Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The contribution of the right to information laws in Europe to local government transparency on sustainability

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine the influence of the right to information laws on sustainability transparency in European local governments. This goal is novel, in that previous studies have examined the effects of various factors on the dissemination of government information (demographic, socioeconomic, political and financial) but not the contribution of legal factors to online transparency on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Our research question is this: Do information laws contribute to transparency on sustainability? Using the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines and a statistical regression analysis, we studied the websites of 106 local governments in ten European countries. The results obtained show that when transparency laws clearly stipulate the rules applicable and the procedures established for appeals, exceptions, refusals and requests, this can favour transparency on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Our findings advance understanding of this field and reinforce the basis for legal reforms to enhance sustainability transparency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

UNFCCC:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UN:

United Nations

EU:

European Union

IMF:

International Monetary Found

CLD:

Centre for Law and Democracy

GRI:

Global Reporting Initiative

SDG:

Sustainable Development Goals

NAO:

National Audit Office

IFAC:

International Federation of Accountants

RTI:

Right to Information Rating

KMO:

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

References

  • Afonso, A., & Jalles, J. T. (2015). Fiscal sustainability: A panel assessment for advanced economies. Applied Economics Letters,22, 925–929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcaraz-Quiles, F. J., Navarro-Galera, A., & Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. (2015). Factors determining online sustainability reporting by local governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences,81, 79–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, C. L. (2011). Providing a clearer view: An examination of transparency on local government websites. Government Information Quarterly,28, 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, D. L. (2009). Advancing E-Government performance in the United States through enhanced usability benchmarks. Government Information Quarterly,26, 82–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansard, J. S., Pattberg, P. H., & Wideberg, O. (2017). Cities to the rescue? Assessing the performance of transntional municipal networks in global climate governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,17, 229–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batabyal, A. A. (2016). Sustainable growth and development in regional economy. Regional Studies,50, 922–923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beare, D., Buslovich, R., & Searcy, C. (2014). Linkages between corporate sustainability reporting and public policy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,21, 336–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. A. P. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal,13(4), 447–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusca, I., Rossi, F. M., & Aversano, N. (2016). Online sustainability information in local governments in an austerity context. Online Information Review,40, 497–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhmann, K. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: what role for law? Some aspects of law and CSR. Corporate Governance,6(2), 188–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camilleri, M. A. (2015). Valuing stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting. Corporate Reputation Review,18, 210–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castan Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change,23, 92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD). (2015). Global Right to Information Rating. Centre for Law and Democracy. www.rti-rating.org. Accessed 18 December 2018.

  • Chu, H. (2015). Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis. Library and Information Science Research,37, 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clémençon, R. (2016). The two sides of the Paris climate agreement: Dismal failure or historic breakthrough? The Journal of Environment and Development,25(1), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cucciniello, M., & Nasi, G. (2014). Transparency for trust in government: How effective is formal transparency? International Journal of Public Administration,37, 911–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Cruz, N. F., Tavares, A. F., Marques, R. C., Jorge, S., & de Sousa, L. (2016). Measuring local government transparency. Public Management Review,18, 866–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, N., Justice, J., & McNutt, J. G. (2015). Smart cities are transparent cities: The role of fiscal transparency in smart city governance”. In M. P. Rodriguez-Bolivar (Ed.), Transforming city governments for successful Smart cities. Basel: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Unerman, J. (2006). Financial accounting theory. Sydney: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domingues, A. R., Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., & Ramos, T. B. (2017). Sustainability reporting in public sector organisations: Exploring the relation between the reporting process and organisational change management for sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management,192, 292–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domingues, A. R., Moreno-Pires, S., Caeiro, S., & Ramos, T. B. (2015). Defining criteria and indicators for a sustainability label of local public services. Ecological Indicators,57, 452–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumay, J. C., Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2010). GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public and third sector organisations. Public Management Review,12, 531–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erkkila, T. (2016). Global governance indices as policy instruments: actionability, transparency and comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis,18, 382–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. (2012). Stability and growth pact. https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/eu-economic-governance-monitoring-prevention-correction/stability-and-growth-pact_en. Accessed 10 December 2018.

  • EU. (2014). Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 Amending Directive 2013/34/EU as Regards Disclosure of Non-Financial and Diversity Information by Certain Large Undertakings and Groups. Brussels: EU Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. (2015). European commission. Transparency portal. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/index_es.htm. Accessed 10 December 2018.

  • Farneti, F., & Siboni, B. (2011). An analysis of the Italian governmental guidelines and of the local governments’ practices for social reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,2, 101–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • G-20. (2013). G-20 leaders’ declaration. Document, St. Petersburg, Russia, 6th September 2013. www.g20.org. Accessed 10 December 2018.

  • Goswami, K., & Lodhia, S. (2014). Sustainability disclosure patterns of South Australian local councils: a case study. Public Money and Management,34, 273–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2005). Sector supplement for public agencies. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2006). G3 sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2010). Reporting in government agencies. Amsterdam: GRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI (2013). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/g4/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 12 December 2018.

  • Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., et al. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature,495(7441), 305–307.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics,123, 401–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, T., & Coenen, F. (2011). Creating an analytical framework for local sustainability performance: A Dutch case study. Local Environment,16, 229–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFAC (2013) Accountability, sustainability, and growth recommendations for the G-20 leaders’ summit. http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/accountability-sustainability-and-growth-recommendations-g-20-leaders-summit. Accessed 15 November 2018.

  • IMF. (2014). Fiscal transparency code. Washington: IMF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery, C. (2015). The regional dimension of the European Union: Towards a third level in Europe?. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, S., & Wollmann, H. (2014). Introduction to comparative public administration: Administrative systems and reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodhia, S., Jacobs, K., & Park, Y. J. (2012). Driving public sector environmental reporting. Public Management Review,14, 631–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michener, G., & Bersch, K. (2013). Identifying transparency. Information Polity,18, 233–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAO. (2012). Sustainability reporting in government. London: NAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro-Galera, A., Alcaraz-Quiles, F. J., & Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. (2010). La divulgación de información sobre responsabilidad social corporativa en administraciones públicas: un estudio empírico en gobiernos locales. Revista Española de Contabilidad RC-SAR,13(2), 285–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro-Galera, A., Alcaraz-Quiles, F. J., & Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. (2016). Online dissemination of information on sustainability in regional governments. Effects of technological factors. Government Information Quarterly,33, 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemann, L., & Hoppe, T. (2018). Sustainability reporting by local governments: A magic tool? Lessons on use and usefulness from European pioneers. Public Management Review,20, 201–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nogueiro, L., & Ramos, T. B. (2009). Environmental management practices in local public administration in Portugal. In A. Mumba & T. Ketola (Eds.), Responsible leadership. Vaasa: Vaasan yliopisto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, K. H., Bakhtiari, F., Duggal, V. K., & Fenhann, J. V. (2019). Sustainability labelling as a tool for reporting the sustainable development impacts of climate actions relevant to Article 6 of Paris Agreement. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,19, 225–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-Rodríguez, D., Navarro-Galera, A., & Alcaraz-Quiles, F. J. (2018). The influence of administrative culture on sustainability transparency in European Local Governments. Administration and Society,50, 555–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennix, R., Kraal, K., Martinello, M., & Vertovec, S. (2016). Citizenship in European cities. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2010). Is e-government promoting convergence towards more accountable local governments? International Public Management Journal,13(4), 350–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randma-Liiv, T., & Kickert, W. (2017). The impact of fiscal crisis on public administration reforms in Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice,19, 91–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salling, K. B., & Pryn, M. R. (2015). Sustainable transport project evaluation and decision support: Indicators and planning criteria for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,22(4), 346–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvé, S., Bernardac, S., & Sloanad, P. (2016). Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environmental Development,17, 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skare, M., & Golja, T. (2014). The impact of government CSR supporting policies on economic growth. Journal of Policy Modeling,36, 562–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stazyk, E. C., Moldavanova, A., & Frederickson, H. G. (2016). Sustainability, intergenerational social equity, and the socially responsible organization. Administration and Society,48, 655–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagesson, T., Klugman, M., & Ekström, M. L. (2013). What explains the extent and content of social disclosures in Swedish municipalities’ annual reports. Journal of Management and Governance,17, 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects. New York: UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. Accessed 20 November 2018.

  • UN World Summit. (2005). 2005 World summit. High-Level plenary meeting. 14–16th September. https://Www.Un.Org/Ga/Documents/Overview2005summit.Pdf. Accessed 22 November 2018.

  • UNFCCC. (1998). Kyoto protocol. Kyoto: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf. Accessed 22 December 2018.

  • UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris agreement. Paris: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. Accessed 10 November 2018.

  • Weaver, D. (2018). The Aarhus convention and process cosmopolitanism. 18 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,18, 199–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, E. W. (2016). The relationship between transparent and participative government: A study of local governments in the United States. International Review of Administrative Science,78(1), 93–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B., Wilmshurst, T., & Clift, R. (2011). Sustainability reporting by local government in Australia: Current and future prospects. Account Forum,35, 176–186.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Department of Accounting and Finance from the University of Granada for its financial supporting and two reviewers for helping us to improve our manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Finance, Facultad de CC Económicas y Empresariales, University of Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Francisco J. Alcaraz-Quiles, Andrés Navarro-Galera & David Ortiz-Rodríguez

Authors
  1. Francisco J. Alcaraz-Quiles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrés Navarro-Galera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Ortiz-Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrés Navarro-Galera.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix

Appendix

Block 1: General information about sustainability

 1. Strategy and analysis

  1. Is a statement made by the Head of Government on the importance of sustainability for the LG/RG and its strategy?

7

12.73%

1

5.88%

  2. Does this statement set out priorities, strategies and key factors for the short-medium term?

6

10.91%

1

5.88%

  3. Does this statement address long-term trends relevant to priorities concerning sustainability?

5

9.09%

0

0.00%

  4. Does this statement include events, achievements and failures during the period in question?

0

0.00%

1

5.88%

  5. Does this statement include goals-oriented performance perspectives?

2

3.64%

0

0.00%

  6. Does this statement include challenges and targets for the coming year and the forthcoming 3-5 years?

4

7.27%

0

0.00%

 2. Organisation profile

  7. Does the LG/RG own trademarks?

4

7.27%

10

58.82%

  8. Are different areas clearly defined?

53

96.36%

17

100.00%

  9. Do LG/RG officials have area-defined responsibilities?

52

94.55%

17

100.00%

  10. Is the situation of the local/regional seat of government stated?

52

94.55%

17

100.00%

  11. Is a statement made of the number of countries in which significant activities are carried out?

52

94.55%

17

100.00%

  12. Is the number of employees stated?

7

12.73%

9

52.94%

  13. Have significant changes taken place in the LG/RG structure or size?

1

1.82%

4

23.53%

  14. Has the LG/RG been awarded prizes or other recognition during the period in question?

3

5.45%

5

29.41%

 3. Information parameters

  15. Is a statement made of the period corresponding to the information supplied?

49

89.09%

17

100.00%

  16. Is the date of publication of this information stated?

32

58.18%

17

100.00%

  17. Is the presentation frequency of this information stated?

32

58.18%

17

100.00%

  18. Is there a liaison person for questions concerning the information supplied?

53

96.36%

17

100.00%

  19. Does the information supplied include dates of specific interest for suppliers and users?

51

92.73%

16

94.12%

  20. Is priority assigned to the aspects addressed in the information supplied?

2

3.64%

1

5.88%

 4. Government, undertakings and stakeholder participation

  21. Is there a given person or government body responsible for defining organisation strategy?

53

96.36%

17

100.00%

  22. Does the chief official hold any other public or private post?

17

30.91%

8

47.06%

  23. Do there exist works’ committees or workers’ representatives?

53

96.36%

15

88.24%

  24. Are the stakeholders included in the information supplied?

12

21.82%

10

58.82%

  25. Are stakeholder selection and identification criteria included in the information supplied?

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

Block 2: Economic information about sustainability

 5. Economic Indicators

  26. Is an expenditure forecast/beneficiary population published?

40

72.73%

17

100.00%

  27. Is a revenue forecast/beneficiary population published?

39

70.91%

17

100.00%

  28. Are revenues transferred from other public administrations/total revenues published?

38

69.09%

17

100.00%

  29. Is gross expenditure, detailed by type of payment, published?

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

  30. Is gross expenditure, detailed by financial classification, published?

26

47.27%

17

100.00%

  31. Is capital expenditure, detailed by financial classification, published?

14

25.45%

9

52.94%

  32. Is the policy on internal promotion published?

12

21.82%

4

23.53%

  33. Are staff training facilities published?

30

54.55%

14

82.35%

  34. Is a statement made of future financial risk?

12

21.82%

15

88.24%

  35. Are data given on subsidies received?

11

20.00%

3

17.65%

  36. Is a report published on the expenditure forecast?

38

69.09%

16

94.12%

  37. Does the latter include medium-term perspectives?

17

30.91%

15

88.24%

  38. Are the following key economic assumptions and forecast made public: GDP growth, employment, unemployment, inflation and rates of interest?

10

18.18%

14

82.35%

  39. Is a statement made on expenditure incurred in the area of social issues?

18

32.73%

14

82.35%

  40. Is information given on initial wage (when staff are hired)/local minimum wage?

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

  41. Is information given on expenditure on local suppliers/total expenditure?

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

 6. Social Indicators

  42. Is the offer of services made public?

51

92.73%

17

100.00%

  43. Is a subsidies announcement made for business activities?

52

94.55%

17

100.00%

  44. Is a statement made on pensions obligations to employees?

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

  45. Are grants offers to neighbourhood associations made public?

52

94.55%

17

100.00%

  46. Are offers of public employment made public?

53

96.36%

17

100.00%

  47. Are grants offers to NGOs made public?

52

94.55%

17

100.00%

  48. Are indicators of effectiveness and efficiency published?

9

16.36%

13

76.47%

 7. Environmental Indicators

  49. Is information published on the initiatives taken to alleviate the environmental impact of products and services?

8

14.55%

4

23.53%

  50. Is the degree of reduction of the above impact stated?

2

3.64%

1

5.88%

  51. Is a statement made of the direct consumption of energy obtained from primary sources?

9

16.36%

10

58.82%

  52. Is a statement made of the consumption of intermediate energy?

16

29.09%

10

58.82%

  53. Is a statement made of the actions taken to increase savings via conservation or increased efficiency?

13

23.64%

16

94.12%

  54. Is information published on initiatives taken to promote products and services that are energy efficient or based on the use of renewable energies?

16

29.09%

17

100.00%

  55. Is information published on reductions in energy consumption as a result of the above initiatives?

6

10.91%

3

17.65%

  56. Is information published on the initiatives taken to reduce indirect energy consumption?

13

23.64%

16

94.12%

  57. Is information published on reductions achieved by the above initiatives?

5

9.09%

4

23.53%

  58. Is information published on the different sources of water supply employed, and the volume obtained from each source?

25

45.45%

14

82.35%

  59. Is information published on the percentage and total volume of water that is recycled and reused in the community?

11

20.00%

6

35.29%

  60. Is information published on the disposal of waste water by the community?

20

36.36%

13

76.47%

  61. Is information published on the total and type of expenditure on environmental investment?

29

52.73%

17

100.00%

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alcaraz-Quiles, F.J., Navarro-Galera, A. & Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. The contribution of the right to information laws in Europe to local government transparency on sustainability. Int Environ Agreements 20, 161–178 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09461-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09461-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation