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 to
our 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.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Advancing the integrating corporate sustainability measurement,
management and reporting

RI
PT

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

Abstract

SC

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

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

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

EP

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

AC
C

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

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

RI
PT

sustainability.

This Special Volume is dedicated to the integration between corporate sustainability

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

SC

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

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

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

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),

EP

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

AC
C

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

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

RI
PT

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

SC

stimulate this way of thinking while encouraging corporate managers to integrate

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

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

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

EP

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

AC
C

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

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.

Transparency

Performance improvement

Antolin-Lopez et al. (2016)

Mokhtar et al. (2016)

Morioka
and
Carvalho
(2016a, 2016b)

SC

Measurement

RI
PT

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

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)
Maas et al. (2016)

M
AN
U

Management &
Communication

Gnther et al. (2016)

Bouten and Hooze (2016)
Garcia et al. (2016)
George et al. (2016)
Battaglia et al. (2016)
Ferri et al. (2016)

TE
D

Integration

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

EP

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

AC
C

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

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.

RI
PT

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

SC

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

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

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.

EP

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

AC
C

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

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.

RI
PT

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

SC

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

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

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

EP

advantages of integrating sustainability reporting with management control systems,

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

AC
C

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.

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

RI
PT

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

SC

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

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

implementation varies across corporate characteristics (environmental sensitivity of industry,

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

EP

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

AC
C

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

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;

RI
PT

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

SC

conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. This

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

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

Six papers emphasize the link between management & communication and performance

EP

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

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

AC
C

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,

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

RI
PT

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

SC

safety culture is created through symbols, rituals and ceremonies.

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

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

EP

reporting activities with conventional management control systems.

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

AC
C

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

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

RI
PT

been able to promote the integration of sustainability within organizational strategy. The cooperative has implemented three main managerial instruments (sustainability reports,
sustainability annual plans and participatory social plans) which have been able to support

SC

sustainability integration by inducing technical integration and reinforcing the cognitive

M
AN
U

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

TE
D

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

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

EP

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

AC
C

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.

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

RI
PT

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

4. Contribution of this Special Volume

SC

negative impacts and to improve transparency and overall sustainability performance.

M
AN
U

This Special Volume aims to advance our knowledge about how to integrate sustainability
assessment, management accounting, management control, and reporting by nineteen stateof-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

TE
D

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

EP

strategic approaches to integrate these different management areas, departments and

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

AC
C

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 Cleaner
Production, (this issue).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC
C

EP

TE
D

M
AN
U

SC

RI
PT

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 of
Management 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 statements
insustainability 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 Research 19(4), 287300.
Malmi, T., Granlund, M., 2009. In Search of Management Accounting Theory, European
Accounting Review 18(3), 597620,
Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., Crutzen, N., 2016. Integrating corporate sustainability assessment,
management accounting, control, and reporting, Journal of Cleaner Production, (this
issue)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

M
AN
U

SC

RI
PT

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 the
voluntary 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).

AC
C

EP

TE
D

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
Performance Evaluation 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 sustainability
management control and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, (this issue)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC
C

EP

TE
D

M
AN
U

SC

RI
PT

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.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Editorial
Special Volume:
Integrating corporate sustainability performance measurement,
management control and reporting

SC

RI
PT

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
HIGHLIGHTS:

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

AC
C

EP

TE
D

M
AN
U