This paper investigates the motives, behavior, and characteristics shaping mutual fund managers’ willingness to incorporate Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues into investment decision making. Using survey evidence from fund managers from five different countries, we demonstrate that this predisposition is the stronger, the shorter their average forecasting horizon and the higher their level of reliance on business risk in portfolio management is. We also find that the propensity to incorporate ESG factors is positively related to an increasing level of risk aversion, an increasing importance of salary change and senior management approval/disapproval as motivating factors as well as length of professional experience in current fund and increasing significance of assessment by superiors in remuneration. Overall, our evidence suggests that ESG diligence among fund managers serves mainly as a method for mitigating risk and is typically motivated by herding; it is much less important as a tool for additional value creation. The prevalent use of ESG criteria in mitigating risk is in contrast with traditional approach, but it is in line with behavioral finance theory. Additionally, our results also show a strong difference in the length of the forecasting horizon between continental European and Anglo-Saxon fund managers.

This study examines the impact of corporate sustainability (CS) on stock market returns for FTSE 350 companies over the period 2006–2012. We find that an investment strategy that bought shares in companies with balanced financial, social, and environmental activities would have earned an annual four-factor alpha for a value-weighted portfolio of 3.54% per year during the sample period and 2.98% above industry benchmarks. In addition, we find that CS is negatively correlated with stock return volatility, and investing in companies with CS not only generates higher returns during peak phases, but also diminishes shareholders’ losses during bear phases. We have also carried out an additional, out-of-the-sample analysis for the years 2013–2015 which confirmed our results.

Integrated reporting is a key instrument used to inform stakeholders about the sustainability issues of a company. Only an assured report can effectively instill confidence in its users regarding the sustainability of the company. Based on the International Integrated Reporting Framework issued by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the authors solicited perceptions from auditors and audit report users about several aspects of integrated reporting assurance. An analysis of the responses suggests that integrated reporting assurance is important, but there are many challenges (both methodological and related to the characteristics of non-financial information) for auditors to overcome. Reporting companies and auditors must work to overcome these problems. The former ones must improve the quality of non-financial information and the later must adapt their audit procedures. This paper provides valuable insights into preferences regarding the form and content of the audit report on integrated reporting. This study is useful to regulators of audit activity, auditors’ corporations, the IIRC, and other international associations, academics, and audit report users, and contributes to the current integrated reporting literature by examining the perceptions of auditors and users regarding the assurance of integrated reporting. Integrated reporting assurance is still an under-explored field of research.

This study examines the effect of the CEO–employee pay gap on productivity and performance. Using extensive data of 751 constituents of the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 1500 index between the years 1992–2016, we found a cubic relationship between salary differential and corporate productivity, with a rising gap adversely affecting productivity principally when it is both too low, as well as too high; intermediate pay inequality levels are less influential. A contrast in the productivity effects of the CEO–worker pay gap for firms with high average salaries and more employees was noticeable, whereas positive productivity gains were present even with a high salary gap. Thus, big companies with a highly skilled workforce are able to achieve tangible benefits through higher salary differentiation. On the other hand, companies with lower average salaries and lower capital intensity were characterized by the negative effects of wage dispersion on productivity. As a result, increasing inequality aversion is an important issue affecting performance among smaller, lower skilled labor dependent firms. Additionally, female CEOs had a significant and positive lagged effect on productivity. Finally, firm market valuation was positively stimulated by the increasing pay gap.

There is a general agreement that extensive remuneration gaps may cause pressing environmental, social, and economic problems. Thus, a critical question to be answered is what is the effect of being at the forefront of corporate sustainability on the CEO–employee pay gap. This paper addresses the question by examining empirical evidence from 415 constituents of the S&P 1500 index over the years 2006–2016. For the above period, we found a positive relationship between a strong commitment to sustainable development at the firm level and the CEO–employee pay differential. Additionally, firms characterized by higher performance, growth potential, and financial robustness constituted more dispersed salary distribution environments. The findings also suggest that CEO gender has a significant effect on the pay gap with a moderating influence of female CEOs. The paper contributes to the literature by shedding additional light on the urgent need for the implementation of a limit capping the CEO–worker pay ratio at a certain, responsible level as one of screening criteria used by sustainability ranking providers. Furthermore, it also shows that leading corporations in the area of sustainability do not implement any serious solutions in the above area on their own accord.

Audit reports represent the only information stakeholders have about conducted audits and they are a key instrument used in economic and financial decisions. Improving audit reports should be a priority of regulators and auditors. The authors solicited perceptions from 212 experienced auditors and financial report users about the value of audit reports and ways to improve their format and content. An analysis of the responses suggests that adding information on audits (such as auditor’s responsibility about fraud) and on annual accounts and client’s information systems, without significant changes in the format, would improve the decision usefulness of audit reports. The growing sophistication of markets and reporting standards requires new information in audit reports, such as auditors’ conclusions about management’s estimates in annual accounts. The study is useful to regulators, auditors’ corporations, academics, and users and contributes to the current audit literature by providing evidence on consensus between auditors and users with regard to the format and content of audit reports.