Links between field stations, stakeholder communities, and economic benefits . A field station’s infrastructure underlies all of its programs. Infrastructure provides the basis for development of projects and activities in science, education, and public engagement along with connections to partners and stakeholders that share in these activities and related economic outcomes. Investments in constructing, maintaining, and upgrading a field station’s infrastructure (buildings, equipment, biological collections, datasets, etc.) are linked to eventual economic benefits of field station activities.

Partnerships with private enterprises depend on financial motivations, such as research and development opportunities that have tangible profit outcomes or marketing relationships that may enhance a company’s reputation or its products. Such opportunities may arise from time to time and should be seized when they occur and when they are appropriate, but they should not be counted on to make a large difference in the financial viability of field stations in general.

A networked community of collaborative field stations that shares resources, including human resources, will be more resilient than individual field stations in the face of stresses and shocks. A networked community will also be more capable of using technological advances to meet changing needs and to exploit new opportunities of science and society. The challenges and benefits of networking are explored in Chapter 3 . Each field station will need to consider how to facilitate collaborations with other field stations and research organizations (e.g., for cost- and revenue-sharing reasons) that may operate with different funding models.

Conclusions

The value of field stations to society, local communities, and the nation warrants reliable institutional support. Aging infrastructure, the need for advanced technology and cyberinfrastructure, and evolving safety regulations are increasing financial demands on field stations as they upgrade to meet emerging science and societal challenges. Sustainable funding for modern infrastructure will be possible only if field station leaders develop compelling value propositions, strategic plans, and business models for operations that can secure base funding support which in turn can be leveraged by support from diverse sources. However, field stations leaders too often lack the required entrepreneurial skills. Effective business planning requires strong linkages to funding institutions and reaching out to diverse constituencies that can derive value from field stations.

Recommendation : Field stations and their host institutions should develop business plans that include clear value propositions and mechanisms to establish reliable base funding commitments that can be supplemented with funding from diverse sources. Business planning requires that station leaders be recruited not only for their scientific credentials but also for their leadership, management, and entrepreneurial skills. Host institutions should provide mentoring of field station leaders in management, business planning, and fundraising when appropriate.

For over a century, field stations have been important entryways for scientists to study and make important discoveries about the natural world. They are centers of research, conservation, education, and public outreach, often embedded in natural environments that range from remote to densely populated urban locations. Because they lack traditional university departmental boundaries, researchers at field stations have the opportunity to converge their science disciplines in ways that can change careers and entire fields of inquiry. Field stations provide physical space for immersive research, hands-on learning, and new collaborations that are otherwise hard to achieve in the everyday bustle of research and teaching lives on campus. But the separation from university campuses that allows creativity to flourish also creates challenges. Sometimes, field stations are viewed as remote outposts and are overlooked because they tend to be away from population centers and their home institutions. This view is exacerbated by the lack of empirical evidence that can be used to demonstrate their value to science and society.

Enhancing the Value and Sustainability of Field Stations and Marine Laboratories in the 21st Century summarizes field stations' value to science, education, and outreach and evaluates their contributions to research, innovation, and education. This report suggests strategies to meet future research, education, outreach, infrastructure, funding, and logistical needs of field stations. Today's technologies - such as streaming data, remote sensing, robot-driven monitoring, automated DNA sequencing, and nanoparticle environmental sensors - provide means for field stations to retain their special connection to nature and still interact with the rest of the world in ways that can fuel breakthroughs in the environmental, physical, natural, and social sciences. The intellectual and natural capital of today's field stations present a solid platform, but many need enhancements of infrastructure and dynamic leadership if they are to meet the challenges of the complex problems facing the world. This report focuses on the capability of field stations to address societal needs today and in the future.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Financial technology and innovation for sustainable development.

Conflicts of Interest

List of contributions.

• Albuquerque, F.; Dos Santos, P.G. Recent Trends in Accounting and Information System Research: A Literature Review Using Textual Analysis Tools. FinTech   2023 , 2 , 248–274. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2020015 .
• Zhu, T.; Sun, X. Enterprise Financialization and Technological Innovation: An Empirical Study Based on A-Share Listed Companies Quoted on Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchange. FinTech   2023 , 2 , 275–293. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2020016 .
• Almeida, D.; Dionísio, A.; Ferreira, P.; Vieira, I. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cryptocurrency Markets: A DCCA Analysis. FinTech   2023 , 2 , 294–310. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2020017 .
• Cuc, S. Unlocking the Potential of Blockchain Technology in the Textile and Fashion Industry. FinTech   2023 , 2 , 311–326. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2020018 .
• Kherbachi, S. Digital Economy under Fintech Scope: Evidence from African Investment. FinTech   2023 , 2 , 475–483. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2030027 .
• Koelmel, B.; Borsch, M.; Bulander, R.; Waidelich, L.; Brugger, T.; Kuehn, A.; Weyer, M.; Schmerber, L.; Krutwig, M. Quantifying the Economic and Financial Viability of NB-IoT and LoRaWAN Technologies: A Comprehensive Life Cycle Cost Analysis Using Pragmatic Computational Tools. FinTech   2023 , 2 , 510–526. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2030029 .
• Dissanayake, H.; Popescu, C.; Iddagoda, A. A Bibliometric Analysis of Financial Technology: Unveiling the Research Landscape. FinTech   2023 , 2 , 527–542. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2030030 .
• Burciu, A.; Kicsi, R.; Buta, S.; State, M.; Burlac, I.; Chifan, D.A.; Ipsalat, B. The Study of the Relationship among GCI, GII, Disruptive Technology, and Social Innovations in MNCs: How Do We Evaluate Financial Innovations Made by Firms? A Preliminary Inquiry. FinTech   2023 , 2 , 572–613. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech2030033 .
• Mohammed, M.A.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Montes Botella, J.L. The Role of Financial Sanctions and Financial Development Factors on Central Bank Digital Currency Implementation. FinTech   2024 , 3 , 135–150. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech3010009 .
• Manta, O.; Palazzo, M. Transforming Financial Systems: The Role of Time Banking in Promoting Community Collaboration and Equitable Wealth Distribution. FinTech   2024 , 3 , 407–423. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech3030022 .

Share and Cite

Manta, O. Financial Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development. FinTech 2024 , 3 , 424-426. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech3030023

Manta O. Financial Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development. FinTech . 2024; 3(3):424-426. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech3030023

Manta, Otilia. 2024. "Financial Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development" FinTech 3, no. 3: 424-426. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech3030023

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals