Currently, a lack of consensus exists in the literature on the link between performance and corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD). A meta-analysis was carried out to shed light on this controversial topic, using the ABI/Inform Complete and EconLit databases as search tools. To isolate articles with substantive, methodological relevance, various filters were used. In addition to other criteria, all articles had to contain certain keywords related to the study’s variables and at least one of the seven keywords indicating empirical data analysis. As a result of this procedure, the meta-analysis included only 95 articles. To process the sample, we employed the procedure developed by Hunter and Schmidt. The results show that the CSRD-performance relationship is not significant enough for practical purposes. However, an analysis of moderating variables revealed that the connection becomes of practical importance when moderated by three key variables: region, type of disclosure, and measures of organization size. This research’s findings make a significant contribution by clarifying the links between CSRD and performance and identifying which variables can explain the diverse results of previous research. Regarding limitations, the meta-analysis was subject to the availability of published research and included only studies that reported Pearson correlation coefficients and standardized beta coefficients.

Due to the lack of consensus on the Sustainable Disclosure (SD)–Sustainable Performance (SP) relationship and the absence of a robust theoretical framework base, this research tests this relationship. Based on Ullmann’s argument that the execution of corporate responsibility regarding SD, SP and EP (economic performance) is determined by the management’s (unobservable) overall strategy, we apply Partial Least Squares, introducing EP, size and membership in sensitive sectors and subjecting them to a multiplicity of external pressures (social, environmental and legislative) as determinants of the SD–SP link. There is a moderate SD–SP relationship, with a significant effect due to EP and conditioned by size. Specifically, (1) the companies that are concerned and which act sustainably have a higher SD, (2) the greater the EP, the greater its effect on this SD, but (3) when the sample is segmented by size, the moderating effect is only positive and significant for large companies. An awareness of the added value of the sustainable business model exists, more than simply reporting (actions beyond words), but the value that its profitability yields will not be determinant for SP, though it will affect SD, despite there being no direct relationship between performance and SD.

Because the issue of sustainability presents urgent problems crucial to the future of mankind, there has been serious discussion of the role accounting should play. In this context, a new line of research, still at a relatively unexplored, embryonic stage, has arisen, which tries to establish measurement of business sustainability and so compensate for the lack of information currently existing about the net impact of the company's activity. Full Cost Accounting could allow sustainability to be translated into the language of business, together with analysis and comparison of its progress, so it might be the most appropriate vehicle for more participatory, democratic accounting, with greater dialogue, giving the accountant a much more active role, this being necessary in order to generalize the research, development and use. To analyze the current situation, a survey of 192 Spanish companies was carried out to obtain at first hand the perception of strategic positioning adopted with regard to Sustainable Development, measurement of the contribution of business activity to its achievement and the rendering of accounts carried out.

No abstract