Financial analysis, traditionally considered as a suitable tool for assessing a company's financial and economic situation and guiding the decision-making processes of companies and financial markets, should embrace sustainability issues within its logic, under some kind of scheme or framework that permits the evaluation of a company's sustainable management system and the impact of sustainability issues on financial performance. An integrated model is needed that takes into account the social, environmental and economic performances of a company and their expression using data that is both quantitative and qualitative, accounting and non-accounting, physical and monetary. In this paper an integrated framework for the financial analysis of the creation of sustainability-oriented value in companies is proposed.

Abstract:Reputation is a complex and multidimensional concept that may be organized in downside and upside reputational risk. In this article, we present a formal modelling for the management capabilities of environmental management and reporting over reputational risk, considering that reputational risk is becoming increasingly important for organizations and it directly depends on the information available about companies' environmental performances. As long as the effectiveness of communication and disclosure plays a key role in the process, the usefulness of environmental management and reporting as a hedging instrument for reputational risk is addressed through different levels of information transparency. When considering a scenario of voluntary reporting, we show that environmentally concerned companies can reduce the cost of environmental management as a reputational risk strategy, as well as reducing the potential loss of reputational value from reputational threats and increasing the potential profit from reputational opportunities. In the context of mandatory reporting, we highlight the role of assurance companies as bearers of the risk of bad reputations for non-concerned companies. As a result, this novel approach applies theoretical oriented research from options theory to reputational risk management literature, so that it benefits from the option's well known theory, robustness, and conclusions.

Socially responsible investment (SRI) indices provide an interesting opportunity to analyse the links between corporate financial performance (CFP) and corporate sustainability performance (CSP). However, few studies focus on the antecedents of inclusions in and exclusions from SRI indices. Specifically, the implications of corporate sustainability disclosure (CSD) have been largely ignored in this field. Furthermore, previous literature on the CSP-CSD-CFP links shows inconclusive results that have been attributed to both methodological and measurement problems, which suggest the existence of asymmetry, equifinality and complexity amongst these links. This study targets two under-researched areas regarding the determinants of changes in the composition of SRI indices, and the effects of CSD on CSP. This study also attempts to overcome the methodological and measurement limitations of previous studies on the CFP-CSD-CSP links. The study presents a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to explore how different combinations of CFP and CSD indicators are related to inclusions in an SRI index (assumed as expressions of a good CSP), and exclusions from an SRI index (equivalent to a poor CSP). The empirical results reveal that a combination of different CSD indicators is necessary, but not sufficient, to lead to the inclusion in or exclusion from an SRI index, and that CFP measures have asymmetrical effects on CSP. CSD is a relevant antecedent or precondition of CSP that can motivate changes in corporate behaviours towards an improved CSP. Poor CSP, leading to an exclusion from the index, is associated with poor CSD and a deterioration of CFP. The implications for researchers, business managers, SRI rating agencies and policymakers are derived.

No abstract

No abstract

Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) can be defined as discretional, voluntary and useful informal behaviour that is not directly acknowledged by the organisation's formal reward system. Such behaviour refers to actions that go beyond performing the tasks defined as part of one's job. Previous studies have shown that organisations that promote OCB can notably improve their productivity and efficiency. It is therefore important to know what causes employees to engage in OCB rather than just limiting themselves to doing what is strictly expected at work. However, it is more important to know why they do not engage in OCB. Using a sample of public prison employees and the fsQCA method, this study examines how the combined effects of organisational characteristics, leadership behaviours and individual characteristics lead to the absence of OCB. The results indicate that the absence of affective commitment, or job satisfaction, or interactional justice is a necessary condition for the absence of OCB. Four conditions are identified as sufficient, and the absence of affective commitment and the presence of laissez-faire leadership are found to be the most relevant conditions for the absence of OCB. Managerial implications and directions for future studies are discussed at the end of the paper.

No abstract

No abstract