Search results

The extant literature provides much-needed support to understand marketing accountability and how marketing actions are related to financial performance (FP). However, we have limited understanding of the relationships between marketing actions and firms' social performance (SP) and environmental performance (EP). Understanding these links is critical to enhancing sustainable FP, SP, and EP. Moreover, the literature provides limited understanding of the measures by which SP and EP may be operationalized, or the data necessary to reach a conclusion. This study bridges these gaps by extensively reviewing the extant literature to offer a set of measures and data sources to operationalize SP and EP, and empirically show their relationships with marketing actions. We find that greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, environmental disclosure score, waste reduction, energy consumption, and recycling are prominent measures of EP, and that social disclosure score, philanthropy or community spending, and diversity of gender and race are prominent measures of SP. The KLD, ASSET4, and Bloomberg are prominent sources of data that can be used to operationalize SP, to which CDP may be added for EP. We also show that marketing actions positively affect EP and SP. This study contributes to the extant literature on SP and EP by identifying measures and data sources and linking marketing actions to both performance types. It contributes to policy development by identifying the importance of EP and SP and how marketing actions can help achieve such performance.

This chapter discusses and investigates the sustainability reporting across different sectors. The first section discusses and investigates the relationship between sustainability reporting and primary sector's performance (Agriculture and Food Industries Sector and Energy Sector). The second section discusses and investigates the relationship between sustainability reporting and secondary sector's performance (Manufacturing Sector). The final section discusses and investigates the relationship between sustainability reporting and tertiary sector's performance (Banks and Financial Services Sector, Retail Sector, Telecommunication and Information Technology Sector, and Tourism Sector).

This paper aims to verify whether the integration of sustainability in executive compensation positively affects firms’ non-financial performance and whether corporate governance characteristics enhance the relationship between sustainability compensation and firms’ non-financial performance and to expand the domain of the impact of sustainability on non-financial performance.

This analysis is based on a sample of companies listed on the Milan Italian Stock Exchange from the Financial Times Milan Stock Exchange Index over the 2016–2020 period. Regression analysis was used by using data retrieved from the Refinitiv Eikon database and the sample firms’ remuneration reports.

The findings of this paper show that embedding sustainability in executive compensation positively affects firms’ non-financial performance. The results of this paper also reveal that specific corporate governance features can improve the impact of sustainability on non-financial performance.

This analysis is limited to Italian firms included in the Financial Times Milan Stock Exchange Index; however, the findings are highly significant.

The findings provide regulators with useful insights for considering the integration of sustainability goals into executive remuneration. Another implication is that policymakers should require – at least – listed firms to fulfil specific corporate governance structural requirements. Finally, the findings can provide investors and financial analysts with a greater awareness of the role played by executive remuneration in the long-term value-creation process.

This paper contributes to addressing the relationship among sustainability, remuneration and non-financial disclosure, drawing on the stakeholder–agency theoretical framework and focusing on Italian firms. This issue has received limited attention with controversial results in the literature.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the causal interrelations among the four pillars of corporate sustainability, which indicate a firm’s contribution to environmental, social, governance and economic activities. Moreover, this study identifies the critical drivers of corporate sustainability by focusing on the levels of market developments and geographical regions.

Based on corporate sustainability data of 2,725 global companies in 2016, this study uses a combination of analytical techniques including cluster analysis, data mining, partial least square path modeling and importance performance map analysis.

This study finds that companies in European developed markets exhibit the highest-ranking of corporate sustainability. In line with the social impact hypothesis, environmental, social and governance performance positively affects economic performance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of causal relationships and synergistic effects among the four pillars of corporate sustainability. In accordance with the institutional theory, the patterns of causal directions and the critical pillars depend on levels of market developments and geographical regions. Overall, social and environmental pillars are among the most critical drivers of corporate sustainability.

The methodology does not aim to provide a new weighting scheme for calculating the corporate sustainability index.

Corporate managers should consider sustainability practices in all dimensions to benefit from synergistic effects among environmental, social, governance and economic activities. Furthermore, corporate sustainability strategies should not be generalized across countries with different levels of market developments and geographical regions.

This study prioritizes environmental, social, governance and economic pillars of corporate sustainability in emerging and developed markets across geographical regions.

Global investors demand, regulators require, and companies disclose their sustainability performance information, and scholars have started to conduct research on sustainability performance, reporting and assurance. The goal of firm value creation can be achieved when management considers the interests of all stakeholders and integrates all five economic, governance, social, ethical, and environmental (EGSEE) dimensions of sustainability performance into managerial strategies, actions and reporting. This paper provides a synthesis of research on sustainability and presents a theoretical framework consisting of theories and standards relevant to all five EGSEE dimensions of sustainability performance and risks and their integration into corporate culture, business models and reporting in creating stakeholder value.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework which sheds new light on how sustainability control systems (SCS) can be used in proactive strategic responses to corporate sustainability pressures.

Design/Methodology/Approach – Corporate sustainability pressures are identified using insights from institutional theory and the resource-based view of the firm.

Findings – The paper presents an integrated framework showing the corporate sustainability pressures, proactive strategic responses to these pressures, and how organizations might use SCS in their responses to the corporate sustainability pressures they face.

Practical Implications – The proposed framework shows how organizations can use SCS in proactive strategic responses to corporate sustainability pressures.

Originality/Value – The paper suggests that instead of using traditional financial-oriented management control systems, organizations need more focus on emerging SCS as a means of achieving sustainability objectives. In particular, the paper proposes different SCS tools that can be used in proactive strategic responses to sustainability pressures in terms of (i) specifying and communicating sustainability objectives, (ii) monitoring sustainability performance, and (iii) providing motivation by linking sustainability rewards to performance.

This study aims to examine the impact of environmental sustainability, social sustainability and corporate reputation on the business performance of energy companies operating in an emerging market.

A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 400 managers in top and middle-level positions in energy companies located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia were collected through an online survey. These managers had a strong understanding of the operational aspects of the companies and possessed good knowledge of the company’s performance. The collected data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis to assess the hypothesized relationships.

The findings reveal significant influences of corporate reputation, environmental sustainability and social sustainability on the business performance of energy companies operating in an emerging market. Notably, corporate reputation emerges as the primary predictor, underscoring the significance of emphasizing the fundamental aspects of companies such as superior products or services, effective management practices and investment quality. A strong reputation is essential for attracting investors, customers and other stakeholders by meeting their expectations for high-quality products or services. It serves as a crucial factor in establishing trust and credibility, which are vital for sustained success in the market.

Energy companies should proactively integrate corporate reputation into their operational strategies to enhance business performance. Furthermore, they should develop and execute comprehensive environmental and social sustainability initiatives within their organizations. By doing so, they can effectively enhance both financial and non-financial performance while fostering a culture of employee engagement aimed at further enhancing productivity.

This study stands out as a unique and significant contribution to theory by using the triple bottom line framework as the underlying theory and integrating corporate reputation into the proposed framework. It represents a novel approach, particularly within the context of energy companies operating in an emerging market. This research serves as a valuable complement to prior studies primarily conducted in developed (Western) economies, expanding the knowledge base in this field.

In recent years, growing concerns about the environment and climate change, poverty problems, growing inequality among societies, and tensions brought about by social injustice have increased the popularity of sustainability, which is considered a multidimensional concept, among scientists, decision-makers, academics, and companies. The perception of these different groups of sustainability issues and the tools they suggest/use for corporate sustainability implementations differ from each other. It can be difficult to look for and understand sustainability tools that are handled with different perspectives in many sources. In this chapter, the tools used in sustainability implementation are discussed with certain classifications – environmental management tools, sustainability reporting, and corporate social performance – and their relations with each other. In short, this study aims to present a holistic perspective to the sustainability (or of corporate sustainability) implementations carried out by companies trying to survive in a dynamic and complex economic environment. Accordingly, the literature was reviewed, and the concept of sustainability was explained, the reasons that push companies to sustainability implementations were evaluated, and sustainability implementations were detailed under environmental management tools, sustainability reporting, and corporate social performance.

In this paper we develop a model for researching the influence that a board of directors can have on improving an organization’s sustainability performance. Our model explores sources of cognitive flexibility of boards needed to recognize and respond to the need for improved sustainability performance. We first define concepts of sustainability, sustainability competence, and sustainability performance. We then analyze two forms of board capital (a board’s human capital and its social capital) and three aspects of a board’s information processing (its patterns of information search, discussion and debate, and information absorption) that we suggest affect a board’s cognitive flexibility and thereby influence whether a board decides to adopt sustainability performance goals. Our model also suggests that an organization’s strategic flexibility – as represented by its current endowments of resource flexibilities and coordination flexibilities – will moderate the relationship between a board’s decision to adopt sustainability performance goals and an organization’s subsequent achievement of those goals. We also suggest that our model is generally relevant to any research seeking to predict the influence of boards on strategic change in many forms, not just to research focused on sustainability issues.

Lately, sustainability issues are increasingly affecting all sectors, even if oil and gas industry is highly required to improve its social performance because of the societal pressure to environmental protection and social welfare. Sustainability concerns and corporate governance features and practices are more and more connected because sustainability has been perceived as a crucial topic by owners and managers. In this perspective, the empirical analysis aims to explore whether and to what extent, sustainability-oriented corporate governance model is linked with social performance.

By adopting a multi-theoretical framework that includes the legitimacy theory, the stakeholder theory and the resource-based view theory, this analysis used a sample of 42 large European-listed companies belonging to the oil and gas industry. The authors run fixed effects regression models by using a dependent variable, i.e. the social score, available in ASSET4 Thomson Reuters, and some independent variables focused on sustainable corporate governance models, stakeholder engagement, firm profitability, market value and corporate risk level.

Drawing upon the investigation of a moderating effect, findings display that stakeholder engagement is positively associated with corporate social performance and it can be considered an important internal driver able to shape a corporate culture and most likely to address corporate social responsibility issues.

This study confirms the need to develop an organizational and holistic approach to corporate governance practices by analyzing internal and external governance mechanisms. From the managerial perspective, managers should opt for a sustainable corporate governance model, as it is positively correlated with corporate social performance.

There is an urgent need to investigate sustainability issues and their potential association with firm internal mechanisms, particularly in the oil and gas industry. This paper can extend the current body of knowledge by pointing out a positive relationship between stakeholder engagement and firm social performance.