The study empirically investigates the relationship between corporate governance and the triple bottom line sustainability performance through the lens of agency theory and stakeholder theory. We claim, in fact, that no single theory fully accounts for all the hypothesised relationships. We measure sustainability performance through manual content analysis on sustainability reports of the US-based companies. The study extends the existing literature by investigating the impact of selected corporate governance mechanisms on each dimension of sustainability performance, as defined by the GRI framework. Our approach allows to identify which governance mechanisms foster triple bottom line performance, also revealing that some mechanisms fit only specific dimension(s) of sustainability. The fact-based findings provide support for a new beginning in the theorising process in which the theories must try not only to provide rationale for the impact of corporate governance on sustainability, but also to explain which dimension of sustainability might be more affected. The most important implication for practitioners is the support for sustainability practices, which may be gained through implementation of particular corporate governance mechanisms. The findings contribute also to the improvement of the ongoing standard setting process, in particular as it concerns the in-depth revision of the economic dimension of sustainability carried out under the new GRI framework

The last three decades have witnessed a huge amount of research exploring the linkage between companies' sustainability performance (SP), sustainability disclosure and financial performance (FP). Researchers have applied various methods and techniques to investigate this relationship, yet the results remain equivocal. In this article, we look inside this black box by considering various manifestations of sustainability practices and investigating their link with FP. We apply a manual content analysis technique to analyse the sustainability reports of the 100 best‐performing US firms. Our results reveal that fragmentation in the results is caused by the SP measurement. Additionally, we note that the interlinkages between different SP dimensions and sub‐dimensions are weak and somewhat contradictory. The results help draw important policy implications for the development of an SP reporting framework.

This study considers the game-related performance of two listed soccer clubs in Italy which share the same stadium: Roma and Lazio. We introduce the performance of the archrival in the analysis. The high level of rivalry in sports should lead to a feeling of pleasure at the suffering of another group (known in German as Schadenfreude) and we assume to see the satisfaction of investor fans with the defeat of the archrival. Likewise, the win of the archrival can have a negative impact on the mood of investors. This study shows that, when club supporters experience the negative performance of their team, the results of their archrival can affect their investment decisions. It is therefore proven that, at least in this respect, the investors (also widely represented by club supporters) are driven by the sentiments conveyed by rivalry which, considered to be a source of emotion, may be relevant to the market.

We study how the investor profile influences the asset allocation recommendations of professional advisors. We find the investor's perceived risk attitude influences more the mix of risky assets, whereas the socioeconomic variables influence more the cash percentage. The recommendations are consistent with a diversification behavior driven by actual asset correlations. These findings support the utility of investor advisory that may help enhance the risk and return trade-off. The main drawback of the recommendations may consist in the degree of customization that is limited by the small number of investor characteristics actually influencing the asset allocation. JEL Classification: G11

No abstract