Recent research shows the existence of a selective corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure strategy that creates a gap between CSR disclosure and actual performance. These CSR decoupling practices compromise the credibility of CSR reports and have triggered a demand for the adoption of credibility enhancement mechanisms, such as adherence to the global reporting initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines, and the external assurance of CSR reports. The effectiveness of such mechanisms is not clear, however. This paper draws on legitimacy theory and addresses the issue of symbolic versus substantive use of assurance, and compliance with GRI reporting standards, by analysing their effect on CSR decoupling using an international sample of 1,939 companies (15,219 observations from 2002 to 2017). Analysis of a sub‐sample of 708 firms (3,730 observations from 2011 to 2017) also shows that the application of GRI guidelines and the specific characteristics of the assurance provider—accountant, experience and specialisation—reduce CSR decoupling practices. The results provide researchers, managers, assurance providers, investors, stakeholders and regulators with additional insight into the value of the external assurance of sustainability reports and have important managerial and policy implications.

All industries depend on natural capital assets and ecosystem services, either directly, through their supply chains, or through their investments. Companies are therefore challenged to reorient their production systems and turn the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into an opportunity for sustainable economic development. In this paper, we analyze the interest of institutional investors in these corporate policies through the role they play in the disclosure that companies make about them. For a balanced data panel of 8,320 firm‐year observations from 832 global companies operating in different sectors of activity over the period 2011–2020, the results obtained indicate that institutional investors, especially those with investment a long‐term investment horizon, are interested in biodiversity commitments and exercise their demand for information on these initiatives through their representatives on the board of directors. Furthermore, we show that companies are rewarded for disclosing relevant information on business policies, biodiversity management, and the valuation of ecosystem services in the value chain.

In addressing the challenges of climate change (CC), companies face the difficult task of reconciling long‐term environmental goals and short‐term financial interests. In this paper, we argue that that effective climate governance enables companies to balance both objectives, supporting a business case for CC action. For a sample of 832 multinationals for the period 2011–2020, the findings show that effective climate governance leads to higher corporate financial performance (FP) and this relationship is strengthen by better climate performance. Furthermore, effective climate governance is driven by the ownership of long‐term institutional investors, whose positive influence is reinforced by homogeneous distribution of their ownership. We provide a broad analytical framework that considers the determinants and effects of climate governance, from which theoretical and practical implications can be derived.