Explore the vast range of titles available.

We investigate the effect of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Using a matched sample of 180 U.S. companies, we find that corporations that voluntarily adopted sustainability policies by 1993—termed as high sustainability companies—exhibit by 2009 distinct organizational processes compared to a matched sample of companies that adopted almost none of these policies—termed as low sustainability companies. The boards of directors of high sustainability companies are more likely to be formally responsible for sustainability, and top executive compensation incentives are more likely to be a function of sustainability metrics. High sustainability companies are more likely to have established processes for stakeholder engagement, to be more long-term oriented, and to exhibit higher measurement and disclosure of nonfinancial information. Finally, high sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long term, both in terms of stock market and accounting performance. This paper was accepted by Bruno Cassiman, business strategy.

\"One Report\" refers to an emerging trend in business taking place throughout the world where companies are going beyond separate reports for financial and nonfinancial (e.g., corporate social responsibility or sustainability) results and integrating both into a single integrated report. At the same time, they are also leveraging the Internet to provide more detailed results to all of their stakeholders and for improving their level of dialogue and engagement with them. Providing best practice examples from companies around the world, One Report shows how integrated reporting adds tremendous value to the company and all of its stakeholders, including shareholders, and also ultimately contributes to a sustainable society.

This article uses the study of two environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data vendors—KLD and Innovest—to exemplify the “social origins of ESG issues” argument made by Eccles and Stroehle in their 2018 working paper “Exploring Social Origins in the Construction of ESG Measures.” Based on in-depth interviews with the organizations’ founders and historical document analysis, we recap the history of the cases and show how different origins, philosophies, and “purposes” of ESG issues shaped the methods and data characteristics of two of the most important data vendors of their time. We discuss why MSCI chose to continue with the financial value–oriented methodology of Innovest while discontinuing the values-driven KLD methodology. Through an in-depth literature analysis, we further show that not only the creation but also the use of “nonfinancial performance” concepts rely on processes of social construction. We also show that investors use different ESG data from those used by academics, potentially leading to misaligned narratives. Finally, with this article we join the call for more explicit contextualization of ESG data, highlighting that both practitioners and academics need to better understand the social construction that underlies analyses that use different concepts of ESG.

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have created a framework for environmental and social impacts, which institutional investors and corporations are using to guide resource allocation or highlight SDG-aligned investments already in place. We argue that the SDGs have clarified certain elements predominantly missing or implicit in many environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, specifically focusing on companies’ E and S externalities. Methodologically, we analyze how health care companies contribute to SDG 3 on health and well-being as a case, mapping the goal’s targets to the Sustainability Accounting Standard Board’s (SASB’s) 30 generic ESG issues and considering both financially material and immaterial ESG issues, based on SASB. Using an innovative data set, we highlight where private sector firms contribute to SDG impacts and where their financial priorities might lie. Where firms are either not contributing or perhaps unable to, we point to the need for public sector activities.

The world has great expectations for how the private sector, both companies and investors, can support the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In fact, it is generally believed that these goals cannot be achieved without strong support from the private sector. But will making the world a better place hurt financial returns? The answer is “No” if companies focus on the SDGs and their associated targets that benefit from strong performance on the material environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues that matter to investors. In this paper we map the 30 generic ESG issues identified by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) to the SDGs and their targets. We show that some SASB issues are more material for a given SDG than others. We also show that some SASB issues are more important to the SDGs in general than others. We also map the material ESG issues for each of SASB’s 79 industries to the SDGs and to their targets. For each sector, there are particular SDGs where it has high impact and for each SDG there are particular sectors that have a high impact on it, and some sectors are more important to the SDGs in aggregate than others. The same is true at the target level. This mapping can be used as a guide for both companies and investors who want to understand how value-creating ESG performance can contribute to the SDGs. This paper is divided into four parts. Part I explains the motivation for this study. Part II explains our methodology and Part III the results. Part IV concludes with a summary of our results and some reflections on how our mapping methodology can be improved.

Corporate sustainability has captured the attention of much of the world over the last few years. Trends suggest that the public is no longer satisfied with corporations that focus solely on short-term profit maximization. A recent study that compares companies that adopted environmental and social policies with companies that didn't, authored by two of the authors of this article and another colleague, provides empirical support for this view. High sustainability companies significantly outperformed their counterparts over an 18-year period in terms of both stock market and accounting criteria, such as return on assets and return on equity. They also exhibited lower performance volatility. Currently, organizations that exhibit a broad-based commitment to sustainability on the basis of their original corporate DNA are few and far between. For most companies, becoming sustainable involves a conscious and continuing effort to build long-term value for shareholders by contributing to a sustainable society. The authors studied the organizational models of companies that they refer to as sustainable by comparing them with companies that they call traditional. They focused on two primary questions: 1. How do sustainable companies create the conditions that embed sustainability in the company's strategy and operations, and 2. What are the specific elements of sustainable companies cultures that differentiate them from those of traditional companies? The authors have developed an identity and cultural model for how to create a sustainable company. While the model is straightforward, implementation is by no means easy, because it is grounded in large-scale change something that few companies seek out or do well. The first stage involves reframing the company's identity through leadership commitment and external engagement. The second stage involves codifying the new identity through employee engagement and mechanisms of execution. Both are ongoing processes. Once the second stage begins, the two stages reinforce each other. Employee engagement enables even more sophisticated external engagement, since a broader range of employees will be able to effectively engage with outside stakeholders. Mechanisms of execution bind leadership commitment, since these organizational-level attributes continue from one generation of leaders to the next. Similarly, leadership commitment provides a strong motivating force for employee engagement, since employees know that their leaders care about what they are doing. External engagement strengthens the company's mechanisms of execution, since stakeholder pressure challenges the company to constantly improve its quality. The article draws on examples at companies including Dow Chemical, PepsiCo, Natura and Toyota.

This review article focuses on the three control mechanisms that govern economic transactions between actors: price, authority, and trust. In contrast to conventional approaches that view market and hierarchy as mutually exclusive control mechanisms (or as poles of a continuum), we argue that price, authority, and trust are independent and can be combined in a variety of ways. For instance, price and authority are often played off each other within firms, while trust and price are sometimes intertwined to control transactions between firms. We also identify a type of organization largely ignored in the literature: the plural form. In the plural form, organizations simultaneously operate distinct control mechanisms for the same function. For example, organizations operate franchises and company-owned units under the same trademark, and companies sometimes make and buy the same part. To understand this form, the analytic focus must move from individual transactions to the broader architecture of control mechanisms.

An in-depth, enlightening look at the integrated reporting movement The Integrated Reporting Movement explores the meaning of the concept, explains the forces that provide momentum to the associated movement, and examines the motives of the actors involved. The book posits integrated reporting as a key mechanism by which companies can ensure their own long-term sustainability by contributing to a sustainable society. Although integrated reporting has seen substantial development due to the support of companies, investors, and the initiatives of a number of NGOs, widespread regulatory intervention has yet to materialize. Outside of South Africa, adoption remains voluntary, accomplished via social movement abetted, to varying degrees, by market forces. In considering integrated reporting’s current state of play, the authors provide guidance to ensure wider adoption of the practice and success of the movement, starting with how companies can improve their own reporting processes. But the support of investors, regulators, and NGOs is also important. All will benefit, as will society as a whole. Readers will learn how integrated reporting has evolved over the years, where frameworks and standards are today, and the practices that help ensure effective implementation—including, but not limited to an extensive discussion of information technology’s role in reporting and the importance of corporate reporting websites. The authors introduce the concepts of an annual board of directors’ “Statement of Significant Audiences and Materiality” and a “Sustainable Value Matrix” tool that translates the statement into management decisions. The book argues that the appropriate combination of market and regulatory forces to speed adoption will vary by country, concluding with four specific recommendations about what must be done to accelerate high quality adoption of integrated reporting around the world.