Understanding the dynamics behind the integration of the SDGs within non-financial reports represents one of the main future challenges for business and management’s scholars [
22]. On this point, the last years have been interested by a wide dissemination of preliminary contribution inspired by the needs to systematize the scientific knowledge on the topic [
23]. Furthermore, the centrality of the topic has been underlined by policy makers and NGOs [
24]. However, previous studies have highlighted the existence of complexities that negatively impact on the systematization of firms’ contribution to the SDGs within a theoretical framework. In detail, a study conducted by Schaltegger [
24] suggests that the interlinkage between the 17 SDGs and the difficulty to identify a direct clear connection between firms and some goals negatively impact on the development of a theoretical framework [
25]. In this sense, the first five years after the launch of 2030 Agenda has been characterized by the development of studies based on prior theoretical framework used in non-financial reporting research.
2.1. SDG Reporting and Banking Sector
2030 Agenda explicitly calls into action the private sector [
26] with the role of enabling toward the transition to a more sustainable society. Despite the proliferation of new forms of regulation on non-financial reporting, the approach toward SDG reporting is voluntary [
25] and the current debate is characterized by the absence of a set of specific standards on SDG reporting. Thus, the integration of the SDGs within the non-financial reports is driven by the need to engage with stakeholders and not by an institutional pressure made by regulators. The integration of the SDGs within the non-financial statement represents a strategy used by firms to engage with stakeholders. In particular, the quick increase of the overall number of non-financial reports disclosed yearly reduces the signaling effects related to the adoption of reporting system [
27]. In this sense, the integration of the SDGs represents a way to increase the accountability of the information provided by firms regarding their contribution to the society [
23]. In fact, according to legitimacy theory, the disclosure of non-financial information represents an effective way to gain, maintain, and repair reputation [
28]. Thus, the voluntary disclosure of information on SDGs within contexts characterized by non-financial regulation (e.g., Europe) represents a way to avoid the negative externalities caused by the adoption of tick-box approach by competitors. In detail, on the one hand, the integration of the SDGs favors the identification of firms inspired by sustainable behaviors [
29]. On the other hand, the disclosure of the SDGs within a real orientation toward sustainable principles is an activity characterized by a high degree of complexity. On that point, scholars have started to discuss about a new frontier of Greenwashing called “SDG-Washing” [
30].
The current scenario is characterized by shortage of studies on SDG reporting practices. In particular, as evidenced by Tsalis and colleagues [
31], the last years have been interested by the development of several studies based on compound indicators used to evaluate the overall quality of SDG reporting practices. The authors underlined that some fields are not yet adequately explored. In particular, one of the research areas characterized by very few studies is represented by banking sector. The main contribution provided to the debate is represented by the paper of Avrampou et al. [
32]. The paper analyzes a limited number of European banks in order to evaluate their overall degree of contribution to the SDGs. Thus, the overall knowledge on one of the main sectors involved within the policies on SDGs still remains low. In addition, the existence of relationships between financial institutions and controversial firms (e.g., tobacco, oil and gas) underlines the need to better analyze the sector in order to evaluate both managerial and policy implications [
33].
2.2. Literary Review on SDGs
A first systematization attempt of SDGs studies can be found in Bebbington and Unerman [
23] who, while tracing the “future research agenda”, identify the following strands:
The most relevant studies on the SDGs and sustainable development, although exploring various subjects, are mainly focused on management [
6,
37], accounting, and accountability [
38].
Within the literature on accounting and accountability on SDGs, it is possible to identify some strands of research:
Studies focused on the “narratives” of the reports, which critically investigate the use of reporting of the SDGs [
39,
40,
41].
Thematic studies that address aspects related to the connectivity [
6,
42,
43], the integration between objectives [
44], or the identification of macrothemes the most SDGs converge [
45,
46].
Comparative studies, aimed at identifying the priority SDGs in the different industrial sectors, geographical areas, and different categories of subjects called upon to support the achievement of the SDGs (private sector, public sector, academic community, etc. [
47,
48].
Empirical studies that seek to identify factors, internal and external, affecting or discriminating the SDG reporting [
3].
Our paper fits into the two latter strands of the literature. In the first strand, Kourula [
49] leads a wide review of the research published in international business and management journals and finds that the literature focuses on the following SDGs: Goals 1 (No poverty), 2 (Zero hunger), 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), 8 (Decent work and economic growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), 10 (Reduced Inequality), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), 13 (Climate Action), and 17 (Partnerships to achieve the Goal). Salvia et al., 2019, through interviews with 266 experts (academics, researchers) from North America, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania, identifies the topics most frequently researched in the different Countries and explains them through connection with local problems. In particular, the most popular topics in Europe concern SDGs 4, 11, 12, 13, i.e., education, sustainable communities and cities, consumption and responsible production, and climate action. The most researched goal is represented by «Climate action».
Ranängen et al. [
50] show that two Swedish municipalities have introduced several aspects of sustainability in their governance, especially in terms of society, human rights, and the environment. By using materiality analysis, the authors highlight that the use of fresh water (SDGs 6), the action for the climate (SDG 13), and biodiversity (SDGs 14,15) seem to be the most important SDGs.
As for the private sector studies, Van Zanten and Van Tulder [
19] show that multinational European companies are committed toward a largest number of SDGs than North American multinationals and that multinationals in industrial sectors that have negative externalities (agriculture, alcohol, tobacco, chemicals, mines, etc.) mainly pursue the SDGs that can help “avoid damage” rather than help “do good”. The most pursued goals are, in descending order, SDG 16 (Strong institutions for the peace and justice), 5 (Gender equality), 8 (Decent work and economic growth), and 12 (Consumption and responsible production). Objective 13 (climate action) is in an intermediate position (eighth) among the priority themes.
Ike et al. [
20] highlight that Japanese multinationals engage as a priority with SDGs 4 (Education), 8 (Decent work and economic growth), 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
In line with the above studies, mention should be made of the results of some surveys conducted, at the international level, by non-governmental bodies and consulting companies.
PWC [
13], for instance, provides a survey on the state of SDG reporting by taking into account corporate reports issued by 729 multinational enterprises operating in 21 Countries and in 6 macro-sectors, including the financial services. The findings suggest that companies providing financial services give priority to the SDGs in line with the existing business strategies, namely goals 13, 8, 4, 11, and 3.
An analysis conducted by the UN Global Compact [
8] shows, conversely, that SDGs 8, 3, 5, and 4 are the goals selected by most companies.
E&Y [
51] differs from the previous reports as it makes a comprehensive analysis of the contribution provided by the financial sector to the SDGs by identifying the strategic relevance of goals 5, 8, 10, 13, and 16.
KPMG [
14] provides a global overview of the state of non-financial reporting (company samples N100 and G250) and underlines the trend of SDG reporting, which quite clearly reveals that the sector of financial services gives priority to goals 13, 8, 4, 5, 11, and 13.
One year later, KPMG itself [
12] published a report that shows that only 40% of the biggest companies in the world include in their reports explicit references to the goals of sustainable development. In the sector of financial services, the rate is 37% as opposed to a peak of 58% for utilities and 28% for oil and gas.
In addition, OXFAM [
52], a non-governmental organization operating in over 90 countries worldwide, investigates the content of non-financial disclosures (on the SDGs) included in the final balance sheets of 76 larger companies. From this analysis, five serious defaults emerge lack of a coherent approach to prioritize and implement the SDGs; the poor impact of the SDGs on sustainability strategies and related action plans; reduced link between policy and risk in terms of human rights and the SDGs; fragmentary and at times incoherent SDG reporting.
This report does not provide, however, specific references to the financial sector. References, conversely, can be found in some research papers conducted on the first non-financial statements (2017) (hereinafter the “DNF”) of the Italian EIP:
Deloitte-SDA Bocconi [
10], a report showing that 21% of EIP (198 DNF published within 15 July 2018)—within the scope of the Legislative Decree 254/16—provides SDG reporting mainly on goals 1, 3, and 11.
GBS [
15], a research showing that 17% of EIP (202 DNF published within 31 August 2018) provides SDG reporting. Banks, in particular, in addition to presenting a good level of SDG reporting compared with other sectors, provide quantitatively reliable and more relevant information with regard to goal 8 and higher-quality information as for goals 3, 6, 7, and 14 [
15].
The above reports, except for the last one, investigate the macro-sector of financial services that include banks, insurance companies, and financial institutions. The same applies to scientific production, in the context of which only few studies have focused on the banking sector.
Among these, a recent study by Avrampou [
32] proposes a method for analyzing the contribution from the banking sector to the SDGs on the basis of corporate sustainability disclosures in a sample of five large European banks. The proposed scoring system evaluates the contribution and completeness of non-financial disclosures concerning the SDGs according to the capacity of a report to provide detailed information on GRI indicators and business topics linked to the SDGs. Authors conclude that disclosures are incomplete and that the best-reported SDGs are goals 4, 8, and 16.
The present paper also refers to the last strand of literature concerning the contingency factors affecting or differentiating the implementation of sustainable development goals and of SDG reporting [
47,
53,
54].
Among the internal (organizational) factors impacting on SDG reporting, Rosati and Faria [
3] identify the greater dimension of companies, higher levels of tangible assets, a stronger commitment to the sustainability framework, external assurance, and boards characterized by a significant female presence and a lower average age. These results do not explicitly take into account the financial sector, probably included in the category “Others”.
Other studies investigate the influence of internal factors and confirm the importance of sustainability reporting in promoting CSR progress [
55]. Therefore, SDG reporting acts as a driver for the implementation of sustainability-oriented investments and strategies [
56].
Among the external factors able to encourage due attention to the SDGs, Biermann et al. [
57] underline the rate of commitment toward the SDGs and turn them into domestic goals.
Rosati and Faria [
47], through the investigation of 2413 sustainability reports in six institutional systems and in 90 countries, conclude that companies are more likely to report on the SDGs in presence of external and contextual variables such as sociocultural system, educational system, and labor market, propensity of policymakers toward social responsibility, climate change vulnerability, and the presence of a variable set of instruments for protecting employment and bank-centered economies.
Starting from an analysis conducted on both strands of studies, this paper wants to contribute to the extant literature by investigating the SDG reporting in the EU banking sector, by examining 262 banks operating within the EU. This is a context involved in the transposition of the EU Directive 2014/95 on the non-financial disclosure, starting from which a new trend on SDG reporting is becoming consolidated [
58]. In contrast to the other studies, this investigation is not exclusively focused on banks compliant with the GRI framework with regard to sustainability reporting, as this could lead to a misinterpretation of the findings [
37]. Furthermore, the results of this study refer not only to an evaluation of the 17 goals included in non-financial disclosures issued by EU Countries’ banks, but also to an investigation of some internal and external factors characterizing the levels of voluntary disclosure.