Moderating effects on sustainability reporting and firm performance relationships: a meta-analytical review

Abstract

PurposeThe past sustainability literature on the effects of nonfinancial disclosures on a firm's performance is highly fragmented. Thus, the authors raise the following research questions to test potential differences: Is sustainability reporting (SR) based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or other systematic reporting framework associated with firm performance? Does quality or level of SR impact firm performance? Do firm-, industry- and country-level factors moderate the effect of SR on firm performance? Does the presence of publication bias affect this relationship?Design/methodology/approachMeta-analysis technique suggested by Hedges & Olkin (1985) was used to analyze a sample of 98 effect sizes reported in 60 studies published between 2010 and 2020 studying SR–performance associations. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to investigate the moderating variables accounting for this heterogeneity in the relationship.FindingsResults reveal that level and quality of SR influence the market-, accounting- and operational-based measures of firm performance. Meta-regression results depict that for large, matured firms, or the ones with institutional investors as board members or the ones that actively participate SR quality awards, SR translates better into firm performance. Subgroup analyses demonstrate that the SR–firm performance relationship is moderated by the corporate governance (CG) system of the country and the firm's affiliation to environmentally sensitive industries.Originality/valueThese findings extend theoretical and practical understanding on effects of corporate sustainability communications on performance.