Review of extant research on the corporate environmental performance (CEP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) link generally demonstrates a positive relationship. However, some arguments and empirical results have demonstrated otherwise. As a result, researchers have called for a contingency approach to this research stream, which moves beyond the basic question ''does it pay to be green?'' and instead asks ''when does it pay to be green?'' In answering this call, we provide a meta-analytic review of CEP-CFP literature in which we identify potential moderators to the CEP-CFP relationship including environmental performance type (e.g., reactive vs. proactive performance), firm characteristics (e.g., large vs. small firms), and methodological issues (e.g., self-report measures). By analyzing these contingencies, this study attempts to provide a basis on which to draw conclusions regarding some inconsistencies and debates in the CEP-CFP research. Some of the results of the moderator analysis suggest that small firms benefit from environmental performance as much or more than large firms, US firms seem to benefit more than international counterparts, and environmental performance seems to have the strongest influence on market-measures of financial performance. environmental performance type (e.g., reactive vs. proactive performance), firm characteristics (e.g., large vs. small firms), and methodological issues (e.g., self-report measures). By analyzing these contingencies, this study attempts to provide a basis on which to draw conclusions regarding some inconsistencies and debates in the CEP-CFP research. Some of the results of the moderator analysis suggest that small firms benefit from environmental performance as much or more than large firms, US firms seem to benefit more than international counterparts, and environmental performance seems to have the strongest influence on market-measures of financial performance.

This paper has three main aims. First, the paper introduces the concept of integrated reporting () as described by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). A background to the development of the concept over the 4‐year period from the inception of the IIRC in 2010 is provided, culminating in the release by the IIRC of a Consultation Draft (CD) of the framework in March 2013. Second, the paper discusses key issues currently being debated relating to the CD that the IIRC will need to resolve prior to the expected release of their framework in late 2013. This discussion is based on issues identified and reported to the IIRC by a subcommittee of the International Association for Accounting Education and Research (IAAER) comprised of international accounting academics. Finally, the paper identifies a range of potential research issues relating to the development and implementation of .

No abstract

No abstract

SUMMARY This study provides evidence on whether sustainability-oriented corporate governance mechanisms impact the voluntary assurance of corporate sustainability reports. Specifically, we consider the presence and characteristics of environmental committees on the Board of Directors and a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) among the management team. When examining assurance services, we make a distinction between those services performed by professional accountants, consultants, and internal auditors. We find that the presence of a CSO is positively associated with corporate sustainability report assurance services, and this association increases when the CSO has sustainability expertise. Supporting the position that some firms establish sustainability-related governance merely to conform to socially desired behavior, we find that only those environmental committees containing directors with related expertise influence the likelihood of adopting sustainability assurance. Presently, environmental committees with greater expertise appear to prefer the higher-quality assurance services of professional accounting firms. Expert CSOs, on the other hand, prefer assurance services from their peers with sustainability expertise, as evidenced by their choice to employ consultants. When analyzing firms' environmental contextual characteristics, we find that firms employing a CSO and exhibiting poor environmental performance, relative to other firms in their industry, prefer to report sustainability results without assurance. While we do find that larger firms in the U.S. are significantly less likely to employ assurance, this result decreases over time. Further, we provide initial evidence that the value-relevance of sustainability assurance is increasing with time.