This study investigates the relationship between strong firm environmental performance and board characteristics that capture boards’ monitoring and resource provision abilities during an era when the natural environment and the related strategic opportunities have increased in importance. The authors relate the proxy for strong environmental performance to board characteristics that represent boards’ monitoring role (i.e., independence, CEO-chair duality, concentration of directors appointed after the CEO, and director shareholding) and resource provision role (i.e., board size, directors on multiple boards, CEOs of other firms on the board, lawyers on the board, and director tenure). The authors provide evidence consistent with both theories of board roles. Specifically, consistent with their agency theory–driven predictions, the authors find evidence of higher environmental performance in firms with higher board independence and lower concentration of directors appointed after the CEO on the board of directors. Consistent with resource dependence theory, they show that environmental performance is higher in firms that have larger boards, larger representation of active CEOs on the board, and more legal experts on the board. Their findings are generally robust to a number of sensitivity analyses. These findings have implications for managers, firms, shareholders, and regulators who act on behalf of shareholders, if they are interested in influencing environmental performance.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to synthesise insights from accounting and accountability research into the rapidly emerging field of integrated reporting and proposes a comprehensive agenda for future research in this area. In so doing, it draws upon insights from other papers in this special issue of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal on the theme of integrated reporting. Design/methodology/approach -The paper draws upon and synthesises academic analysis and insights provided in the embryonic integrated reporting academic literature in conjunction with policy pronouncements. Findings -The paper shows that the rapid development of integrated reporting policy, and early developments of practice, present theoretical and empirical challenges because of the different ways in which integrated reporting is understood and enacted within institutions. It highlights many areas where further robust academic research is needed to guide developments in policy and practice. Research limitations/implications -The paper provide academics, regulators and reporting organisations with insights into issues and aspects of integrated reporting that need further development and need robust evidence to help inform improvements in policy and practice. A key limitation is that it draws upon a synthesis of the existing literature which is at quite an early stage of development -but provides scope for considerable further development. Originality/value -The paper provides the growing number of academic researchers in this emerging area with a foundation and agenda upon which they can build their research.

No abstract

Integrated reporting: Background, measurement issues, approaches and an agenda for future research, Accounting & Finance, 57(4), 937-959.