Received: 26 May 2020 Revised: 27 August 2020 Accepted: 9 September 2020

DOI: 10.1002/sd.2138

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The impact of sustainability reporting quality on the value

relevance of corporate sustainability performance

Imran Abbas Jadoon1 | Akhter Ali1 | Usman Ayub1 | Muhammad Tahir1 |

Raheel Mumtaz2

1
Department of Management Sciences,
Comsats University Islamabad, Islamabad,
Pakistan
2
College of Commerce, Faculty of
Economics & Management Sciences,
Government College University, Faisalabad,
Pakistan
Correspondence
Imran Abbas Jadoon, Department of
Management Science, Comsats University
Islamabad, Park View Road, Islamabad.
Email: imran.jadoon@comsats.edu.pk
Abstract
The value relevance of corporate sustainability performance (CSP) has been studied
from different theoretical perspectives, yielding inconclusive evidence. Therefore, it
is imperative to revisit corporate sustainability performance relevance for investors.
This study explores the value relevance of corporate sustainability performance by
studying the impact that the quality of sustainability reporting has on it. It employed
the panel data of 247 firms from 2012 to 2016 for the best 30 green capital markets
ranked by the Global Green Economy Index. The results indicated that investors
value corporate sustainability performance (achieved through social, economic, and
corporate governance dimensions only) and the quality of sustainability reporting.
However, the environmental dimension of CSP lacks financial materiality for inves-
tors. Furthermore, the quality of sustainability reporting plays an instrumental role in
the value relevance of the corporate governance dimension because it is perceived
as an alternative corporate governance mechanism by investors. The findings are
useful for practitioners, regulators, and other stakeholders interested in understand-
ing the value relevance of corporate sustainability performance and quality of sus-
tainability reporting.

KEYWORDS

alternative corporate governance mechanism, corporate sustainability performance, quality of

sustainability reporting, share value concept, stakeholder perspective, value relevance

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N
Sustainable development advocates economic and social development
while simultaneously avoiding environmental degradation and ensur-
ing the optimal utilization of natural resources. Corporations play an
important role in achieving the objectives of sustainable development
by adopting business policies and practices that maximize share-
holders' wealth, economic and social well-being of its employees, and
of the society in general without adversely affecting the environment
(Mensah, 2019). Such activities of firms that contribute to sustainable
development constitute corporate sustainability, which is the process
of balancing economic, ecological, and social concerns (do Prado
et al., 2020; Elkington, 1999). It is determined through the CSP of
firms, which signifies how a firm's business activities impact the envi-
ronment, society, and the overall economy. This impact can be either
positive or negative (do Prado et al., 2020).
Sustainability reports are critical components for communication
of corporate commitment and performance on sustainability issues
(Boiral, Heras-Saizarbitoria, & Brotherton, 2019; Fonseca, McAllister, &
Fitzpatrick, 2014; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). However, the trustworthi-
ness and reliability of these reports are widely criticized in the litera-
ture.1 This is addressed by instilling the assurance process of
sustainability reporting to ensure the quality and reliability of the
information disclosed (Dando & Swift, 2003; King & Bartels, 2015;
Rasche & Esser, 2006). One of the fundamental objectives of sustain-
ability reporting (GRI, 2009) and quality of sustainability reporting is

Sustainable Development. 2020;1–21. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sd © 2020 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 JADOON ET AL.
to provide relevant and reliable information to investors for estimating
the company value for equity investment decisions (i.e., Boiral
et al., 2019; Manetti & Becatti, 2009; Moroney, Windsor, &
Aw, 2012).
This phenomenon is investigated empirically by assessing the rel-
evance of sustainability information and the quality of sustainability
information for investors. These investors wish to estimate the com-
pany value. However, a vital question is, despite the relevance of this
reliable sustainability information for decision-making, how is this
information perceived by investors, negatively or positively? An unre-
solved research issue in the financial literature is the establishment of
a business case of CSP of firms. Therefore, scholars studied the busi-
ness case of corporate sustainability performance of firms by examin-
ing its value relevance and investigating its relationship with the firm's
financial performance (Rivera, Muñoz, & Moneva, 2017).
Consequently, the existing literature is dominated by two contra-
dictory hypotheses: The social impact and trade-off hypotheses. The
former suggests that serving the interests of a broad class of stake-
holders enhances the financial performance of a firm, which ultimately
increases shareholders' wealth. The latter states that a firm's sustain-
ability activities incur unnecessary costs, reducing the firm's profitabil-
ity. This negatively impacts shareholders' wealth (Marom, 2006;
Preston & O'Bannon, 1997). In view of these two contradictory
hypotheses and the inconclusive empirical evidence, it is imperative
that the value relevance of the CSP is explored in-depth to reconcile
these opposing views, leading us toward a unified theory.
In this context, this study explores the incremental value rele-
vance of CSP while considering the quality of sustainability reporting.
This is an important factor for stock market participants. Furthermore,
to make the empirical results more general, this study used an interna-
tional sample comprising firms across regions from both emerging and
developed markets from 2012 to 2016. Previous studies concentrated
on domestic firms within the market. Hence, the results varied from
market to market.
This study's contribution to existing literature is twofold. First, we
not only intended to understand the value relevance of the overall
CSP and individual dimensions of CSP by applying the quadruple mea-
surement approach of CSP (i.e., environmental, social, governance,
and economic) but also included the quality of sustainability reporting
as a robust proxy to account for value relevance, CSP, and its dimen-
sions. Most of the existing literature on value relevance does not con-
sider the role of quality of sustainability reporting while studying
2
value relevance and largely uses the ESG measurement approach for
corporate sustainability (i.e., environmental, social, and governance),
narrowing the research parameters. Second, a major shortcoming of
existing studies is that they focus on specific countries or regions,
such as the USA, Europe, UK, and Brazil and use samples only from
specific industries. Conversely, this study used a global sample includ-
ing both emerging and developed markets across regions to better
understand the dynamics of value relevance of CSP and quality of sus-
tainability reporting for the given markets, ignoring the concept of
uniqueness.
2 | LI T E RA T U R E RE V I E W
The stakeholder3 theory suggests that organizations must cater to the
interests of a broader class of stakeholders to be successful. There-
fore, organizations should focus on their primary stakeholders, such as
employees, customers, shareholders, government, as well as second-
ary stakeholders, such as the environmentalist group and medial and
civil societies' groups (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984;
Schaltegger, Hörisch, & Freeman, 2019). Even though an organization
has a diverse group of stakeholders with different and conflicting
interests, it must choose business policies and practices that are bene-
ficial for all stakeholders (Darnall, Henriques, & Sadorsky, 2010).
The existing literature on the value relevance of CSP of firms rev-
ealed two conflicting views about the social and environmental activi-
ties of firms: The social impact hypothesis4 and the trade-off
hypothesis5 (Chen & Lee, 2017). The social impact hypothesis sug-
gests that social activities, including environmental activities, posi-
tively affect the financial performance of firms. This view is consistent
with the stakeholder theory, which considers sustainability activities
to be important for shareholders, rendering them value relevant
(Alshehhi, Nobanee, & Khare, 2018). On the other hand, the trade-off
hypothesis suggests that firms involved in social and environmental
activities sacrifice their valuable financial resources. This sacrifice is
against the interests of shareholders (Chen & Lee, 2017). Further-
more, shareholders negatively view such activities that ultimately
have an adverse effect on the firm's market value. Hence, sustainable
activities of firms are not value relevant (Alshehhi et al., 2018; Chen &
Lee, 2017; Donaldson & Preston, 1995).
Considering these contradictory views on sustainability activities,
Porter and Kramer (2006, 2011) explored the link between societal
and economic progress from a different perspective. They advocated
that, since firms cannot solve all social and environmental problems of
the society, they should focus on social and environmental activities.
Therefore, these activities are mutually beneficial to the society as
well as the firm, consequently, making reconciliation between the
two-opposing hypotheses possible. Porter and Kramer (2011) intro-
duced the concept of shared value. They defined shared value as “the
policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a
company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social condi-
tions in the communities in which they operate.” Shared value focuses
on identifying and expanding the connection between social and eco-
nomic progress. Accordingly, if a firm chooses social and environmen-
tal activities that commonly benefit the society and firm alike, then
these activities would positively influence the firm's value, upholding
the value-enhancing theory. Contrarily, if a firm does not choose the
combination of social and environmental activities that are beneficial
to both the firm and society, then such activities would decrease the
value, upholding the trade-off theory. Therefore, it is necessary to
conduct an empirical study on the value relevance of CSP from the
shared value perspective. This study did so using the stakeholder the-
ory along with the concept of share value as the theoretical
foundation.
JADOON ET AL.
2.1 | Value relevance
Value relevance is the ability of a performance measure to explain var-
iations in contemporaneous stock returns. It is the estimate of the
performance measure's usefulness in equity investors' decision-
making (Barton, Hansen, & Pownall, 2010). Traditionally, the focus on
value relevance has been limited to financial information, such as
sales, earnings, book values of equity, comprehensive income, and
operating cash flows (Amir, Harris, & Venuti, 1993; Beisland, 2009).
Another stream of value relevance has evolved, which considers non-
accounting variables as an important factor in determining stock
prices (Amir & Lev, 1996; Aureli, Gigli, Medei, & Supino, 2020;
Carnevale, Mazzuca, & Venturini, 2012; Hughes, 2000; Lapointe-Antunes,
Cormier, Magnan, & Gay-Angers, 2006; Xu, Magnan, & André, 2007).
It is emphasized that accounting information is not the only factor
that explains the variation in market value of firms. Nonaccounting is
an equally important factor influencing market value and its variation
(Aureli et al., 2020; De Villiers, Hsiao, & Maroun, 2017; La Torre,
Sabelfeld, Blomkvist, Tarquinio, & Dumay, 2018; Lombardi,
Trequattrini, Cuozzo, & Cano-Rubio, 2019). Consequently, the value
relevance of nonfinancial research mostly revolves around CSP and its
dimensions (Aureli et al., 2020). This premise adds quantitative and
qualitative measures as a pivotal factor in explaining variation in con-
temporaneous stock prices.
2.2 | Value relevance of corporate sustainability
through individual dimension
The literature on the value relevance of corporate sustainability
mainly focuses on the individual dimensions of corporate sustainabil-
ity. This stream of literature is based on the theoretical proposition
that investors exhibit socially responsible investing behavior and inte-
grate personal value and societal concern into investment-related
decisions (Waddock, 2003). Furthermore, firms' environmental/social
engagement increases long-term profit by reducing resource wastage,
improving processes and products, decreasing conflict costs with
external stakeholders, corporate reputation advantage, employees'
retention and productivity, and reduction in cost of capital
(Heal, 2005). Although the corporate governance dimension is con-
cerned with managing, controlling, and reporting these activities, it is
largely ignored by these studies.
Within the scope of empirical investigation, Hassel et al. (2005)
examined the value relevance of environmental performance using
the Ohlson (1995) model. They used environmental ratings as a proxy
for environmental performance and found a negative relationship
between environmental performance and market value of firms. Alter-
natively, Sinkin, Wright, and Burnett (2008) and Semenova, Hassel,
and Nilsson (2010) depicted a positive relationship. Sinkin et al. (2008)
used the Ohlson model and revolved around the relationship between
the adoption of an eco-efficient business strategy signaled by the
issuance of corporate environmental reports and firm value.
Semenova et al. (2010) investigated the relationship between the
3
market value of equity and the environmental performance of
300 Swedish listed companies. Another study by Cormier and
Magnan (2007) conducted an analysis on Canada, France, and Ger-
many to identify the effect of voluntary environmental reporting on
earnings. They found no relationship between environmental
reporting and earnings in France, whereas a positive effect was
accomplished in Germany and Canada. Thus, results may vary from
country to country and market to market.
2.3 | Value relevance of corporate sustainability
through corporate sustainability reporting
Another stream of value relevance focuses on analyzing the value rel-
evance of corporate sustainability through its disclosure. Theoreti-
cally, this stream of literature posits that a reduction in information
asymmetry among stakeholders would enhance the market value of
firms. The sustainability report is a major step in the direction of
reducing information asymmetry (Schadewitz & Niskala, 2010). How-
ever, it failed to recognize that it is not only information asymmetry
which influences investors' investment-related decisions, but the
actual content of report and information reliability also majorly impact
the market value of firms (Kaspereit & Lopatta, 2016). Hence, a com-
prehensive approach should be employed to understand the value rel-
evance of corporate sustainability.
Empirically, studies, such as Schadewitz and Niskala (2010),
Marna et al. (2015), and Bernardi and Stark (2018) established the
value-enhancing impact of corporate sustainability disclosure.
Schadewitz and Niskala (2010) identified the relationship between
responsibility reporting and firm value for the Finnish stock market
from 2002 to 2005. Marna et al. (2015) examined the association
between share prices and the level of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) disclosure of large UK companies using a modified
Ohlson (1995) model. They used three different proxies for CSR to
check the robustness of the results. Eventually, Bernardi and
Stark (2018) investigated the cross-country value relevance of disclo-
sure of information regarding environmental and social activities and
performance in Europe.
However, contradictory results were revealed by Cardamone
et al. (2012), who focused on the value relevance concept of the social
reports on 178 listed Italian firms. They reported a negative associa-
tion between market value and social reporting. Recently, this view-
point was endorsed by Aureli et al. (2020). Their study focused on the
value relevance of environmental, social, and governance disclosure
by drawing samples from the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index–
listed companies.
2.4 | Value relevance of corporate sustainability
through CSP
A new trend also emerged in the value relevance of corporate sustain-
ability research while maintaining a focus on the overall CSP through
4 JADOON ET AL.
the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) approach. Theoreti-
cally, this line of literature propagates that ESG performance is consid-
ered an intangible asset by investors and is reflected in the market
value of firms (Heal, 2005; Kaspereit & Lopatta, 2016). ESG includes
the corporate governance dimension of corporate sustainability along
with the environmental and social dimensions. This corporate gover-
nance aspect deals with how firms are managed and controlled to pro-
vide transparency in financial reporting, risk management, and
stakeholder rights. Hence, corporate governance is an important fac-
tor in corporate sustainability, as it aligns investors' interest with the
6
firm's overall objective (Eurosif, 2006). In view of the concept of
shared value of Porter and Kramer (2006, 2011), it is considered that
a firm's sustainability activities are value relevant if they are mutually
beneficial for both the firm and society. Therefore, it can be argued
that the economic aspect of firms is equally important along with the
ESG approach for sustainable development. However, the economic
dimension is largely ignored in the literature focusing on ESG.
With reference to the empirical literature on value relevance of
corporate sustainability performance, Kaspereit and Lopatta (2016)
carried out a value relevance study of CSP using the Ohlson model.
The authors reported a positive association between CSP and market
valuation. Lourenço et al. (2012) examined the CSP of firms measured
by the membership of the Dow Jones sustainability index influences
on the market value of equity. They reported that CSP has a signifi-
cant explanatory power for stock prices over traditional summary
accounting measures. Similarly, Jung et al. (2018) conducted a study
on the relationship between CSP and financial performance of firms
based on the Korea Sustainability Index. They also used the Ohlson
model for their empirical analysis. They also reported a positive rela-
tionship between CSP and the financial performance of firms. Chang
and Kuo (2008) studied the interrelationship of corporate sustainable
development (corporate sustainability performance) and financial per-
formance for a sample of 311 global public firms belonging to six
industries. Their results showed that high sustainability performance
positively affects firms' profitability. Similarly, profitability has a posi-
tive effect on a firm's sustainability performance. This study suggests
that there is a reciprocal relationship between the two variables.
Miralles-Quirós, Miralles-Quirós, and Gonçalves (2018) identified
the value relevance of CSP (i.e., environmental, social, and governance
dimensions). They concluded that social and corporate governance
practices have value relevancy for only environmentally sensitive
industries, and environmental indicators have value relevancy for only
environmental nonsensitive industries. Aras, Tezcan, and Fur-
tuna (2018) investigated the value relevance of multidimensional CSP
in Turkish banks and found no value relevance of CSP.
2.5 | Value relevance of CSP and quality of
sustainability reporting
An analysis of the literature review revealed that researchers mostly
focus on the individual dimensions of CSP. Few studies employ a
comprehensive measure of CSP but fail to reach consensus. The
reason behind this inconclusiveness is because they ignore the most
important factor (i.e., quality of sustainability reporting) that influ-
ences the value relevance of CSP. It is believed that stock market par-
ticipants, such as investors and even financial analysts, are more
interested in the quality of sustainability information, as reliable infor-
mation would be difficult to obtain (Cho et al., 2015; Laufer, 2003;
Milne et al., 2006; Moneva, Archel, & Correa, 2006). This is more
prevalent where the nature of the reported issue is complex (Ramus &
Montiel, 2005; Unerman, Bebbington, & O'Dwyer, 2007).
On the empirical side, Martínez-Ferrero and García-
Sánchez (2017) conducted an analysis to identify the relationship
between the quality of sustainability reporting and cost of capital.
They depicted that the quality of sustainability reporting reduces the
cost of capital, which in turn implied that the quality of sustainability
is value relevant. This was further validated by a survey conducted by
de Villiers and van Staden (2010). They reported that investors/share-
holders demand the quality of environmental disclosure. Similarly,
Bachoo, Tan, and Wilson (2013) studied the relationship between a
firm's value and the quality of sustainability reporting for Australian
listed companies. They reported a positive relationship between qual-
ity of sustainability reporting and future expected performance. Their
study suggested that the quality of sustainability reporting is reflected
in the firm's market value. Hence, it serves as an important factor in
the value relevance of the sustainability performance of firms.
2.6 | Research gap
In summary, scholars in the field of sustainable development exam-
ined the business case of corporate sustainability by exploring the
value relevance of CSP of firms. Corporate sustainability increases
firm value by reducing conflict costs among stakeholders, improving
productivity, retention of employees, corporate reputation, as well as
reducing resource wastage and information asymmetry.7 However,
the literature failed to operationalize a comprehensive theoretical
approach to analyze the value relevance of corporate sustainability.
Scholars either employed individual dimensions or ESGs to capture
the value relevance of corporate sustainability. The quadruple
approach of corporate sustainability (i.e., economic, environmental,
social, and corporate governance) is most appropriate for analyzing
the relevance of corporate sustainability (Sidhoum & Serra, 2018).
Studies, such as Kaspereit and Lopatta (2016), Lins et al. (2017),
Lopatta and Kaspereit (2014), and Lourenço et al. (2012), provided
evidence in support of the value relevance of CSP. However, there
are other empirical studies, such as Aras et al. (2018) and
Cheung (2011), which found no conclusive evidence. It can be con-
cluded from the discussion above that the value relevance of CSP has
an inconclusive theoretical approach and empirical evidence, while
the quality of sustainability reporting has been ignored in value rele-
vance literature. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an empirical
study on the value relevance of CSP (i.e., quadruple measurement
approach). It is also important that quality of sustainability reporting is
carried out under the shared value concept of value relevance.
JADOON ET AL.
3 | M E TH O DO LO GY
The value relevance of corporate sustainability was measured using
two alternative research designs: Panel regression research design8
9
and event study research design. The research studies that employed
the event study research design have a short-term perspective and
consider investor reactions around the event of publishing sustainabil-
ity reports (Kaspereit & Lopatta, 2016). However, this study aimed at
a long-term value relevance approach to capture the impact of the
content of sustainability reports on capital market reactions. Hence,
panel data methodology was employed to investigate the value rele-
vance of financial and nonfinancial information. Panel regression
methodology is based on two alternative models (i.e., fixed-effect
model and random-effect model) for the estimation of research
models. To resolve issues regarding the choice of methods,
researchers employed Hausman tests because the choice between
fixed-effect and random-effect models is sample dependent. Thus,
the preference of one model on other models cannot be determined a
priori (Onali, Ginesti, & Vasilakis, 2017). This study employed the
fixed-effect model because the Hausman test considers the data as
time invariant (see Tables 3–7) for basic and modified price regression
models. The incremental value relevance of CSP (also for dimension
of CSP) and quality of sustainability reporting were analyzed using the
Vuong test (1989). The Vuong test (1989) employs the likelihood ratio
to describe the statistical significance for direct comparisons of com-
peting models that explain the same dependent variables (see
Dechow, 1994; Vuong, 1989).
3.1 | Econometric models
To investigate whether investors value corporate sustainability activi-
ties and the quality of sustainability reporting of the firms, we
employed the market value model developed by Ohlson (1995). This
model postulates that market value of share is a function of book
value and accounting earnings only. We modified the Ohlson (1995)
model by including two additional nonfinancial variables, that is, qual-
ity of sustainability reporting and CSP. The rationale behind this was
that the CSP reduces economic uncertainty and risk for investors
while increasing the predictability of earnings (Lourenço et al., 2012).
These benefits are achieved by improving relationships and reducing
conflict costs with stakeholders (Roberts, 1992), creating sustainability
reputation as a competitive advantage (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002; Isabel
et al., 2010) and increasing employee productivity (Vitaliano, 2010).
However, the quality of sustainability reporting adds credibility and
reliability to CSP, which enhances stakeholders' confidence in the
information provided (Choi & Wong, 2007; Chua, Vanstraelen, &
Fong, 2009; Zorio, García-Benau, & Sierra, 2013), and investors can
accurately measure the market valuation of firms by reducing informa-
tion asymmetry (Schadewitz & Niskala, 2010). In this context, the fol-
lowing equations present the proposed models:
MVit = α + β1 BVPSit + β2 EPSit + εit , ð1Þ
5
MVit = α + β1 BVPSit + β2 EPSit + β3 Susit + εit , ð2Þ
MVit = α + β1 BVPSit + β2 EPSit + β3 Susit + β4 Quit + εit , ð3Þ
MVit = α + β1 BVPSit + β2 EPSit + β3 Susit + β4 Quit + β5 Susit  Quit + εit,
ð4Þ
where i represents company, t is year, MV is market value per share,
BVPS is book value of per share, and EPS is earning per share. Sus is
the sustainability performance of a company measured through an
equal-weighted score of four dimensions (i.e., economic, social, envi-
ronmental, and corporate governance). It is replaced by each dimen-
sion performance score in the subsequent analysis to capture the
individual effect of each dimension. Qu is the quality of sustainability
reporting with values from 0 to 3 (i.e., self-declared as 0, audited by
third party other than an accountant as 1, audited by an accountant
as 2, and audited by Big Four as 3). The quality of sustainability
reporting value ranged from 0 to 3, where a higher value indicated a
higher quality of sustainability reporting.
3.2 | Data sources
We extracted the financial variables data (i.e., market value per share,
book value per share, and earnings per share) from the worldscope
database. Sustainability data were taken from the ASSET4 database
provided by Thomson Reuters. ASSET4 data are based on publicly
available information that authenticates the trustworthiness and reli-
ability of a proxy of sustainability (Gong, Gao, Koh, Sutcliffe, &
Cullen, 2019; Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012; Semenova & Hassel, 2015).
The database measures sustainability through four dimensions: envi-
ronmental, social, economic, and corporate governance. ASSET4 uti-
lizes z-scoring for normalization and generates comparable scores for
each dimension across firms. Each dimension score ranges from 0 to
100, where a higher score indicates a higher performance of corpo-
rate sustainability. The overall equally weighted score for sustainabil-
ity performance was calculated by the arithmetic mean of the
sustainability dimensions' score (Budsaratragoon & Jitmaneeroj,
2019). Furthermore, the quality of sustainability reporting data were
extracted from the GRI database.10
3.3 | Sample selection
This study used the panel data of 247 firms from 2012 to 2016 across
21 countries (see Table 1). This time period was chosen because the
GRI database started providing the name of the third-party assurer
post 2012 and to reduce the effect of the nonfinancial directive by
the European Commission since 2018. This study was designed to
identify the impact of quality of sustainability reporting on the value
relevance of sustainability in both emerging and developed markets in
a single model. Although the characteristics of both markets are
6 JADOON ET AL.

TABLE 1 Sample of study

S no. Country Freq. Percent Cum. S no. Country Freq. Percent Cum.
1 Austria 20 1.62 1.62 12 Japan 395 31.98 67.61
2 Belgium 20 1.62 3.24 13 China 50 4.05 71.66
3 Canada 110 8.91 12.15 14 Netherlands 15 1.21 72.87
4 Colombia 5 0.4 12.55 15 New Zealand 15 1.21 74.09
5 Denmark 35 2.83 15.38 16 Norway 15 1.21 75.3
6 Finland 35 2.83 18.22 17 Singapore 15 1.21 76.52
7 France 55 4.45 22.67 18 Sweden 50 4.05 80.57
8 Germany 75 6.07 28.74 19 Taiwan 20 1.62 82.19
9 Greece 25 2.02 30.77 20 Thailand 40 3.24 85.43
10 Ireland 10 0.81 31.58 21 United Kingdom 180 14.57 100
11 Italy 50 4.05 35.63

TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

Mean SD Price Eps Bvps Eqs Cgs Ss Ecos Envs Qu

Price 346.88 696.17 1
Eps 26.96 54.02 0.689*** 1
Bvps 488.19 1,039.77 0.775*** 0.5943*** 1
Eqs 61.45 28.5 −0.028 0.0920*** −0.0724** 1
Cgs 53.13 31.72 −0.545*** −0.283** −0.532*** 0.698*** 1
Ss 60.52 29.46 0.0873*** 0.1536*** 0.0376 0.9119*** 0.263*** 1
Ecos 61.35 27.86 0.0743*** 0.1247*** 0.0245 0.8239*** 0.307*** 0.701*** 1
Envs 61.82 31.21 0.2501*** 0.2666** 0.2122*** 0.7815*** 0.035 0.812*** 0.537*** 1
Qu 0.88 1.28 −0.0434 −0.0184 −0.091*** 0.0435 0.095*** 0.014* 0.001* 0.03 1

Note: This table presents the mean, standard deviation, and correlation matrix, where *, **, and *** represent significance level at 10, 5, and 1%, respec-
tively. Price per share, earning per share, book value per share, equal-weighted score, corporate governance score, social score, economic score, environ-
mental score, and quality of sustainability reporting are represented by Price, Eps, Bvps, Eqs, Cgs, Ss, Ecos, Evns, and Qu. The number of observations and
companies is 1,235 and 247, respectively.

different, a homogenous group of countries was created on the basis
of the sustainability development index provided by the Global Green
Economy Index (GGEI).11 The initial sample was the best 30 green
capital markets ranked by the GGEI. However, the sample was
reduced to 21 countries due to the nonavailability of data. Further-
more, we also winsorized the data at the 1st and 99th percentiles to
remove the possible effect of the outlier and potential data errors
(Alali & Foote, 2012).
4 | RESULTS
4.1 | Descriptive statistics
Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics (i.e., mean and standard
deviation) and correlation matrix of financial variables, sustainability
variables score (social, economic, corporate governance, environmen-
tal, and overall equal-weighted score), and quality of sustainability
reporting used in this study. With respect to the descriptive statistics
of the financial variable, the market value of share, earnings per share,
and book value per share had mean values of 346.88, 26.96, and
488.19, respectively. The standard deviations for these variables were
696.17, 54.02, and 1,039, respectively. On the other hand, with refer-
ence to sustainability performance, the overall equal-weighted score
had a mean value of 61.45 with a standard deviation of 28.50. These
results suggested that the mean of the overall equal-weighted score
of sustainability for the studied sample was in the third quartile range
of sustainability score. As sustainability scoring (i.e., overall and indi-
vidual dimensions) ranges from 0 to 100, where a higher score means
a higher performance with respect to corporate sustainability. For the
studied sample, the mean values of economic, social, environmental,
and corporate governance dimensions were 61.35, 60.52, 61.82, and
53.13, respectively. Their standard deviation values were 27.86,
29.46, 31.21, and 31.72, respectively. These results indicated that the
performance of the sustainability dimensions' score was above aver-
age in the studied sample. Moreover, the quality of sustainability
reporting had a mean value of 0.88, with a standard deviation of 1.28.
This implied the moderately low quality of sustainability reporting in
JADOON ET AL. 7

TABLE 3 Model 1 (Value Relevance of Economic Dimension of Sustainability)

A B C D
Intercept −50.510** (0.012) −109.345*** (0.000) −118.143*** (0.000) −121.653*** (0.000)
Bvps 0.656*** (0.000) 0.640*** (0.000) 0.634*** (0.000) 0.634*** (0.000)
Eps 2.851*** (0.000) 2.782*** (0.000) 2.783*** (0.000) 2.783*** (0.000)
Ecos 1.119*** (0.002) 1.095*** (0.002) 1.1512*** (0.005)
Qu 14.879** (0.024) 18.588 (0.201)
Qu*Ecos −0.0586 (0.775)
Overall R2 0.6557 0.6571 0.658 0.6579
F-test 24.83*** (0.000) 25.07*** (0.000) 25.17*** (0.000) 25.12*** (0.000)
Hausman test 42.29*** (0.000) 38.96*** (0.000) 37.15*** (0.000) 37.92*** (0.000)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model A — 12.12*** (0.000) 18.54*** (0.000) 18.64*** (0.000)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model B — — 6.42** (0.011) 6.52** (0.038)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model C — — — 0.10 (0.748)
Obs 1,235 1,235 1,235 1,235
No. of companies 247 247 247 247

Note: *, **, and *** represent significance level at 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. Based on the Ohlson (1995) model, this table provides four models for value
relevance of economic dimension of sustainability. Bvps, Eps, Ecos, Qu, and Qu*Ecos are predictor variables and represent book value per share, earning
per share, economic score, quality of sustainability report, and interaction term between quality of sustainability reporting and economic score, respec-
tively. Furthermore, this table represents value for overall R2, F statistics, Hausman test, and their p-value. The number of observations and companies is
also presented in the table.

our sample, as firms assured their sustainability reports from third-
party firms other than accountant firms.
In view of the correlation matrix, all the predictor variables had
correlation values below 0.50, except the dimensions of sustainability
performance. Therefore, separate regression models were used in the
analysis for each dimension of sustainability to avoid multicollinearity.
4.2 | Empirical results
We employed the value relevance model proposed by Ohlson (1995),
followed by modified models with additional nonfinancial variables
(i.e., corporate sustainability performance and quality of sustainability
reporting). Additionally, each dimension of corporate sustainability
performance was studied in a separate model by substituting the
overall corporate sustainability proxy. Hence, five different models
with four submodels were constructed. Tables 3–7 show their results.
This study analyzed the coefficient of the price regression model
to know how the reliability of sustainability information is perceived
by investors. We developed the required regression model in steps.
The first model included only financial predictor variables, followed by
sustainability score variables (economic score, corporate governance
score, social score, and environmental score, equal-weighted score),
quality of sustainability reporting, and their interaction term. The
regression analysis revealed that the adjusted R2 for all five models
and their submodels was above 64%. This implied that the predictor
variables explained about 64% of the variation in the predicted vari-
able. Furthermore, the F-statistics and Hausman test for all these
models were highly significant at the 1% level (see Tables 3–7).
The regression coefficient of the overall equal-weighted score
had a significant positive impact (1.154, p < .05) on the market
value of a firm (see Table 7). These results indicated that higher
sustainability performance would result in higher market value of
firms, and investors have a positive perception about sustainability
performance. Similarly, with respect to dimensions of sustainability,
regression coefficient results revealed that economic (1.119,
p value <.01), social (1.078, p value <.05), and corporate gover-
nance (1.133, p value <.01) dimensions have a significant positive
influence on the market value of the firm (see Tables 3, 4, and 6).
However, the environmental dimension had an insignificant (0.418,
p value >.10) effect on the market value of the firm (see Table 5).
These results revealed that a higher score on economic, social, and
corporate governance performance would result in higher market
value for firms. However, the environmental performance of firms
had no relationship with the market value of firms. The results
regarding overall sustainability performance and dimension of sus-
tainability performance (except environmental dimension) were con-
sistent with the value-enhancing theory in the context of the
shared value concept. This validated the viewpoint that if a firm
chooses social activities that are mutually beneficial for both the
firm and society, then these activities would uplift the firm's value
(Porter & Kramer, 2006, 2011). Furthermore, empirically, these
results aligned with the existing studies conducted by Lins
et al. (2017), Kaspereit and Lopatta (2016), Lopatta and
Kaspereit (2014), and Lourenço et al. (2012). They also found a
positive impact of CSP on a firm's value. However, our results
were inconsistent with the conclusion proposed by Aras et al. (2018)
and Cheung (2011). The reason for this inconsistency might be
8 JADOON ET AL.

TABLE 4 Model 2 (value relevance of corporate governance dimension of sustainability)

Model A Model B Model C Model D

Intercept −50.510** (0.012) −110.1596*** (0.006) −116.97*** (0.004) −141.431*** (0.000)
Bvps 0.657*** (0.000) 0.656*** (0.000) 0.650*** (0.000) 0.635*** (0.000)
Eps 2.851*** (0.000) 2.835*** (0.000) 2.835*** (0.000) 2.853*** (0.000)
Cgs 1.133* (0.086) 1.069 (0.105) 1.662** (0.014)
Qu 15.031** (0.023) 58.012*** (0.000)
Qu*Cgs −0.763*** (0.000)
2
Overall R 0.6557 0.6451 0.6464 0.6501
F-test 24.83*** (0.000) 22.27*** (0.000) 22.34*** (0.000) 22.46*** (0.000)
Hausman test 42.29*** (0.000) 101.57*** (0.000) 97.56*** (0.000) 90.32*** (0.000)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model A — 3.69* (0.055) 10.19*** (0.006) 27.00*** (0.000)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model B — — 6.50** (0.011) 23.31*** (0.000)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model C — — — 16.81*** (0.000)
Number of obs 1,235 1,235 1,235 1,235
No. of companies 247 247 247 247

Note: *, **, and *** represent significance level at 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. Based on the Ohlson (1995) model, this table provides four models for value
relevance of corporate governance dimension of sustainability. Bvps, Eps, Cgs, Qu, and Qu*Cgs are predictor variables and represent book value per share,
earning per share, corporate governance score, quality of sustainability report, and interaction term between quality of sustainability reporting and corpo-
rate governance score, respectively. Furthermore, this table represents value for overall R2, F statistics, Hausman test, and their p-value. The number of
observations and companies is also presented in the table.

TABLE 5 Model 3 (value relevance of environmental dimension of sustainability)

Model A Model B Model C Model D

Intercept −50.510*** (0.012) −75.106*** (000) −85.070** (0.029) −74.771** (0.062)
Bvps 0.657*** (0.000) 0.654*** (0.000) 0.648*** (0.000) 0.648*** (0.000)
Eps 2.851** (0.000) 2.846*** (0.000) 2.846*** (0.000) 2.843*** (0.000)
Envs 0.418 (0.458) 0.409 (0.466) 0.248 (0.669)
Qu 15.456** (0.019) 1.227 (0.933)
Quenvs 0.224 (0.279)
Overall R2 0.6557 0.6572 0.658 0.6583
F-test 24.83*** (0.000) 24.69*** (0.000) 24.81*** (0.000) 24.81*** (0.000)
Hausman test 42.29*** (0.000) 40.50*** (0.000) 38.71*** (0.000) 38.16*** (0.000)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model A — 0.69 (0.4055) 7.56** (0.022) 9.04** (0.0288)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model B — — 6.87*** (0.008) 0.0154** (0.015)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model C — — — 1.47 (0.2247)
Obs 1,235 1,235 1,235 1,235
No. of companies 247 247 247 247

Note: *, **, and *** represent significance level at 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. Based on the Ohlson (1995) model, this table provides four models for value
relevance of environmental dimension of sustainability. Bvps, Eps, Envs, Qu, and Qu*Envs are predictor variables and represent book value per share, earn-
ing per share, environmental score, quality of sustainability report, and interaction term between quality of sustainability reporting and environmental
score, respectively. Furthermore, this table represents value for overall R2, F statistics, Hausman test, and their p-value. The number of observations and
companies is also presented in the table.

that we employed cross-country analysis through a panel data
regression research design. Aras et al. (2018) conducted an analysis
of a single sector in Turkey, while Cheung (2011) focused on the
short-term value relevance of corporate sustainability through an
event study research design. In the context of environmental
dimension, this study's value irrelevancy was against the viewpoint
proposed by Hassel et al. (2005), Sinkin et al. (2008), and
Semenova et al. (2010). One of the possible reasons behind these
contradictory results might be that this study focused on environ-
mental information provided in sustainability reports rather than
environmental disclosure.12 Hence, it would be difficult for inves-
tors to identify the financial materiality between environmental
JADOON ET AL. 9

TABLE 6 Model 4 (value relevance of social dimension of sustainability)

Model A Model B Model C Model D

Intercept −50.510** (0.012) −109.539*** (0.002) −118.512*** (0.001) −110.878*** (0.002)
Bvps 0.656*** (0.000) 0.645*** (0.000) 0.6395*** (0.000) 0.639*** (0.000)
Eps 2.851*** (0.000) 2.821*** (0.000) 2.821*** (0.000) 2.817*** (0.000)
Ss 1.078** (0.039) 1.054** (0.043) 0.935* (0.085)
Qu 15.215** (0.021) 5.153 (0.724)
Quss 0.161 (0.439)
2
Overall R 0.6557 0.6573 0.6581 0.658
F-test 24.83*** (0.000) 24.92*** (0.000) 25.03*** (0.000) 25.02*** (0.000)
Hausman test 42.29*** (0.000) 39.89*** (0.000) 38.04*** (0.000) 37.92*** (0.000)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model A — 5.35** (0.021) 12.03*** (0.002) 12.79*** (0.005)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model B — — 6.68*** (0.001) 7.44** (0.024)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model C — — — 0.75 (0.385)
Obs 1,235 1,235 1,235 1,235
No. of companies 247 247 247 247

Note: *, **, and *** represent significance level at 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. Based on the Ohlson (1995) model, this table provides four models for value
relevance of social dimension of sustainability. Bvps, Eps, Ss, Qu, and Qu*Ss are predictor variables and represent book value per share, earning per share,
social score, quality of sustainability report, and interaction term between quality of sustainability reporting and social score, respectively. Furthermore, this
table represents value for overall R2, F statistics, Hausman test, and their p-value. The number of observations and companies is also presented in the
table.

TABLE 7 Model 5 (value relevance of equal weight score of sustainability dimension)

Model A Model B Model C Model D

Intercept −50.51034** (0.012) −114.5887*** (0.001) −122.397*** (000) −125.6006*** (000)
Bvps 0.657*** (0.000) 0.6454*** (0.000) 0.639*** (0.000) 0.639*** (0.000)
Eps 2.851*** (0.000) 2.801*** (0.000) 2.802*** (0.000) 2.802*** (0.000)
Eqs 1.154** (0.019) 1.112** (0.024) 1.165** (0.027)
Qu 14.932** (0.024) 19.02 (0.223)
Qu*Eqs −0.064 (0.773)
Overall R2 0.6557 0.6571 0.6559 0.656
F-test 24.83*** (0.000) 24.93*** (0.000) 24.04*** (0.000) 25.00*** (0.000)
Hausman test 42.29*** (0.000) 44.75*** (0.000) 42.76*** (0.000) 42.60*** (0.000)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model A — 6.84*** (0.009) 13.28*** (0.001) 13.39*** (0.004)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model B — — 6.44** (0.0112) 6.54** (0.038)
Vuong test (Z-statistics) base model C — — — 0.10 (0.7461)
Obs 1,235 1,235 1,235 1,235
No. of companies 247 247 247 247

Note: *, **, and *** represent significance level at 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. This table has four models with reference to equal-weighted score for three
dimensions of sustainability. Bvps, Eps, Eqs, Qu, and Qu*Eqs are predictor variables and represent book value per share, earning per share, equal-weighted
score, quality of sustainability report, and interaction term of quality reporting and equal-weighted scores, respectively. Furthermore, this table represents
value for overall R2, F statistics, Hausman test, and their p-value. The number of observations and companies is also presented in the table.

resource usage and business strategy and risk, especially under dif-
ferent regulatory regimes (The Association of Chartered Certified
Accountants, 2013).
The results of the study with reference to the regression coeffi-
cient of quality of sustainability reporting revealed the positive
(β4M1=14.879, β4M2=15.031, β4M3 = 15.456, β4M4 = 15.215, and
β4M5 = 14.932) and significant (p-value <.05 in all five models) effect
on market value of firms in all five models regarding overall and
dimensions of sustainability score (see Tables 3–7). These results
implied that firms with self-declared sustainability reports would show
lower firm value. Conversely, firms with sustainability reports assured
by big four accountant firms would have higher firm value. These
results were consistent with the argument proposed by Martínez-
Ferrero and García-Sánchez (2017). They proposed that quality of
10
sustainability reporting should be value relevant, as it reduces the cost
of capital, which translates into a firm's higher market value. However,
all the interaction terms (i.e., Qu × Ss, Qu × Ecos, Qu × Envs, and
Qu × Eqs) between the quality of sustainability reporting and CSP and
its dimensions were insignificant except for the corporate governance
dimension (i.e., Qu × CGS), where Qu × CGS had negative (−0.763)
and significant (p value <.01) effect. These results implied that the
quality of sustainability reporting had little or no influence on the rela-
tionship between CSP and market value of the firm. However, the
quality of sustainability reporting exhibited a substitution effect on
corporate governance performance. In other words, investors consid-
ered third-party assurance as an alternative corporate governance
mechanism, and the corporate governance dimension could be rep-
laced by third-party assurance. These results were consistent with the
viewpoint proposed in the literature that corporate governance has a
weak link with other dimensions of CSP (Sidhoum & Serra, 2018), and
third-party assurance should be considered as an alternative corpo-
rate governance mechanism (Han, Kang, & Yoo, 2012).
This study employed the Vuong test (1989) to verify the incre-
mental value relevance of CSP and the quality of sustainability
reporting. The explanatory power of the overall CSP and its dimen-
sions variables was compared against a base model containing only
financial variables. Furthermore, with respect to the quality of sus-
tainability reporting, the explanatory power of models containing
both CSP (substituting with individual dimensions) and quality of
sustainability variables was compared against the base model hav-
ing financial variables only/or with sustainability variables. The
Vuong test revealed that overall corporate sustainability (Vuong z-
statistics = 6.84, p-value = .009), corporate governance (Vuong z-
statistics = 3.69, p-value = .0548), social (Vuong z-statistics = 5.35,
p-value = .021), and economic (Vuong z-statistics = 12.12, p-
value = .000) models added value to the explanatory power of
financial variable models, making them more relevant to measure
the market value of firms. However, the comparison between the
financial variables model and the environmental model revealed a
statistically insignificant value (Vuong z-statistics = 0.69, p-
value = .4055). With reference to quality of sustainability, results
revealed that quality of sustainability reporting in combination with
overall CSP (Vuong z-statistics = 13.28, p-value = .001), social
(Vuong z-statistics = 12.03, p-value = .002), economic (Vuong z-sta-
tistics = 12.12, p-value = .000), corporate governance (Vuong z-sta-
tistics = 10.19, p-value = .006), or environmental dimension (Vuong
z-statistics = 7.56, p-value = .022) was statistically more relevant in
explaining the change in market value of the firm as compared to
models having financial variables only/or with sustainability vari-
ables. These results indicated that overall ΔR2 was low, but sustain-
ability performance (excluding environmental dimension) and
quality of sustainability reporting added significant value to the
explanatory power of models. Hence, these results provided
robustness to regression coefficient analysis, which states that the
quality of sustainability reporting and overall corporate sustainabil-
ity, social dimension, corporate governance dimension, and eco-
nomic dimension have an incremental value relevance effect,
JADOON ET AL.
whereas the environmental dimension of CSP does not have incre-
mental value relevance.
5 | CONC LU SION
The global pursuit of sustainable development changed the role of
corporations. The traditional view of firms (i.e., the shareholders view)
which suggests that firms are only responsible for creating value for
shareholders has changed. Now firms focus on creating sustainable
value which covers the four dimensions of sustainability, that is, envi-
ronmental, social, corporate governance, and economic. CSP shows
how firms' activities influence the environment, society, and economy,
as well as the firm's commitment to the achievement of objectives of
sustainable development. However, the quality of sustainability
reporting authenticates the reliability of information on CSP. In this
sense, both the quality of sustainability reporting and sustainability
performance are valued by investors. Consequently, this study aimed
at creating a business case for the value relevance of sustainability
performance and quality of sustainability.
The results of the regression analysis of value relevance rev-
ealed that investors valued the overall CSP (achieved through eco-
nomic, social, and corporate governance dimensions) and quality of
sustainability reporting. Nonetheless, environmental performance
was perceived as irrelevant by investors for enhancing firm valua-
tion. The quality of sustainability reporting played an instrumental
role in the value relevance of corporate governance because it was
perceived as an alternative corporate governance mechanism by
investors. Hence, it can be concluded that CSP is value relevant
and validates the social impact hypothesis. However, its dimensions
are not equal. The corporate governance dimension should be con-
sidered from a different perspective than the other three dimen-
sions because these three dimensions focus on basic operational
business strategies, whereas corporate governance is concerned
with managing and reporting these business strategies.13 In this
context, the quality of sustainability reporting has a substituting
effect on the corporate governance dimension. The quality of sus-
tainability reporting is also concerned with the reliability of
reported information through third-party assurance. Furthermore,
the information provided in sustainability reports regarding envi-
ronmental dimensions should be standardized across firms and
have financial materiality for equity investors.
This study's findings are useful for future research on the corpo-
rate sustainability of firms as well as for practitioners, such as share-
holders, regulators, standard setters, and other stakeholders
interested in the sustainability performance of firms. Simultaneously,
it would help management of firms to understand the role of third-
party insurance in the corporate sustainability context, so that a firm
would be valued by investors while making investment decisions.
The current understanding of value relevance can be enhanced
by focusing on institutional factors, such as exploring whether the
basis of regulation of corporate sustainability reporting (Voluntary/
Mandatory) would affect the value relevance of CSP.
JADOON ET AL.
ORCID
Imran Abbas Jadoon https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2476-4745
ENDNOTES
1 porate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6),
For details see Boiral et al. (2019), Cho, Laine, Roberts, and
Rodrigue (2015), Gray (2010), and Milne, Kearins, and Walton (2006).
2 Aureli, S., Gigli, S., Medei, R., & Supino, E. (2020). The value relevance
For details see Baboukardos (2018), Bernardi & Stark, 2018, Clarkson,
Li, & Richardson, 2004, Lins, Servaes, & Tamayo, 2017, Lopatta &
Kaspereit, 2014, Lourenço, Branco, Curto, & Eugénio, 2012, and Marna,
Charl, & Chris, 2015.
3
A stakeholder is “any group or individual that can affect or is affected by
the achievement of the organization's objectives (Freeman, 1984, p. 46).”
4
Chen and Lee (2017), Fischer and Sawczyn (2013), Jesús, Jorge, Conesa,
and Martínez-Martínez (2016), Jung, Nam, Yang, and Kim (2018)
Platonova, Asutay, Dixon, and Mohammad (2018) advocate social impact
hypothesis.
5
Cardamone, Carnevale, and Giunta (2012), and Hassel, Nilsson, and
Nyquist (2005) advocate trade-off theory.
6 sures do investors around the world value the most—and why? The
Eurosif, European Sustainable and Responsible Investment Forum, is an
association that represents the SRI industry at the European level,
established in 2001.
7
For details, see Lourenço et al. (2012), Roberts (1992), Bliese and
Ployhart (2002), Isabel, José-Manuel, Luis, and Isabel-María (2010), and
Vitaliano (2010).
8 icy, 37(4), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.
For details, see Jung et al. (2018), Bernardi and Stark (2018), Lourenço
et al. (2012), and Marna et al. (2015).
9 Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coef-
For details, see Capelle-Blancard and Couderc (2009), Consolandi,
Jaiswal-Dale, Poggiani, and Vercelli (2009) and Cheung (2011).
10
The GRI was founded in 1997 by the Coalition for Environmentally
Responsible Economies (CERES) and the Tellus institute for developing
globally recognized framework for sustainability reporting.
11
The Global Green Economy Index (GGEI) measures the green economy
performance of 130 countries with both quantitative and qualitative
indicators. It is the most widely employed benchmark for customized
sustainability measurement frameworks for a diverse range of
stakeholders.
12
We acknowledge and are thankful to anonymous reviewer for
pinpointing this direction for the explanation of results.
13
We acknowledge and are thankful to anonymous reviewer for
pinpointing this direction for the explanation of results.
RE FE R ENC E S
The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. (2013). What do
investors expect from non-financial reporting? London, England: ACCA.
https://www.accaglobal.com/uk/en/technical-activities/technical-
resources-search/2013/august/investors-and-non-financial-reporting.
html.
Alali, F. A., & Foote, P. S. (2012). The value relevance of international
financial reporting standards: Empirical evidence in an emerging mar-
ket. The International Journal of Accounting, 47(1), 85–108. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.intacc.2011.12.005
Alshehhi, A., Nobanee, H., & Khare, N. (2018). The impact of sustainability
practices on corporate financial performance: Literature trends and
future research potential. Sustainability, 10, 494–519. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su10020494
Amir, E., Harris, T., & Venuti, E. (1993). A Comparison of the value-
relevance of U.S. versus non-U.S. gaap accounting measures using
form 20-F reconciliations. Journal of Accounting Research, 31,
230–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491172
11
Amir, E., & Lev, B. (1996). Value-relevance of nonfinancial information: The
wireless communications industry. Journal of Accounting and Economics,
22(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(96)00430-2
Aras, G., Tezcan, N., & Furtuna, O. K. (2018). The value relevance of bank-
ing sector multidimensional corporate sustainability performance. Cor-
1062–1073.
of environmental, social, and governance disclosure: Evidence
from Dow Jones sustainability world index listed companies. Cor-
porate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1),
43–52.
Baboukardos, D. (2018). The valuation relevance of environmental perfor-
mance revisited: The moderating role of environmental provisions. The
British Accounting Review, 50(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.
2017.09.002
Bachoo, K., Tan, R., & Wilson, M. (2013). Firm value and the quality of sus-
tainability reporting in Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 23(1),
67–87.
Barton, J., Hansen, T. B., & Pownall, G. (2010). Which performance mea-
Accounting Review, 85(3), 753–789.
Beisland, L. A. (2009). A review of the value relevance literature. Open
Business Journal, 6(2), 7–27.
Bernardi, C., & Stark, A. W. (2018). On the value relevance of information
on environmental and social activities and performance – Some evi-
dence from the UKstock market. Journal of Accounting and Public Pol-
07.001
ficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational
Research Methods, 5(4), 362–387.
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Brotherton, M.-C. (2019). Assessing
and improving the quality of sustainability reports: The auditors' per-
spective. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3), 703–721. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-017-3516-4
Budsaratragoon, P., Jitmaneeroj, B. (2019). Measuring causal relations and
identifying critical drivers for corporate sustainability: the quadruple
bottom line approach. Measuring Business Excellence, 23(3), 292–316.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/mbe-10-2017-0080.
Capelle-Blancard, G., & Couderc, N. (2009). The impact of socially respon-
sible investing: Evidence from stock index redefinitions. Journal of
Investing, 18(2), 76–86.
Cardamone, P., Carnevale, C., & Giunta, F. (2012). The value relevance of
social reporting: Evidence from listed Italian companies. Journal of
Applied Accounting Research, 13(3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.
1108/09675421211281326
Carnevale, C., Mazzuca, M., & Venturini, S. (2012). Corporate social
reporting in European banks: The effects on a firm's market value. Cor-
porate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(3),
159–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.262
Chang, D., & Kuo, L. R. (2008). The effects of sustainable develop-
ment on firms' financial performance – An empirical approach.
Sustainable Development, 16(6), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.
1002/sd.351
Chen, R. C. Y., & Lee, C.-H. (2017). The influence of CSR on firm value: An
application of panel smooth transition regression on Taiwan. Applied
Economics, 49(34), 3422–3434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.
2016.1262516
Cheung, A. W. K. (2011). Do stock investors value corporate sustainabil-
ity? Evidence from an event study. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2),
145–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0646-3
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized
hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting.
12
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aos.2014.12.003
Choi, J.-H., & Wong, T. J. (2007). Auditors' governance functions and legal
environments: An international investigation. Contemporary Accounting
Research, 24(1), 13–46. https://doi.org/10.1506/X478-1075-4PW5-
1501
Chua, R. S., Vanstraelen, A., & Fong, W. (2009). Assurance on sustainability
reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3),
937–967. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., & Richardson, G. D. (2004). The market valuation of
environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies. The
Accounting Review, 79(2), 329–353.
Consolandi, C., Jaiswal-Dale, A., Poggiani, E., & Vercelli, A. (2009). Global
standards and ethical stock indexes. Journal of Business Ethics, 87
(Suppl 1), 185–197.
Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2007). The revisited contribution of environ-
mental reporting to investors' valuation of a firm's earnings: An inter-
national perspective. Ecological Economics, 62(3), 613–626. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.030
Dando, N., & Swift, T. (2003). Transparency and assurance minding the
credibility gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 195–200. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1023351816790
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive envi-
ronmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size. Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1072–1094. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00873.x
De Villiers, C., Hsiao, P. -C. K., & Maroun, W. (2017). Developing a concep-
tual model of influences around integrated reporting, new insights and
directions for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(4),
450–460.
de Villiers, C., & van Staden, C. J. (2010). Shareholders' requirements for
corporate environmental disclosures: A cross country comparison. The
British Accounting Review, 42(4), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bar.2010.08.002
Dechow, P. M. (1994). Accounting earnings and cash flows as measures of
firm performance: The role of accounting accruals. Journal of Account-
ing and Economics, 18(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101
(94)90016-7
do Prado, G. F., Piekarski, C. M., da Luz, L. M., de Souza, J. T.,
Salvador, R., & de Francisco, A. C. (2020). Sustainable development
and economic performance: Gaps and trends for future research. Sus-
tainable Development, 28(1), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.
1982
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the cor-
poration: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.
9503271992
Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks: Triple bottom line of 21st century
business. Oxford, England: Capstone Publishing.
Eurosif. (2006). European SRI studyj2006. Paris, France: Eurosif.
Fischer, T. M., & Sawczyn, A. A. (2013). The relationship between corpo-
rate social performance and corporate financial performance and the
role of innovation: Evidence from German listed firms. Journal of Man-
agement Control, 24(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-013-
0171-5
Fonseca, A., McAllister, M. L., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2014). Sustainability
reporting among mining corporations: A constructive critique of the
GRI approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, 70–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Bos-
ton, MA: Pitman.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2009). Global Reporting Initiative: Sustain-
ability Report.
Gong, M., Gao, Y., Koh, L., Sutcliffe, C., & Cullen, J. (2019). The role of cus-
tomer awareness in promoting firm sustainability and sustainable
JADOON ET AL.
supply chain management. International Journal of Production Econom-
ics, 217, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.033
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sus-
tainability … and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of
organisations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35
(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.006
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A
review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding
field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 5–21. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005
Han, S., Kang, T., & Yoo, Y. K. (2012). Governance role of auditors and legal
environment: Evidence from corporate disclosure transparency.
European Accounting Review, 21(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09638180.2011.599928
Hassel, L., Nilsson, H., & Nyquist, S. (2005). The value relevance of envi-
ronmental performance. European Accounting Review, 14(1), 41–61.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818042000279722
Heal, G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: An economic and financial
framework. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Prac-
tice, 30(3), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510037
Hughes, K. E. (2000). The value relevance of nonfinancial measures of air
pollution in the electric utility industry. The Accounting Review, 75(2),
209–228.
Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social perfor-
mance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International
Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.
2012.26
Isabel, G., José-Manuel, P., Luis, R., & Isabel-María, G. (2010). Are social
and environmental practices a marketing tool? Empirical evidence for
the biggest European companies. Management Decision, 48(10),
1440–1455. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011090261
Jesús, H. M., Jorge, M. L., Conesa, I. M., & Martínez-Martínez, D. (2016).
Relationship between corporate social responsibility and competitive
performance in Spanish SMEs: Empirical evidence from a stakeholders'
perspective. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(1), 55–72. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.06.002
Jung, S., Nam, C., Yang, D.-H., & Kim, S. (2018). Does corporate sustain-
ability performance increase corporate financial performance? Focus-
ing on the information and communication technology industry in
Korea. Sustainable Development, 26(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.
1002/sd.1698
Kaspereit, T., & Lopatta, K. (2016). The value relevance of SAM's corporate
sustainability ranking and GRI sustainability reporting in the E uropean
stock markets. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(1), 1–24.
King, A., & Bartels, W. (2015). Currents of change: The KPMG survey of
corporate responsibility reporting 2015. The Netherlands.
La Torre, M., Sabelfeld, S., Blomkvist, M., Tarquinio, L., & Dumay, J. (2018).
Harmonising non-financial reporting regulation in Europe: Practical
forces and projections for future research. Meditari Accountancy
Research, 26(7), 598–621.
Lapointe-Antunes, P., Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & Gay-Angers, S. (2006).
On the relationship between voluntary disclosure, earnings smoothing
and the value-relevance of earnings: The case of Switzerland.
European Accounting Review, 15(4), 465–505.
Laufer, W. S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing.
Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1022962719299
Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm
performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the
financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824.
Lombardi, R., Trequattrini, R., Cuozzo, B., & Cano-Rubio, M. (2019). Corpo-
rate corruption prevention, sustainable governance and legislation:
First exploratory evidence from the Italian scenario. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 217, 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
01.214
JADOON ET AL.
Lopatta, K., & Kaspereit, T. (2014). The world capital markets' perception
of sustainability and the impact of the financial crisis. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 122(3), 475–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-
1760-9
Lourenço, I. C., Branco, M. C., Curto, J. D., & Eugénio, T. (2012). How does
the market value corporate sustainability performance? Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 108(4), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-
1102-8
Manetti, G., & Becatti, L. (2009). Assurance services for sustainability
reports: Standards and empirical evidence. Journal of Business
Ethics, 87(1), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-
9809-x
Marna, D. K., Charl, d. V., & Chris, v. S. (2015). The influence of corporate
social responsibility disclosure on share prices: Evidence from the
United Kingdom. Pacific Accounting Review, 27(2), 208–228. https://
doi.org/10.1108/PAR-05-2013-0047
Marom, I. Y. (2006). Toward a unified theory of the CSP–CFP link. Journal
of Business Ethics, 67(2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
006-9023-7
Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Sánchez, I. (2017). Sustainability assurance
and cost of capital: Does assurance impact on credibility of corporate
social responsibility information. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26
(3), 223–239.
Mensah, J. (2019). Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles,
pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent
Social Sciences, 5(1), 1653531. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.
2019.1653531
Milne, M. J., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures in won-
derland: The journey metaphor and environmental sustainability. Orga-
nization, 13(6), 801–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1350508406068506
Miralles-Quirós, M. M., Miralles-Quirós, J. L., & Gonçalves, L. M. V. (2018).
The value relevance of environmental, social, and governance perfor-
mance: The Brazilian case. Sustainability, 10(3), 574.
Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging
of corporate unsustainability. Accounting Forum, 30(2), 121–137.
Moroney, R., Windsor, C., & Aw, Y. T. (2012). Evidence of assurance
enhancing the quality of voluntary environmental disclosures: An
empirical analysis. Accounting and Finance, 52(3), 903–939.
Ohlson, J. (1995). Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuation.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(2), 661–687.
Onali, E., Ginesti, G., & Vasilakis, C. (2017). How should we estimate
value-relevance models? Insights from European data. The British
Accounting Review, 49(5), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.
2017.05.006
Platonova, E., Asutay, M., Dixon, R., & Mohammad, S. (2018). The impact
of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance:
Evidence from the GCC Islamic banking sector. Journal of Business
Ethics, 151(2), 451–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-
3229-0
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link
between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.
Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
Preston, L. E., & O'Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial per-
formance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36
(4), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039703600406
13
Ramus, C. A., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental poli-
cies a form of greenwashing? Business & Society, 44(4), 377–414.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278120
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stake-
holder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-5355-y
Rivera, J. M., Muñoz, M. J., & Moneva, J. M. (2017). Revisiting the relation-
ship between corporate stakeholder commitment and social and finan-
cial performance. Sustainable Development, 25(6), 482–494. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sd.1664
Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility dis-
closure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organiza-
tions and Society, 17(6), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-
3682(92)90015-K
Schadewitz, H., & Niskala, M. (2010). Communication via responsibility
reporting and its effect on firm value in Finland. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(2), 96–106.
Schaltegger, S., Hörisch, J., & Freeman, R. E. (2019). Business cases for sus-
tainability: A stakeholder theory perspective. Organization & Environ-
ment, 32(3), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617722882
Semenova, N., & Hassel, L. G. (2015). On the validity of environmental per-
formance metrics. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 249–258. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2323-4
Semenova, N., Hassel, L. G., & Nilsson, H. (2010). The value relevance of
environmental and social performance: Evidence from Swedish SIX
300 companies. Liiketaloudellinen Aikakauskirja, 3, 265–292.
Sidhoum, A. A., & Serra, T. (2018). Corporate sustainable development:
Revisiting the relationship between corporate social responsibility
dimensions. Sustainable Development, 26(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sd.1711
Sinkin, C., Wright, C. J., & Burnett, R. D. (2008). Eco-efficiency and firm
value. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 27(2), 167–176. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2008.01.003
Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O'Dwyer, B. (2007). Sustainability account-
ing and accountability. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vitaliano, D. F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and labor turnover.
Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society,
10(5), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720701011085544
Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-
nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333.
Waddock, S. A. (2003). Myths and realities of social investing. Organization
and Environment, 16(3), 369–380.
Xu, B., Magnan, M. L., & André, P. E. (2007). The stock market valuation of
R&D information in biotech firms. Contemporary Accounting Research,
24(4), 1291–1318. https://doi.org/10.1506/car.24.4.10
Zorio, A., García-Benau, M. A., & Sierra, L. (2013). Sustainability develop-
ment and the quality of assurance reports: Empirical evidence. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 22(7), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.
1002/bse.1764
How to cite this article: Jadoon IA, Ali A, Ayub U, Tahir M,
Mumtaz R. The impact of sustainability reporting quality on
the value relevance of corporate sustainability performance.
Sustainable Development. 2020;1–21. https://doi.org/10.
1002/sd.2138
14 JADOON ET AL.

APPENDIX

TABLE A1 List of companies with third-party assurance information

Company Name Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016
A2A spa Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
AEGON Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
ASUSTEK Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nnonaccountant nnonaccountant nnonaccountant nnonaccountant nnonaccountant
ATEbank Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nnonaccountant nnonaccountant nnonaccountant nnonaccountant nnonaccountant
Acea Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
nnonaccountant nnonaccountant Big4 Big4
Acer Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nnonaccountant Big4 nnonaccountant Big4 nnonaccountant
Adidas Group Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Advantest Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Aeon Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Agnico-Eagle Mines Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
(AEM) Big4
Agricultural Bank of China Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Air France-KLM Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
Big4
Airports of Thailand Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
(AOT)
Aisin Seiki Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Ajinomoto Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Alfresa Holdings Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Allianz SE Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Alps Electric Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Anas S.p.A. Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 accountant Big4 Big4 Big4
Andersen & Martini Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Anglo American Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Aon Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Asahi Glass Company Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Asahi Kasei Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant Big4 Big4
Atos Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Auckland International Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Airport Limited
Autogrill S.p.A. Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 Big4
Autoliv Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Aviva Investors Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Axel Springer Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4
JADOON ET AL. 15

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Company Name Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016
Axfood Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
BAE Systems Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
BASF SE Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
BP Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
BT Group Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant accountant accountant
BYD Company Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Baidu Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Balfour Beatty Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
nonaccountant Big4
Bang & Olufsen A/S Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Bank of Ayudhaya PCL Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Big4
Bank of Communications Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
Big4 Big4
Banpu Public Company Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Limited
Baoshan Iron & Steel Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Barrick Gold Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Bayer AG Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Befimmo SA/NV Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though Self-eported
Big4 Big4 Big4
Beiersdorf Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-eported
Berkeley Group Self-eported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Boliden Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 Big4
Bouygues Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Bovis Homes Group PLC Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
British Land Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Britvic Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Bunzl Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
Big4
Burberry Group Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
Big4
CRH Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Cameco Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 Big4
Canadian Imperial Bank of Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Commerce (CIBC)
Canadian Pacific Railway Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
(CPR)
CapitaLand Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Capital Power Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Corporation Big4 Big4

(Continues)
16 JADOON ET AL.

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Company Name Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016
Cargotec Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
Big4
Carillion Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Casio Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
nonaccountant nonaccountant
Celestica Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
nonaccountant
Centerra Gold Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
nonaccountant
China Southern Airlines Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
China Unicom Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Contact Energy Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant Big4 nonaccountant
Continental Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
Big4
Cranswick Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Croda Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
D'Ieteren Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
DSV Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Dai-ichi Life Holdings Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Daiichi Sankyo Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
nonaccountant
Daikin Industries Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
nonaccountant
Daimler Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Daiwa Securities Group Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4
Denso Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Dentsu Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Deutsche Bank Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant Big4
Deutsche Telekom Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Diageo Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Domtar Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Dongfeng Motor Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
East Japan Railway Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Ebara Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
nonaccountant
Eisai Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Electrolux Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
ElringKlinger Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
EnCana Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Eurobank Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
JADOON ET AL. 17

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Company Name Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016
Fast Retailing Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Fortum Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Fuji Electric Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Fujitsu Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 Big4 nonaccountant
Furukawa Electric Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Gildan Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Great Portland Estates Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Greencore Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Gunze Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Hammerson Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 nonaccountant
Hannover Ruck Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Hannstar Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Hellenic Petroleum Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant accountant accountant nonaccountant
Hitachi Chemical Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
Big4
Hitachi Metals Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
nonaccountant
Holmen Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
IRPC Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 accountant accountant
ITO EN Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Iamgold Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Imperial Oil Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Inpex Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
nonaccountant Big4
Intesa Sanpaolo Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Iren Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Isagen Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
accountant accountant accountant accountant accountant
Isuzu Motors Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Itochu Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant Big4 Big4 Big4
Jyske Bank Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
KBC Group Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Kathmandu Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Keikyu Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Kemira Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Kikkoman Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Kirin Holdings Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4
Komatsu Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Konecranes Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported

(Continues)
18 JADOON ET AL.

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Company Name Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016
Kyocera Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
LIXIL Group Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
Big4
Laird Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Land securities Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
nonaccountant
Leonardo Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Liberty Global Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4
Loblaw Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Lonmin Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Lundin Mining Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant accountant
M1 Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Manulife Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Marks & Spencer Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 nonaccountant
Marubeni Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
accountant accountant Big4 Big4
Marui Group Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Mazda Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4
Mitie Group Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Mitsubishi Electric Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Mitsubishi Estate Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Mitsubishi Materials Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Mitsui Chemicals Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
nonaccountant
NGK Insulators Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4
NGK Spark Plug Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
National Grid Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Nidec Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Nippon Shokubai Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Nissan Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4
Nisshin Seifun Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Nordea Bank Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Norsk Hydro Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Novo Nordisk Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Big4
OPAP Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Obayashi Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Omron Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though
Big4
JADOON ET AL. 19

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Company Name Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016
Orkla Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Osisko Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Outotec Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Pan American Silver Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4
Pandora Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
PayPoint Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Pioneer Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Provident Financial Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Publicis Groupe Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Puma Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Qisda Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
RSA Insurance Group Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4
Rinnai Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Riso Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Robinson Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Royal Dutch Shell Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant accountant accountant
SSAB Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Saipem Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 accountant
Sanken Electric Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Sanofi Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Schneider Electric Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Big4 Big4
Secom Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
nonaccountant
Segro Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Sekisui Chemical Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Sekisui House Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant Big4
Semafo Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Severn Trent Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Shikoku Electric Power Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Shin-Etsu Chemical Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
nonaccountant
Shionogi Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Showa Shell Sekiyu Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Siam Commercial Bank Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
Big4
Siemens Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Smiths Group Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported

(Continues)
20 JADOON ET AL.

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Company Name Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016
Snam Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
SolarWorld Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
accountant accountant accountant accountant
Standard Life Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Big4
StarHub Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Stora Enso Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant accountant nonaccountant Big4 Big4
Storebrand Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Strabag Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Suez Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Sumitomo Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4 Big4
Sumitomo Chemical Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Sumitomo Metal Mining Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Sun Hung Kai Properties Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Swedish Match Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Synnex Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Sysmex Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
TAIYO YUDEN Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
TDK Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
TITAN CEMENT Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
accountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
TOTAL Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
TOTO Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
nonaccountant Big4
Taiheiyo Cement Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Taisei Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Takeda Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Teijin Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4
Tele2 Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported
Big4
Telekom Austria Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Teranga Gold Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Thai Oil Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
accountant accountant accountant
Thales Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4
Thomas Cook Group Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Tokai Rika Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
JADOON ET AL. 21

TABLE A1 (Continued)

Company Name Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016
Tokyo Electron Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Toppan Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Big4 Big4
Toshiba Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant accountant accountant Big4
Toyota Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Toyota Boshoku Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Tsingtao Brewery Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Tullow Oil Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4
UCB Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
UNIBAIL-RODAMCO SE Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Unipol Self-reported Self-reported Assurance though Self-reported Assurance though
Big4 accountant
Uponor Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
VERBUND Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4 Big4
Vivendi Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4 Big4
Vopak Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4
WPP Self-reported Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant nonaccountant
Westjet Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported Self-reported
Big4 Big4 Big4
Wienerberger Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though
Big4 Big4 accountant Big4 Big4
Wihlborgs Fastigheter Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Assurance though Self-reported
Big4 Big4 nonaccountant Big4
William Demant Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Yamaha Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported
Yamana Gold Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported Self-reported