This research conceptually and empirically summarizes multiple aspects of the association between corporate environmental performance and corporate environmental reporting in previous literature, addressing the questions of (a) whether disclosure is a reliable indicator of performance and (b) whether variable measurement characteristics influence empirical outcomes. Systematic literature review and meta-analytic techniques are employed to generate objective and valid summarized effects. The research covers a total of 251 effect sizes within 62 primary studies, representing a total of 56,387 observations. This study discovers a weak and negative association between environmental performance and environmental reporting, supporting the sociopolitical perspective that poor environmental performers have higher motivations to increase their level of disclosure than strong performers. At the same time, this research confirms the heterogeneity of previous studies in the field and verifies the effects of measurement methods on empirical outcomes. K E Y W O R D S environmental disclosure, environmental performance, environmental reporting, industrial ecology, measurement characteristic, meta-analysis 1 INTRODUCTION Persistent pressures from corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainable development practices have imposed considerable environmental obligations on businesses (Cooney, 2009). Therefore, firms are expected to improve their environmental impacts and demonstrate their commitments and achievements to stakeholders (O'Brien & Dhanarajan, 2016). Corporate environmental reporting (CER), as a result, has become essential to facilitating such communication (O'Donovan, 2002; Sumiani, Haslinda, & Lehman, 2007) and has gained immense popularity (Uwuigbe & Uadiale, 2011). However, glaring discrepancies in the level and nature of disclosure between companies can be observed (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013) due to issues such as greenwashing and non-standardization (Delmas & Burbano, 2011; He & Loftus, 2014; Sutantoputra, Lindorff, & Johnson, 2012). After several decades, scholars have pointed out the unpleasant truth that CER is indicative of reporting bias (Berthelot, Cormier, & Magnan, 2003; Romlah, 2005), often being used as a communication strategy and a manipulation of public perception rather than a fair reflection of corporate environmental performance (CEP; Cho, Guidry, Hageman, & Patten, 2012; Hummel & Schlick, 2016). Until now, the controversial question of whether CER is a reliable indicator of CEP still remains unresolved (Aragón-Correa, Marcus, & Hurtado-Torres, 2016; Hummel & Schlick, 2016). Similar to the ongoing conceptual debate between two theoretical perspectives on disclosure, namely sociopolitical (stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory) and economics-based theories (voluntary disclosure theory, signaling theory), empirical work in the field constantly presents inconsistent results. While many studies verify that firms with better environmental records voluntarily report more information (e.g.