CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 220Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingAccounting and Financial ManagementAccounting and Organizational Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Research on Corporate Sustainability: Review and Directions for Future Research

Open access
Grewal, Jody, Serafeim, George·2020·Foundations and Trends® in Accounting
DOI 10.1561/1400000061
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We review the literature on corporate sustainability and provide directions for future research. Our review focuses on three actions: measuring, managing and communicating corporate sustainability performance. Measurement is the least developed of the three and represents promising opportunities for research. Compelling evidence now exists on the role of management control systems, investor pressure and mandated disclosure in improving corporate sustainability outcomes. Research has moved beyond weighing the importance of all sustainability issues equally, with recent studies drawing distinctions between the financial materiality of different sustainability issues. Collectively, this new line of inquiry suggests that improving performance on material sustainability metrics is related to improved financial performance, helping to resolve four decades of inconclusive evidence on the relation between sustainability and financial outcomes. Finally, we review research on how disclosure mediums, accounting standards, information monitors and intermediaries shape the communication of sustainability performance. We conclude with a call for research on how to measure performance in the 21st century when corporate purpose extends beyond shareholder value maximization.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1561/1400000061

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CSR information can be useful to investors in estimating future cash flows or assessing firms' risks because CSR and sustainability topics are often closely related to firms' normal business activities.

    “CSR information can be useful to investors in estimating future cash flows or assessing firms’ risks, because CSR and sustainability topics are often closely related to firms’ normal business activities (e.g., Dhaliwal et al. 2011; Dhaliwal et al. 2012; Grewal et al. 2020).”

    From Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review (2021) · cites this paper as Grewal et al. 2020

  • Grewal et al. (2020) find a negative relation between material CSR disclosures and bid-ask spreads or zero return days.

    “Grewal et al. (2020) find a negative relation between material CSR disclosures and bid-ask spreads or zero return days.”

    From Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review (2021) · cites this paper as Grewal et al. 2020

  • Using ESG disclosure data in Bloomberg, Grewal et al. (2020) find that, on average, firms provide only about 18% (median: 13%) of the prescribed SASB disclosure items.

    “Relatedly, using ESG disclosure data in Bloomberg, Grewal et al. (2020) find that, on average, firms provide only about 18% (median: 13%) of the prescribed SASB disclosure items (which serve as the benchmark for financially material CSR disclosures).”

    From Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review (2021) · cites this paper as Grewal et al. (2020)

  • Grewal et al. (2020) already find the negative association before the SASB standards were issued.

    “However, the study already finds the negative association before the SASB standards were issued.”

    From Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review (2021) · cites this paper as Grewal et al. (2020)

  • The negative association in Grewal et al. (2020) is stronger after the introduction of new SASB standards and for firms or shareholders for which CSR issues are more important.

    “The results are stronger after the introduction of new SASB standards and for firms or shareholders for which CSR issues are more important.”

    From Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review (2021) · cites this paper as Grewal et al. (2020)

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 99

  1. Aupperle, 1985, An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability, Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446, 10.2307/256210 · DOI
  2. Baloria, 2018, Shareholder activism and voluntary disclosure initiation: The case of political spending, Contemporary Accounting Research, 26, 904, 10.1111/1911-3846.12457 · DOI
  3. Barber, 2006, Monitoring the Monitor: Evaluating Calpers’ Activism (November), 10.2139/ssrn.890321 · DOI
  4. Barth, 2001, The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: Another view, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 77, 10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00019-2 · DOI
  5. Bennear, 2008, The impacts of the ‘right to know’: Information disclosure and the violation of drinking water standards, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56, 117, 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.03.002 · DOI
  6. Berg, 2019, Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings, MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5822-19
  7. Berman, 1999, Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488, 10.2307/256972 · DOI
  8. Brammer, 2008, Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance, Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325, 10.1002/smj.714 · DOI
  9. Campbell, 1999, Current perspectives on shareholder proposals: Lessons from the 1997 proxy season, Financial Management, 28, 89, 10.2307/3666119 · DOI
  10. Cao, 2019, Peer effects of corporate social responsibility, Management Science, 65, 5487, 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3100 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Cheema-Fox, 2020, Climate data, industry returns and portfolio decarbonization, Working Paper
  12. Chen, 2018, The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firm profitability and social externalities: Evidence from China, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 65, 169, 10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.11.009 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Cheng, 2014, Corporate social re-sponsiblity and access to finance, Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1, 10.1002/smj.2131 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Christensen, 2017, The real effects of mandated information on social responsibility in financial reports: Evidence from mine-safety records, Journal of Accounting & Economics, 64, 284, 10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.08.001 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Christensen, 2019, Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings, Working Paper
  16. Clark, 2008, Social and environmental shareholder activism in the public spotlight: US corporate annual meetings, campaign strategies, and environmental performance, 200104, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40, 1370, 10.1068/a39198 · DOI
  17. Cochran, 1984, Corporate social responsibility and financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42, 10.2307/255956 · DOI
  18. Creary, 2019, Purpose and fairness inequality in the workplace, Working Paper
  19. David, 2007, Investor activism, managerial responsiveness and corporate social performance, Strategic Management Journal, 28, 91, 10.1002/smj.571 · DOI
  20. Delmas, 2010, Information disclosure policies: Evidence from the electricity industry, Economic Inquiry, 48, 483, 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2009.00227.x · DOI
  21. Deshpande, 2020, Blackrock: Linking purpose to profit, Harvard Business School Case, 120
  22. Dhaliwal, 2011, Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting, The Accounting Review, 86, 59, 10.2308/accr.00000005 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Dhaliwal, 2012, Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure, Accounting Review, 87, 723, 10.2308/accr-10218 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Dimson, 2015, Active ownership (August 7, 2015), Review of Financial Studies (RFS), 28, 3225, 10.1093/rfs/hhv044 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Dimson, 2020, Coordinated engagements, Working Paper
  26. Dorfman, 1954, Optimal advertising and optimal quality, American Economic Review, 44, 826
  27. Doshi, 2013, How firms respond to mandatory information disclosure, Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1209, 10.1002/smj.2055 · DOI
  28. Downar, 2020, The impact of carbon disclosure mandates on emissions and financial operating performance, Working Paper
  29. Dranove, 2002, Is more information better? The effects of ‘report cards’ on health care providers, Journal of Political Economy, 111, 555, 10.1086/374180 · DOI
  30. Eccles, 1991, The performance measurement manifesto, Harvard Business Review, 69, 131
  31. Eccles, 2012, The need for sector-specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 24, 65, 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2012.00380.x · DOI · Paper page
  32. Fagotto, 2015, Too much information: Making transparency good for you, Boston Review
  33. Fiechter, 2019, Real effects in anticipation of mandatory disclosures: Evidence from the European Union’s CSR Directive, Working Paper
  34. Flammer, 2019, Corporate governance and the rise of integrating corporate social responsibility criteria in executive compensation: Effectiveness and implications for firm outcomes, Strategic Management Journal, 40, 1097, 10.1002/smj.3018 · DOI
  35. Fombrun, 1996, Realizing Value from the Corporate Image
  36. Fombrun, 2005, Building corporate reputation through CSR initiatives: Evolving standards, Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 7, 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540235 · DOI
  37. Fombrun, 1990, What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy, Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233, 10.2307/256324 · DOI
  38. Fombrun, 2000, Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk, Business and Society Review, 10.1111/0045-3609.00066 · DOI
  39. Freeman, 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach
  40. Freeman, 2007, Stakeholder capitalism, Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 303, 10.1007/s10551-007-9517-y · DOI
  41. Freeman, 2010, Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art, 10.1017/CBO9780511815768 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Friedman, 1970, The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, New York Times Magazine
  43. Freiberg, 2019, Pathways to materiality: How sustainability issues become financially material to corporations and their investors, Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-056
  44. Freiberg, 2020, Science-based carbon emissions targets, Working Paper
  45. Gardberg, 2006, Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments, Academy of Management Review, 31, 329, 10.5465/amr.2006.20208684 · DOI
  46. Gartenberg, 2019, Corporate purpose and firm ownership, Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-024
  47. Gartenberg, 2019, Corporate purpose and financial performance, Organization Science, 30, 1, 10.1287/orsc.2018.1230 · DOI
  48. Ghoshal, 1994, Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91, 10.1002/smj.4250151007 · DOI
  49. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), 2018, Member state implementation of directive 2014/95/EU
  50. Greening, 2000, Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce, Business & Society, 39, 254, 10.1177/000765030003900302 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Grewal, 2019, Real effects of disclosure regulation on voluntary disclosers: Evidence from mandatory carbon reporting, Working Paper
  52. Grewal, 2019, Disclosure of emerging trends: Evidence from climate change business opportunities, Working Paper
  53. Grewal, 2019, Market reaction to mandatory nonfinancial disclosure, Management Science, 65, 3061, 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3099 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Grewal, 2020, Journal of Business Ethics
  55. Guiso, 2015, The value of corporate culture, Journal of Financial Economics, 117, 60, 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.010 · DOI
  56. Hawn, 2018, Do investors actually value sustainability? New evidence from investor reactions to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), Strategic Management Journal, 39, 949, 10.1002/smj.2752 · DOI
  57. Healy, 2020, Voluntary, self-regulatory and mandatory disclosure of oil and gas company payments to foreign governments, Accounting Horizons, 34, 111, 10.2308/horizons-17-133 · DOI
  58. Hillman, 2001, Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125, 10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:2<125::AID-SMJ150>3.0.CO;2-H · DOI
  59. Holthausen, 2001, The relevance of the value-relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 3, 10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00029-5 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Hull, 2008, Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation, Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781, 10.1002/smj.675 · DOI
  61. Ioannou, 2015, The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics, Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1053, 10.1002/smj.2268 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Ioannou, 2019, The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological and Organizational Perspectives, 452
  63. Ioannou, 2019, Corporate sustainability: A strategy?, Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-065
  64. Ioannou, 2016, Accounting Review, 91, 1467, 10.2308/accr-51307 · DOI
  65. Jensen, 2002, Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 235, 10.2307/3857812 · DOI
  66. Jin, 2003, The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurant hygiene grade cards, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 409, 10.1162/003355303321675428 · DOI
  67. Khan, 2016, Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality, Accounting Review, 91, 1697, 10.2308/accr-51383 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Knauer, 2014, Attracting long-term investors through integrated thinking and reporting: A clinical study of a biopharmaceutical company, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 26, 57, 10.1111/jacf.12067 · DOI
  69. Kotsantonis, 2019, Four things no one will tell you about ESG data, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31, 50, 10.1111/jacf.12346 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Kotsantonis, 2020, Human capital and the future of work: Implications for investors and ESG integration, Journal of Financial Transformation, 51, 115
  71. KPMG, 2017, The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017
  72. Matsumura, 2018, Capital market expectations of risk materiality and the credibility of managers’ risk disclosure decisions, Working Paper
  73. McWilliams, 1997, The role of money managers in assessing corporate social responsibility research, Journal of Investing, 6, 98, 10.3905/joi.1997.408440 · DOI
  74. McWilliams, 2000, Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?, Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5<603::AID-SMJ101>3.0.CO;2-3 · DOI
  75. Messier, 1983, The effect of experience and firm type on materi-ality/disclosure judgments, Journal of Accounting Research, 21, 611, 10.2307/2490795 · DOI
  76. Milgrom, 1986, Price and advertising signals of product quality, Journal of Political Economy, 94, 796, 10.1086/261408 · DOI
  77. Monks, 2004, Shareholder activism on environmental issues: A study of proposals at large US corporations, Natural Resources Forum, 28, 317, 10.1111/j.1477-8947.2004.00104.x · DOI
  78. Moroney, 2016, Differences in auditors’ materiality assessments when auditing financial statements and sustainability reports, Contemporary Accounting Research, 33, 551, 10.1111/1911-3846.12162 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Moskowitz, 1972, Choosing socially responsible stocks, Business and Society Review, 1, 71
  80. Navarro, 1988, Why do corporations give to charity?, Journal of Business, 61, 65, 10.1086/296420 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Park, 2020, Environmental Impact Measurement and Analysis
  82. Perego, 2012, Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: The evolution of third-party assurance of sustainability reports, Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 173, 10.1007/s10551-012-1420-5 · DOI
  83. and, 2006, Shaping the shareholder activism agenda: Institutional investors and global social issues, Strategic Organization, 4, 165, 10.1177/1476127006064067 · DOI
  84. Rauter, 2019, The effect of mandatory extraction payment disclosures on corporate payment and investment policies abroad, Working Paper
  85. Sen, 2001, Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility, Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225, 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838 · DOI · Paper page
  86. Serafeim, 2015, Integrated reporting and investor clientele, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27, 34, 10.1111/jacf.12116 · DOI
  87. Serafeim, 2018, Investors as stewards of the commons?, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 30, 8, 10.1111/jacf.12294 · DOI
  88. Serafeim, 2019, ESG metrics: Reshaping capitalism?, Harvard Business School Technical Note, 116
  89. Serafeim, 2019, Impact-Weighted Financial Accounts: The Missing Piece for an Impact Economy
  90. Serafeim, 2020, A Preliminary Framework for Product Impact-Weighted Accounts, 10.2139/ssrn.3532472 · DOI
  91. Simnett, 2009, Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison, Accounting Review, 84, 937, 10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937 · DOI · Paper page
  92. Tkac, 2006, One proxy at a time: Pursuing social change through shareholder proposals, Economic Review, 91, 1
  93. Tomar, 2019, CSR disclosure and benchmarking-learning: Emissions responses to mandatory greenhouse gas disclosure, 10.2139/ssrn.3448904 · DOI
  94. Turban, 1997, Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658, 10.2307/257057 · DOI · Paper page
  95. Vogel, 1983, Trends in shareholder activism: 1970-1982, California Management Review, 25, 68, 10.2307/41165017 · DOI
  96. Waddock, 1997, The corporate social performance-financial performance link, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI · Paper page
  97. Waldman, 2006, Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1703, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00642.x · DOI
  98. Wolfe, 1991, Introduction to corporate social performance: Methods for evaluating an elusive construct, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 265
  99. Wood, 1991, Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of Management Review, 16, 691, 10.2307/258977 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Grewal, J., & Serafeim, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Foundations and Trends® in Accounting
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2020-09-02
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
73-127
ISSN
  • 1554-0642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-0650
DOI
10.1561/1400000061
OpenAlex
W3081674597
Cited by
220
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 6
FWCI
22.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Foundations and Trends® in Accounting (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Financial Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Organizational Management
Keywords
corporate sustainability, sustainability performance measurement, sustainability reporting, management control systems, investor pressure, disclosure requirements, financial materiality, sustainability indicators, financial performance, accounting standards, corporate purpose, shareholder value

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review