advancing the integrating corporate sustainability measurement, management and reporting

7/26/2019 Advancing the Integrating Corporate Sustainability Measurement, Management and Reporting

1/16

Accepted Manuscript

Advancing the integrating corporate sustainability measurement, management and

reporting

Karen Maas, Stefan Schaltegger, Nathalie Crutzen

PII: S0959-6526(16)30674-6

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.006

Reference: JCLP 7377

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 22 May 2016

Revised Date: 31 May 2016

Accepted Date: 1 June 2016

Please cite this article as: Maas K, Schaltegger S, Crutzen N, Advancing the integrating corporate

sustainability measurement, management and reporting,Journal of Cleaner Production(2016), doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.006.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo

copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please

note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all

legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.006


2/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Advancing the integrating corporate sustainability measurement,

management and reporting

Karen Maas

Impact Centre Erasmus (ICE), Erasmus School of Accounting & Assurance, Erasmus

University Rotterdam, the NetherlandsStefan Schaltegger

Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM), Leuphana University Lneburg, Germany

Nathalie Crutzen

Smart City Institute (SCI), HEC-Management School, University of Liege, Belgium

Abstract

The role of sustainability performance measurement, management accounting and control as

well as sustainability reporting has been researched extensively. However this has been

mainly done in an isolated manner. This Special Volume is dedicated to the question how to

integrate sustainability assessment, management accounting, management control, and

reporting. This Special Volume aims to advance our knowledge about how to integrate

sustainability assessment, management accounting, management control, and reporting by

nineteen state-of-the art and innovative papers. The main message from across the articles is

that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and that we need creative, targeted and strategic

approaches to integrate these different management areas, departments and rationales with

the support of integrating accounting and reporting tools to help companies to become true

transition leaders towards sustainability.

1. Introduction

Corporate sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002; van Marrewijk, 2003) requires the

integrative measurement and management of sustainability issues rather than isolated

applications of different tools in different parts of the organization. While the initial process

of developing sustainability management research and practice has so far resulted in the


3/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

proposal and experimenting of a multitude of sustainability measurement (e.g. Clarkson et al.,

2011; Gray et al., 1996) and information management approaches (e.g. Bonacchi and Rinaldi,

2007; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006) it has become time to think more deeply about the

integration of different methods and how their interplay can support progress in corporate

sustainability.

This Special Volume is dedicated to the integration between corporate sustainability

performance measurement, management control and reporting. It focuses on how to integrate

sustainability assessment, management accounting, management control, and reporting. After

reviewing the literature on links and partial links between sustainability assessment,

management accounting, management control, and reporting, this Special Volume compiles a

series of articles dealing with different aspects of integration.

2. The need for integration

In the accounting literature, as well as in the strategic management literature, the focus has so

far been on answering the question why companies should be involved in sustainability

issues. Emphasis has been placed on motives (e.g. Bansal, 2005; Nikolaeva and Bicho, 2011),

the business case (Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2015), business

models (Schaltegger et al., 2012; 2016) and the development of multiple sustainability

management tools (e.g. Windolph et al., 2014). The role of sustainability performance

measurement, management accounting and control as well as sustainability reporting has

been researched extensively. However this has been mainly done in an isolated manner

(Chenhall, 2003; Ferreira and Otley, 2009). The more strategic and integrative questions as

how to strategically integrate these internal systems has not received much attention yet. How

do companies link accounting and reporting in sustainability management? How are

appropriate data obtained and how are they used to support decision making, management


4/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

control, performance management and incentive systems when assessing the success of a

companys sustainability?

For reporting purposes, companies mainly collect data for lagging indicators. Although this

information is of potential use by providing evidence about past performance, relevance for

management decisions is limited. To improve sustainability performance (on the

environmental, social and economic dimension), firms also need to consider leading

indicators. Current trends such as Integrated Thinking and Integrated Reporting aim to

stimulate this way of thinking while encouraging corporate managers to integrate

sustainability issues within the firms vision, strategy, risk management, conventional

management accounting, control and reporting systems (Eccles and Krzus, 2010; Eccles and

Saltzman, 2011). Although these elements are often addressed separately, it is becoming

increasingly obvious and urgent that for effective improvement of sustainability performance

all must be addressed in an integrated manner (e.g. Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006; Malmi

and Brown, 2008). How do and can companies integrate these different management areas,

departments and rationales with the support of integrating accounting and reporting tools in a

way that helps companies to become true transition leaders towards sustainability?

3. Structure of this Special Volume

This Special Volume collects, and analyses arguments, the current status and next steps for a

more strategic and integrative approach of accounting, assessment and reporting concepts for

corporate sustainability. The papers presented in this special volume reveal that strategic

integration is still in its infancy. Interesting approaches and some best practices have been

identified, however there is no one-size-fits-all approach that could be used as a blueprint

for all firms and organization. This special volume contains a number of innovative papers

that elaborate on the challenges presented and offers a selection of conceptual and


5/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

methodological papers as well as case studies from different regions of the world. Table 1

provides an overview of the selected papers of this special volume and their specific focus on

different integration links. The key points of each paper are described below.

Table 1. Focus of the papers of this special volume on different integration links.

Transparency Performance improvement

Measurement Antolin-Lopez et al. (2016) Mokhtar et al. (2016)

Morioka and Carvalho

(2016a, 2016b)

Management &

Communication

Higgins and Coffey (2016)Grtrk and Hahn (2016)

Montecchia et al. (2016)

Perego et al. (2016)

Seele (2016)

De Villiers et al. (2016)

Thijssens et al. (2016)

Stacchezzini et al. (2016)

Gnther et al. (2016)Bouten and Hooze (2016)

Garcia et al. (2016)

George et al. (2016)

Battaglia et al. (2016)

Ferri et al. (2016)

Integration Maas et al. (2016)

By focusing on the link between measurement and transparency the paper of Antolin-Lopez

et al. (2016) compares the most widely used Corporate Sustainability Performance

Measurement (CSPM) instruments to highlight their similarities and differences as well as to

advance toward a more standardized list of sub-dimensions that should be covered when

accounting for the economic, social and environmental dimensions of corporate

sustainability. While the extant literature has not dealt very deeply with the link between

measurement approaches to create transparency the paper of Antolin-Lopez et al. (2016)

shows the relevance and potential do further investigate this link with future research.

Various papers in this special volume cover the link between management & communication

and creating transparency. Higgins and Coffey (2016) explore three different sustainability

reports set up to show what sustainability reports 'do' - in order to offer insights about what


6/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

they 'could do'. They found that the companies are using sustainability reporting strategically,

and that sustainability is embedded into the company's strategic priorities. Where

sustainability reports mostly narrate and argue a point of view, sustainability reporting can

offer additional benefits by transiting towards dialogue.

The paper of Grtrk and Hahn (2016) focuses on external third parties to assure of

sustainability reports. They examine the quality of, as well as the similarities and differences

between assurance statements in sustainability reports by using content analysis. The results

indicate differences in content, executed processes, and concrete implementation of the

standards. Non-accountants apply a wider diversity of methods, while assurance processes by

accountants seem to be prone to isomorphism due to professionalization, network effects, and

uncertainty. The results suggest that current practices may diminish the credibility,

transparency, and internal benefits for management which could be otherwise derived from

assurance statements.

Montecchia et al. (2016) use a legitimacy theory framework to understand the extent to which

listed companies incorporate sustainability information in a coherent and unique framework.

A content analysis of corporate websites and main documents was performed to develop a

Corporate Social Disclosure Index and an Integration Index aimed at identifying the

correlation between the quality of disclosure and the integration among documents. They

found that only those few leading companies with a high level of Corporate Social Disclosure

have an equally high level of content integration.

The paper of Perego et al. (2016) analyzes the challenging and contested field of

implementation of Integrated Reporting. Their paper uses a qualitative approach to

accomplish two objectives. First, their paper provides a review of the embryonic academic

literature in the integrated reporting field to summarize extant knowledge. Second, the


7/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

authors use semi-structured interviews to analyze and present the sensemaking approach of

three key experts impacting integrated reporting practices at the global level. Their findings

suggest that experts perceive the field to be fragmented and believe that most companies

currently have a weak understanding of the business value of integrated reporting.

Seele (2016) reviews two major trends from distinct bodies of literature: "integrated

reporting" from the sustainability field and unified data based "XBRL-integrated reports" as

established in financial reporting making use of the digital standard XBRL (eXtensible

Business Reporting Language). Based on a systematic literature review, eight trend

statements are derived pointing at gaps and issues in the field of sustainability reporting and

management. Following this review, he proposes a new concept called "digitally unified

reporting" that addresses these issues. The core contribution is an XBRL-based approach to

sustainability reporting that combines digital data management of sustainability performance

measurement with digitally standardized sustainability reporting.

Based on a case study in a large industrial firm, de Villiers et al. (2016) develop a new

conceptual model of the influences that drive companies towards sustainability, and show the

advantages of integrating sustainability reporting with management control systems,

specifically the balanced scorecard. The new conceptual model suggests an important role for

external stakeholders to influence balanced scorecard measures, sustainability reporting

measures, and to receive a management focus. The advantages of integration include better

operationalization and internal communication of sustainability ideals through the use of the

balanced scorecard (BSC), and a better understanding of BSC causality between BSC

perspectives through the more extensive stakeholder engagement that sustainability reporting

calls for.


8/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Thijssens et al. (2016) analyze how Integrated Reporting (IR) adopters communicate

managerial aspects of corporate sustainability. Drawing on impression management analysis,

this study seeks to detect manipulations in this disclosure practice. A manual content analysis

of reports available on the IIRC website and a multivariate statistical analysis reveal that

firms offer biased IR disclosures. Firms provide limited forward-looking and quantitative

disclosure of their actions to achieve sustainability outcomes and also avoid providing

information about their sustainability performance when their social and environmental

results are poor. In conclusion, the authors explain the limited capability of the reporting

process to encourage the integrative management of corporate sustainability.

Three papers of this special volume investigate the link between measurement and

sustainability performance improvement. Adopting the contingency theory framework,

Mokhtar et al. (2016) investigate the extent to which Malaysian public listed companies

(PLCs) implement environmental management accounting (EMA) and whether the

implementation varies across corporate characteristics (environmental sensitivity of industry,

company size, ownership status, Environmental Management System adoption and the

proportion of non-executive directors). The results indicate that the extent of EMA

implementation is moderate and that more emphasis is placed on environmental cost

effectiveness activities. The results also imply that for the analyzed Malaysian companies

complying with environmental regulations is more important than incorporating EMA

information into performance measurement, control and reporting.

Morioka and Carvalho (2016a this) investigate the incorporation of sustainability in corporate

performance measurement systems, towards a sustainability performance measurement

system. Their research seeks to explore the factors that affect the interaction between

sustainability indicators regarding their relative priority for decision-making and to

investigate how firms include sustainability indicators into their corporate performance


9/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

measurement systems. To address these objectives, cross-sector case studies are conducted in

five firms located in Brazil. The results show four performance measurement systems that

encompass sustainability indicators: (a) periodic performance measurement system of a

specific area/department; (b) individual performance assessment; (c) sustainability reporting;

and (d) project assessment. The paper provides a structured view of integrating sustainability

in a corporate performance measurement system, based on empirical evidence.

Based on a literature review of 261 papers, Morioka and Carvalho (b, this issue) develop a

conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. This

framework distinguishes three levels. The first represents the principles for corporate

sustainability to guide decision-making driven by collective values. The second level includes

core sustainability business elements, which are processes and practices, capabilities,

offerings and contributions to sustainable development. At the third level, the context factors

represent the internal and external aspects that affect the previous levels.

Six papers emphasize the link between management & communication and performance

improvement. Gnther et al. (2016) develop a conceptual framework to position

environmental management control systems (EMCS) within the concept of sustainability and

in relation to other subsystems of management, especially to environmental management

accounting (EMA) and to environmental management systems (EMS). Second, they contrast

the framework with other perspectives by applying the "invisible college" approach. Third,

they position examples of concepts within their EMCS framework. Finally, they summarize

the state of empirical EMCS research by conducting an integrative literature review enriched

by an ancestry and descendancy search. Three findings emerge from their analysis: EMCS

serve a synthesizing function by integrating the more operational and instrumental

perspective of EMA with the strategic perspective of EMS. From a conceptual perspective,


10/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the suggested frameworks reveal different interfaces that have so far not been considered well

in research.

Bouten and Hooze (2016) report the results of a creative safety campaign introduced by a

Belgian scaffolding firm to align employee behavior at different organizational levels. The

main objective is to examine how a package of control systems (Malmi and Brown, 2008;

Malmi and Granlund, 2009) can enhance safety performance. More specifically, they show

how the firm's control package is configured at different organizational levels and how a

safety culture is created through symbols, rituals and ceremonies.

Garcia et al. (2016) propose a model that helps corporate decision-making considering the

Triple Bottom Line framework and a stakeholder view. Multi-criteria decision aid methods

are used to generate a sustainability balanced single measure and performance indices. The

authors apply the model to a Brazilian electricity corporation where the indices are calculated

from existing GRI indicators and the use of the model within the company's annual review of

the strategic plan. The findings suggest that the model has the potential to support informed

decisions and the integration of corporate sustainability performance measurement and

reporting activities with conventional management control systems.

George et al. (2016) investigate the barriers to and enablers of sustainability integration in the

performance management systems of an oil and gas company. A qualitative case study has

been used to identify the stages and means of integration in the organization, based on Gond

et al.'s (2012) framework. The findings revealed that although cognitive, organizational and

technical enablers moved integration of sustainability forward in the organization, certain

cognitive barriers considerably affected the attainment of full integration. Institutional

pressures provided the impetus for the development of enablers, giving rise to several

implications for governments, academics and other parties. The study shows that


11/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

sustainability integration in performance management systems could lead to better

management and control of sustainability performance in organizations.

Based on a longitudinal study in a large Italian food co-operative, Battaglia et al. (2016)

analyze whether and how the development and the use of sustainability control systems have

been able to promote the integration of sustainability within organizational strategy. The co-

operative has implemented three main managerial instruments (sustainability reports,

sustainability annual plans and participatory social plans) which have been able to support

sustainability integration by inducing technical integration and reinforcing the cognitive

enablers. However, strong cognitive (and organizational) barriers have gradually stifled the

cognitive enablers and have not enabled sustainability to be fixed into the organizational

strategy. As such, the integration process was marginalized over time, also due to the

negative economic performance of the co-operative. The paper shows that sustainability

integration remains a fragile concept even in a cooperative, despite the similarities between

co-operative values and the principles of corporate social responsibility.

Finally, Ferri et al (2016) use institutional theory to analyze the stakeholder dialogue

practices realized by companies. Their study is based on an analysis of 2,797 stakeholder

dialogue initiatives realized by 418 companies listed in the FTSE4Good Global index on

December 31st 2011 from 20 different countries (in Europe, North America, and Asia). The

findings confirm the existence of distinctions among the stakeholder dialogue realized by

companies in different national institutional contexts. Thus, it is suggested that stakeholder

dialogues should not be only seen as voluntary, but firms should recognize it as a necessary

managerial practice to build a broad continuous information base useful to align sustainability

performance and managerial systems to the institutional context where the company operates.


12/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

With these innovative papers investigating different links between measurement,

management and communication for transparency and performance improvement purposes

and the identified challenge (Ferreira and Otley, 2009) to create a framework to systematize

linkage challenges Maas et al. (2016) developed an overview paper conceptualizing the

different links and research potential. While still a lot of potential for productive research

exists, corporate practice is challenged to deal with the identified links in order to reduce

negative impacts and to improve transparency and overall sustainability performance.

4. Contribution of this Special Volume

This Special Volume aims to advance our knowledge about how to integrate sustainability

assessment, management accounting, management control, and reporting by nineteen state-

of-the art and innovative papers. The papers in this Special Volume describe aspects of

integrating these concepts by using conceptual approaches, case studies, and/or qualitative

analysis. The papers show the potential for strategic use of an integrative approach focusing

on transparency, performance improvement or both. The main message from across the

articles is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and that we need creative, targeted and

strategic approaches to integrate these different management areas, departments and

rationales with the support of integrating accounting and reporting tools to help companies to

become true transition leaders towards sustainability.

References

Antolin-Lopez, R., Delgado-Ceballos, J., Montiel, I., 2016. Deconstructing corporate

sustainability: A comparison of different stakeholder metrics.Journal of Cleaner

Production, (this issue).

Bansal, P., 2005. Evolving sustainability. A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable

development.Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197-218.

Battaglia, M., Passetti, E., Bianchi, L., Frey, M., 2016. Managing for integration: a

longitudinal analysis of management control for sustainability. Journal of CleanerProduction, (this issue).


13/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Bonacchi, M., Rinaldi, L., 2007. DartBoards and clovers as new tools in sustainability

planning and control.Business Strategy and the Environment, 16,461_473.

Bouten, L., Hooze, S., 2016. Lets do it safely: how Altrad Balliauw configured a package

of control systems.Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue)

Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social

responsibility. A review of concepts, research and practice.International Journal ofManagement Reviews, 12(1), 85105.

Clarkson, P., Overell, M., Chapple, L. (2011). Environmental reporting and its relation to

corporate environmental performance,Abacus, 47(1), 27-60.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.

Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.

Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P., 2010. One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable

strategy. John Wiley & Sons.

Eccles, R. G., & Saltzman, D., 2011. Achieving sustainability through integrated reporting.

Stanf Soc Innov Rev Summer, 59.

Ferreira, A. and Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems:

An extended framework for analysis,Management Accounting Research,20, 263282.

Ferri, L.M., Pedrini, M., Pilato, V., 2016. The management of stakeholder dialogue in

different institutional contexts: an empirical study on FTSE4GOOD companies.Journal of

Cleaner Production, (this issue).

Garcia, S., Cintra, Y.C., Cssia R. Torres, R. de, Lima, F.G., 2016. Corporate sustainability

management: A proposed multi-criteria model to support balanced decision-making.

Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue)

George, R.A., Siti-Nabiha, A.K., Jalaludin, D., Abdalla, Y.A., 2016. Barriers to and enables

of sustainability integration in the performance management systems of an oil and gas

company.Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue).

Gond, J.P., Grubnic, S., Herzig, C. and Moon, J. (2012). Configuring management control

system: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability.Management Accounting

Research,23, 205-223.

Gray, R., Owen, D., Adams, C. (1996). Accounting & accountability: changes and

challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Prentice Hall.

Gnther, E.M., Endrikat, J., Gnther, T.W., 2016. Environmental management control

systems: A conceptualization and a review of the empirical evidence.Journal of Cleaner

Production, (this issue)

Grtrk, A., Hahn, R., 2016. An empirical assessment of assurance statementsinsustainability reports: Smoke screens of enlightening information?Journal of Cleaner

Production, (this issue)

Higgins, H., Coffey, B., 2016. Improving how sustainability reports drive change: A critical

discourse analysis.Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue)

Malmi, T., Brown, D.A., 2008. Management control systems as a packageopportunities,

challenges and research directions.Management Accounting Research19(4), 287300.

Malmi, T., Granlund, M., 2009. In Search of Management Accounting Theory, European

Accounting Review18(3), 597620,

Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., Crutzen, N., 2016. Integrating corporate sustainability assessment,

management accounting, control, and reporting, Journal of Cleaner Production, (thisissue)


14/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Van Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:

Between agency and communion.Journal of business ethics, 44(2-3), 95-105.

Montecchia, A., Giordano, F., Grieco, C., 2016. Communicating CSR: Integrated approach or

selfie? Evidence from the Milan Stock Exchange.Journal of Cleaner Production, (this

issue).Mokhtar, N., Jusoh, R., Zulkifli, N., 2016. Corporate characteristics and environmental

management accounting (EMA). Evidence from Malaysian public listed companies

(PLCs).Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue)

Morioka, S.N., Carvalho, M.M., (2016a). Measuring sustainability in practice: Exploring the

inclusion of sustainability into corporate performance systems in Brazilian case studies.

Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue)

Morioka, S.N., Carvalho, M.M., 2016b. A systematic literature review towards a conceptual

framework for integrating sustainability performance into business.Journal of Cleaner

Production, (this issue).

Nikolaeva, R., Bicho, M., 2011. The role of institutional and reputational factors in thevoluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards.Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 136-157.

Perego, P., Kennedy, S., & Whiteman, G. (2016). A lot of icing but little cake? Taking

Integrated Reporting forward.Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue).

Schaltegger, S.; Ldeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E., 2012. Business Cases for Sustainability. The

Role of Business Model Innovation for Corporate Sustainability,International Journal of

Innovation and Sustainable Development, 6(2), 95-119.;

Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R., 2015, online. Business cases and corporate engagement with

sustainability. Differentiating ethical motivations, Journal of Business Ethics.DOI:10.1007/s10551-015-2938-0

Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E., Ldeke-Freund, F., 2016. Business Models for Sustainability. A

Co-Evolutionary Analysis of Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Innovation and

Transformation. Organization&Environment, 12(1), 1-26.

Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2006. Integrative Management of Sustainability Performance,

Measurement and Reporting, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and

PerformanceEvaluation 3(1), 1-19.

Seele, P., 2016. Digitally unified reporting. How XBROL-based real-time transparency helps

in combining integrated sustainability reporting and performance control. Journal of

Cleaner Production, (this issue).

Stacchezzini, R., Melloni, G., Lai, A. 2016. Sustainability management and reporting: The

role of integrated reporting for communicating corporate sustainability management.

Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue).

Taplin, J., Bent, D., Aeron-Thomas, D., 2006. Developing a Sustainability Accounting

Framework to Inform Strategic Business Decisions: a Case Study from the Chemicals

Industry.Business Strategy and the Environment,15, 347360.

Thijssens, T., Bollen, L., Hassink, H., 2016. Managing sustainability reporting: Many ways to

publish exemplary reporting.Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue).

Villiers, C. de, Rouse, P., Kerr, J., 2016. A new conceptual model of influences driving

sustainability based on case evidence of the integration of corporate sustainabilitymanagement control and reporting.Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue)


15/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Windolph, S.E., Schaltegger, S., Herzig, C., 2014. Implementing corporate sustainability.

What drives the application of sustainability management tools in Germany?,

Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(4), 378-401.


16/16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Editorial

Special Volume:

Integrating corporate sustainability performance measurement,

management control and reporting

Karen Maas

Impact Centre Erasmus (ICE), Erasmus School of Accounting & Assurance, Erasmus

University Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Stefan Schaltegger

Centre for Sustainability Management (CSM), Leuphana University Lneburg, Germany

Nathalie Crutzen

Smart City Institute (SCI), HEC-Management School, University of Liege, Belgium

Editorial to Special Volume

Explanation of the need for integration of sustainability assessment, management

accounting, control, and reporting.

Introduction of the papers in this Special Volume

advancing the integrating corporate sustainability measurement, management and reporting

Documents