Sustainable Corporate Performance Based on Audit Report Influence: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ionuț Viorel Herghiligiu
,
Ioan-Bogdan Robu
,
Marinela Istrate
,
Maria Grosu
,
Camelia Cătălina Mihalciuc
,
Adrian Vilcu

Social, economic and environmental factors contribute to the companies’ sustainable development. Social and financial dimensions have an important contribution to sustainable performance, through assurance of transparency in the information communication requested by stakeholders in order to substantiate their decisions. Social transparency is ensured by presenting organization’s actions in the field of social responsibility, and financial transparency takes into account the most accurate, complete and neutral presentation of information, both in the annual financial statements and in the audit reports.

  • social dimension
  • financial dimension
  • financial audit
  • gender differences

1. Introduction

Sustainable development concept has its origins in Brundtland Report [1]. Since its introduction has become the mainstream towards an active involvement of various organizations and institutions that are working on its established principles and objectives implementation [2]. Brundtland Report presented those concerns regarding the synergistic connection between human development dynamic and environmental resilience [3]. This Report was accepted as a guide of fundamental principles associated to a holistic design and planning approach that integrates the concepts of sustainable development, ecology, heritage protection and biodiversity, as well as long-term sustainable development [4].
In time, sustainability concept has been revised, in a sense that integrates three social, economic and environmental interconnected dimensions [5]. Sustainable development (SD) is centered on inter-generational equity that is based essentially on mentioned before different but correlated dimensions [6]. Sustainability requires a balance of these three associated dimensions [7].
Over the past two decades, the corporate sustainability reporting concept has gained relevance in companies’ annual reports because this type of reporting explains to investors how the company creates value over time. Corporate reporting has evolved from financial statements to the whole package of financial statements, directors’ report, environmental reporting, social reporting, governance reporting and remuneration. However, information included in these reports was not interlinked and did not show how environmental and corporate social responsibility concerns might affect company performance. Thus, this need for sustainability occurs, i.e., integrated reporting that addresses an organization’s informational communication process to stakeholders about value creation as well as how governance drives towards sustainable corporate performance [8]. The content of this type of reporting demonstrates the link between an organisation’s governance, strategy and financial performance and the social, environmental and economic context in which it operates [9]. As traditional financial reporting cannot provide a complete view associated to a corporation, dimensions and aspects such as corporate social responsibility, environmental information, carbon emissions, health, equal opportunities and labor rights, should be included in total business performance reporting, namely corporate sustainability reporting.

2. Sustainable Corporate Performance Based on Audit Report Influence

Nowadays, in this dynamic environment, sustainability has become a significant component in doing business. In this context, companies are increasingly interested in corporate sustainability, and therefore include sustainability in organizational strategy, vision and culture, by creating a framework to improve sustainability practices. Hence it could be identified a direct impact of this orientation on sustainable corporate performance [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].
Brundtland Report [1], which presents sustainability as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, focused primarily on the needs and interests of people and was concerned with ensuring global equity for future generations by redistributing resources to poorer nations. This Report expressed the belief that economic growth, social equity and environmental sustainability are possible at the same time [18].
Sustainability aims to sustain “a dignified life” to everyone [19], also targeting to ensure alignment and adequate balance between society, economy and environment in terms of regenerative capacity of planetary life, supporting ecosystems [20]. This dynamic and balanced alignment should be the sustainability core [21].
Sustainability has become and remains a pervasive paradigm for long time development and a basic concept in global development policy and agenda. Hence a balance between human living standards development and environmental issue is required [6][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Likewise, some opinions start from certain questions regarding the concept meaning or definition and from its implications for theory and practice. Therefore, it’s shown that it is not possible to define this concept with precision and accuracy [29][30][31][32][33][34].
Some authors consider that sustainability is an anthropocentric concept of inter and intra-generational justice [6][35][36], which recognizes both the short-term and long-term implications. Hence it integrates sustainability dimensions into decision processes [37]. Likewise enhance a performant distribution of intra-generational and inter-generational resources with the socio-economic development within the ecosystem limits [36]. It claims the people right to a dignified life [38] and appropriate decisions on sustainable resource management, fact that will bring sustainable growth to a sustainable society [39].
Organizational sustainability aims to generate value for all stakeholders by integrating a business strategy that extremely significant the economic, environmental, ethical and social dimensions [40].
In literature, the sustainability term is defined as a way of life and work that allows the global population to meet their current needs for economic security, health and overall achievement, without compromising resources for future generations [1][41][42][43]. These maximum important resources: the environment, business and social context—are in fact those 3P of business (Profit, People, Planet) or the Triple Bottom Line. Hence the corporate ultimate goal must be a fair balance between these interdependent and equally desirable sustainability objectives [44][45][46][47][48].
Organizational decision-makers need relevant information’s related to the correlation between the sustainable development dimensions and a better understanding its operational implications. Implementation of sustainable development concept generates improvements and sustains a healthy economy, an ecological and social system for human development. Likewise, it aims to prioritize and integrate sustainability dimensions models in overcome human development challenges in a manner that will generate benefits to the society [26][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56].

3. The Influence of Financial Dimension on Corporate Sustainability

The economic dimension associated with organizational sustainability deals with the money flow. It analyzes revenues or expenditures, taxes, employment and business diversity factors [57]. Economic sustainability requires organizations to manage different types of capital, such as financial capital (equity and debt), fixed capital (machinery, land and furniture) and intangible capital, such as reputation and inventions [58]. In essence, economic sustainability is directly related to financial and economic success of organizations, with the optimal management of stakeholders [59].
The economic dimension examines the financial conditions based on associated indicators that are essential for corporate governance. Measuring this organizational sustainability dimension can be considered as a strategic management instrument used for business performance assessment. The relation between corporate sustainability and its market value should be significantly positive. Operational results lead to financial performance; hence the economic objectives achievement could be evaluated through simple financial indicators [60][61].
Literature refers to sustainability financial dimension as a sum of gross profit margin, market share, sales, and sales per employee [62]. Other indicators can be entered in the register associated with this dimension, such as [48][63]: price/earnings ratio (PE), return on equity (ROE), efficiency and profitability—return on assets (ROA), return on investment (ROI), return on sales (ROS), sales growth index (GS), gross sales margin (OM).

4. The Influence of Social Dimension on Corporate Sustainability

Corporate sustainability is considered a paradigm and a fundamental solution in creating a prosperous future for organizations, even if in the pandemic context, social sustainability issues and problems generated by COVID-19 had affected corporations and disrupted sustainable development plans [64][65]. Thus, in the literature, there are studies that bring contributions by including new perspectives on creating an integrated framework for the dimensions of corporate sustainability, by creating models of integrated social sustainability with well-argued social sustainability criteria [66][67][68][69][70][71].
In time it has been necessary to understand the meaning of the social component associated to sustainable development; hence in literature many scientific studies present different meanings, objectives, concepts, factors and principles associated to social sustainability, that as can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Literature review analysis associated to sustainable development social component.
References Issues Addressed on the Social Dimension Associated to Sustainable Development
Daly (1992) [72] social sustainability includes notions as:
equity, empowerment, cultural identity, accessibility, institutional stability, participation.
UNCSD (1996) [73] social classification includes the following factors:
poverty, demographic dynamics, human health and settlements, education and awareness.
UNDESA, (2001) [74] it refers to the following social issues:
equity, health, education, housing, security, population.
Littig and Greissler (2005) [75] sustainability social dimension—major indicators are presented as follows: life quality, social justice and coherence.
UNDESA (2007) [76] social classification’s mentioned themes:
poverty, health, demography, education, governance.
Eurostat (2007) [77] there are presented the following issues related to:
social inclusion, public health, demography, good governance.
Chan and Lee (2008) [78] the following social sustainability factors are identified:
social infrastructure; employment opportunities and accessibility; urban landscape design; local characteristics preservation; ability to meet psychological needs.
Magis and Shinn (2009) [79] it presents the vision of social sustainability by reference to four universal principles: human well-being, equity, democratic governance and democratic civil society.
Cuthill (2009) [80] the following social factors are accepted as key sustainability factors: social capital, social infrastructure, social justice and equity, committed governance.
OECD, (2009) [81] the social “organizational dimension” is viewed through different indicators such as: equity, social cohesion, economic self-sufficiency, health.
Vavik and Keitsch (2010) [82] three of the Sustainable Development Goals are addressed to: poverty, illiteracy, access to participation in decision-making.
Gray (2010) [30] social sustainability aspects are presented, such as:
human rights, public participation and the rule of law, gender equity and equality.
Dempsey et al. (2011) [83] the social dimension of sustainability is described through:
social equity and community sustainability.
Vallance et al. (2011) [84] the following three approaches are proposed: “development sustainability”, “bridge sustainability”, which ensure that structures are modified to meet changing needs and “maintenance sustainability”, that ensures the preservation of useful and functional structures.
Murphy (2012) [7] there are identified four general social concepts: public awareness, equity, participation and social cohesion.
UN General Assembly (2015) [85] there are 17 SDGs and 169 targets associated to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations); humanity complex challenges are addressed through the the five P’s framework: people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnerships. These P’s cover areas related to: hunger, health, education, gender equality, water and sanitation, energy, economic growth, consumption and production, industry, innovation and infrastructure, climate change, inequality, sustainable cities and communities, natural resources and peace and justice.
Holden et al. (2016) [86] a model of sustainable development based on three moral imperatives is proposed: satisfaction of human needs, ensuring social equity and respecting environmental limits.
Missimer et al. (2017) [87] a balanced approach is taken to issues related to: boundary conditions, similar to the dimension of “human needs and well-being”.
Eizenberg and Jabareen (2017) [88] developing a comprehensive conceptual framework for social sustainability as: equity, security, eco-prosumption, urban forms.
Tosun and Leininger (2017) [89] the interconnections between the five SDG themes (food security, water security, energy security, health security, climate change) and the other SDGs were analyzed.
Olmsted (2021) [70] it is argued that in order to ensure social sustainability, it is necessary to build a system that focuses on recognition, reduction, redistribution, reinforcement and reward (5Rs) to promote gender equality.
Another important aspect of social dimension that contributes to improve the image of a socially responsible company and satisfying stakeholders is the communication of social responsibility information. Good stakeholder relations generally have a positive effect on companies’ long-term financial performance. A quality audit engagement will limit performance management practices [90] and significantly reduce the level of reporting errors [91]. Also, systematic communication of the financial auditor, with those responsible for governance, will help to discourage earnings management techniques [92]. The finality of audit engagement is that the impact of reporting quality in financial auditing has a significant influence on investors’ decisions, as some researchers argue [93].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151814033

References

  1. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  2. Tomislav, K. The Concept of Sustainable Development: From its Beginning to the Contemporary Issues. Zagreb Int. Rev. Econ. Bus. 2018, 21, 67–94.
  3. Drexhage, J.; Murphy, D. Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012. In: United Nations Headquarters, 1st Meeting by the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability, United Nations, New York, 2010. Available online: http://www.surdurulebilirkalkinma.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Background_on_Sustainable_Development.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2021).
  4. Dernbach, J.C. Achieving sustainable development: The Centrality and multiple facets of integrated decision making. Indiana J. Glob. Leg. Stud. 2003, 10, 247–285.
  5. Missimer, M.; Robèrt, K.H.; Broman, G. A strategic approach to social sustainability—Part 1: Exploring the social system. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 32–41.
  6. Mensah, J. Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1653531.
  7. Murphy, K. The social pillar of sustainable development: A literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2012, 8, 15–29.
  8. Stent, W.; Dowler, T. Early Assessments of the Gap between Integrated Reporting and Current Corporate Reporting. Meditari Account. Res. 2015, 23, 92–117.
  9. Owen, G. Integrated Reporting: A Review of Developments and Their Implications for the Accounting Curriculum. Account. Educ. 2013, 22, 340–356.
  10. Gonzalez-Perez, M.A.; Leonard, L. The Global Compact: Corporate Sustainability in the Post 2015 World. Adv. Sustain. Environ. Justice 2015, 17, 1–19.
  11. Engert, S.; Rauter, R.; Baumgartner, R.J. Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2833–2850.
  12. Manrique, S.; Marti-Ballester, C. Analyzing the Effect of Corporate Environmental Performance on Corporate Financial Performance in Developed and Developing Countries. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1957.
  13. Christ, K.L.; Burritt, R.L.; Varsei, M. Coopetition as a Potential Strategy for Corporate Sustainability. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2017, 26, 1029–1040.
  14. International Organization for Standardization. The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications—2018; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  15. Ajmal, M.M.; Khan, M.; Hussain, M.; Helo, P.T. Conceptualizing and incorporating social sustainability in the business world. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2018, 25, 327–339.
  16. Global Reporting Initiative. Consolidated Set of GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards; GRI: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018.
  17. Hutchins, M.J.; Richter, J.S.; Henry, M.L.; Sutherland, J.W. Development of indicators for the social dimension of sustainability in a U.S. business context. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 687–697.
  18. Du Pisani, J.A. Sustainable development—Historical roots of the concept. Environ. Sci. 2006, 3, 83–96.
  19. Spangenberg, J. Assessing Social Sustainability: Social Sustainability and Its Multicriteria Assessment in a Sustainability Scenario for Germany. Int. J. Innovation & Sustainable Development 2006, 1, 318–348.
  20. DESA-UN. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2017. Available online: https://undesa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  21. Gossling-Goidsmiths, J. Sustainable Development Goals and Uncertainty Visualization. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2018.
  22. Cerin, P. Bringing economic opportunity into line with environmental influence: A discussion on the coase theorem and the Porter and van der Linde hypothesis. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56, 209–225.
  23. Benaim, A.; Collins, A.C.; Raftis, L. The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Guidance and Application. Master’s Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2008.
  24. Ukaga, U.; Maser, C.; Reichenbach, M. Sustainable development: Principles, frameworks, and case studies. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2011, 12.
  25. Shepherd, E.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Knight, A.T.; Ling, M.A.; Darrah, S.; Soesbergen, A.; Burgess, N.D. Status and Trends in Global Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital: Assessing Progress Toward Aichi Biodiversity Target 14. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 429–437.
  26. Abubakar, I.R. Access to sanitation facilities among nigerian households: Determinants and sustainability implications. College of Architecture and Planning, University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2017, 9, 547.
  27. Scopelliti, M.; Molinario, E.; Bonaiuto, F.; Bonnes, M.; Cicero, L.; De Dominicis, S.; Bonaiuto, M. What makes you a “hero” for nature? Socio-psychological profiling of leaders committed to nature and biodiversity protection across seven; EU countries. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 970–993.
  28. Browning, M.; Rigolon, A. School green space and its impact on academic performance: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 429.
  29. Tolba, M.K. The Premises for Building a Sustainable Society—Address to the World Commission on Environment and Development. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. 1984. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Tolba%2C+M.+K.+%281984%29 (accessed on 30 September 2021).
  30. Gray, R. Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Account. Organ. Soc. 2010, 35, 47–62.
  31. Montaldo, C.R.B. Sustainable Development Approaches for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation & Community Capacity Building for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation, Yonsei University, 2013. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/877LR%20Sustainable%20Development%20v2.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2021).
  32. Giovannoni, E.; Fabietti, G. What Is Sustainability? A Review of the Concept and Its Applications. In Integrated Reporting: Concepts and Cases that Redefine Corporate Accountability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 21–40.
  33. Mensah, J.; Enu-Kwesi, F. Implication of environmental sanitation management in the catchment area of Benya Lagoon, Ghana. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2018, 16, 23–43.
  34. Shahzalal, M.D.; Hassan, A. Communicating sustainability: Using community media to influence rural people’s intention to adopt sustainable behaviour. Sustinability 2019, 11, 812.
  35. Dernbach, J.C. Sustainable development as a framework for national governance. Case West. Reserve Law Rev. 1998, 49, 1–103.
  36. Stoddart, H.; Schneeberger, K.; Dodds, F.; Shaw, A.; Bottero, M.; Cornforth, J.; White, R. A Pocket Guide to Sustainable Development Governance. Stakeholder Forum 2011. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=35&nr=147&page=view&type=400 (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  37. Kolk, A. The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. J. World Bus. 2016, 51, 23–34.
  38. Littig, B. Zur sozialen Dimension nachhaltiger Entwicklung; Strategy Group Sustainability: Wiena, Austria, 2001.
  39. Yang, L.X. From general principles of civil law to general provisions of civil law: A historical leap in contemporary Chinese civil law. Soc. Sci. China 2019, 2, 85–91.
  40. Ashrafi, M.; Acciaro, M.; Walker, T.R.; Magnan, G.M.; Adams, M. Corporate sustainability in Canadian and US maritime ports. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 386–397.
  41. Beattie, A. The 3 Pillars of Corporate Sustainability. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100515/three-pillars-corporate-sustainability.asp#citation-1 (accessed on 13 November 2021).
  42. Johnston, P.; Everard, M.; Santillo, D.; Robert, K.-H. Reclaiming the Definition of Sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2007, 14, 60–66.
  43. Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is Sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448.
  44. Jones, C.; Allen, S. Sustainability and Sustainable Development—What is Sustainability and What Is Sustainable Development? 2020. Available online: https://www.circularecology.com/sustainability-andsustainable-development.html (accessed on 18 October 2021).
  45. Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695.
  46. Liakh, O.; Spigarelli, F. Managing Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Eciently: A Review of Existing Literature on Business Groups and Networks. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7722.
  47. Amini, M.; Bienstock, C. Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 12–19.
  48. Pislaru, M.; Herghiligiu, I.V.; Robu, I.B. Corporate sustainable performance assessment based on fuzzy logic. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 998–1013.
  49. Acemoglu, D.; Robinson, J. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty; Crown: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
  50. Milne, M.J.; Gray, R. W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 13–29.
  51. Hussain, F.; Chaudhry, M.N.; Batool, S.A. Assessment of key parameters in municipal solid waste management: A prerequisite for sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2014, 21, 519–525.
  52. Thomas, C.F. Naturalizing Sustainability Discourse: Paradigm, Practices and Pedagogy of Thoreau, Leopold, Carson and Wilson. Ph.D. Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 2015.
  53. Tjarve, B.; Zemīte, I. The Role of Cultural Activities in Community Development. Acta Univ. Agric. Et Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2016, 64, 2151–2160.
  54. Wanamaker, C. The Environmental, Economic, and Social Components of Sustainability. Soapboxie. 2022. Available online: https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/The-Environmental-Economic-and-Social-Components-of-Sustainability (accessed on 18 July 2023).
  55. UNSD. SDG Indicators Global Database. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/ (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  56. Evers, B.A. Why adopt the Sustainable Development Goals? The Case of Multinationals in the Colombian Coffee and Extractive Sector. Master’s Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2018.
  57. Slaper, T.F.; Hall, T.J. The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work. Indiana Bus. Rev. 2011, 86, 4–8.
  58. Abubakar, T. A Study of Sustainability in the Oil and Gas Supply Chain. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK, 2014.
  59. Jan, A.; Marimuthu, M.; bin Mohd, M.P.B.; Isa, M. The nexus of sustainability practices and financial performance: From the perspective of Islamic banking. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 703–717.
  60. Lo, S.F.; Sheu, H.J. Is corporate sustainability a value-increasing strategy for business? Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2007, 15, 345–358.
  61. Lo, F.Y.; Liao, P.C. Rethinking financial performance and corporate sustainability: Perspectives on resources and strategies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 162, 120346.
  62. Link, S.; Naveh, E. Standardization and discretion: Does the environmental standard ISO 14001 lead to performance benefits? IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2006, 53, 508–519.
  63. Bottani, E.; Gentilotti, M.C.; Rinaldi, M. A Fuzzy Logic-Based Tool for the Assessment of Corporate Sustainability: A Case Study in the Food Machinery Industry. Sustainability 2017, 9, 583.
  64. Ikram, M.; Zhou, P.; Shah, S.; Liu, G. Do environmental management systems help improve corporate sustainable development? Evidence from manufacturing companies in Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 628–641.
  65. Bezerra, M.C.D.C.; Gohr, C.F.; Morioka, S.N. Organizational capabilities towards corporate sustainability benefits: A systematic literature review and an integrative framework proposal. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119114.
  66. Ikram, M.; Zhang, Q.; Sroufe, R.; Ferasso, M. The Social Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability: An Integrative Framework Including COVID-19 Insights. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8747.
  67. Varyash, I.; Mikhaylov, A.; Moiseev, N.; Aleshin, K. Triple bottom line and corporate social responsibility performance indicators for Russian companies. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 8, 313–329.
  68. Hakovirta, M.; Denuwara, N. How COVID-19 Redefines the Concept of Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3727.
  69. Correa-García, J.A.; García-Benau, M.A.; García-Meca, E. Corporate governance and its implications for sustainability reporting quality in Latin American business groups. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121–142.
  70. Sarkis, J.; Cohen, M.J.; Dewick, P.; Schröder, P. A brave new world: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for transitioning to sustainable supply and production. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 159, 104894.
  71. Olmsted, C. Care labor, intergenerational equity, and (social) sustainability. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2021, 1–25.
  72. Daly, H.E.U.N. conferences on environment and development: Retrospect on Stockholm and prospects for Rio. Ecol. Econ. J. Int. Soc. Ecol. Econ. 1992, 5, 9–14.
  73. United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD). Indicators for Sustainable Development, Framework and Methodology, 1996. Available online: http://esl.jrc.it/envind/un_meths/UN_ME_c.htm (accessed on 15 September 2021).
  74. United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies. New York: United Nations, 2001. Available online: https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd9_indi_bp3.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  75. Littig, B.; Griessler, E. Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 8, 65–79.
  76. United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. New York: United Nations, 2007. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=107&menu=1515 (accessed on 19 September 2021).
  77. Eurostat. Measuring Progress towards a More Sustainable Europe: 2007 Monitoring Report of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2007.
  78. Chan, E.; Lee, K. Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 85, 243–256.
  79. Magis, K.; Shinn, C. Emergent principles of social sustainability. In Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability, 1st ed.; Dillard, J., Dujon, V., King, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 15–44.
  80. Cuthill, M. Strengthening the social in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 18, 362–373.
  81. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Society at a Glance 2009—OECD Social Indicators. 2009. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  82. Vavik, T.; Keitsch, M. Exploring relationships between universal design and social sustainable development: Some methodological aspects to the debate on the sciences of sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 295–305.
  83. Dempsey, N.; Bramley, G.; Powers, S.; Brown, C. The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 19, 289–300.
  84. Vallance, S.; Perkins, H.C.; Dixon, J.E. What Is Social Sustainability? A Clarification of Concepts. Geoforum 2011, 42, 342–348.
  85. UN General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly 25 September 2015. New York: United Nations. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/resolution-adopted-by-the-general (accessed on 30 September 2021).
  86. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. The Imperatives of Sustainable Development. Sust. Dev. 2016, 25, 213–226.
  87. Missimer, M.; Robèrt, K.-H.; Broman, G. A strategic approach to social sustainability—Part 2: A principle-based definition. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 42–52.
  88. Eizenberg, E.; Jabareen, Y. Social Sustainability: A New Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 2017, 9, 68.
  89. Tosun, J.; Leininger, J. Governing the interlinkages between the sustainable development goals: Approaches to attain policy integration. Glob Chall. 2017, 1, 1700036.
  90. Alzoubi, E. Audit Quality and Earnings Management: Evidence from Jordan. J. Appl. Account. Res. 2016, 17, 170–189.
  91. Cardinaels, E.; Jia, Y. How Audits Moderate the Effects of Incentives and Peer Behavior on Misreporting. Eur. Account. Rev. 2016, 25, 183–204.
  92. Buchanan, J.L.; Commerford, B.P.; Wang, E. Auditor Actions and the Deterrence of Manager Opportunism: The Importance of Communication to the Board and Consistency with Peer Behavior. Account. Rev. 2021, 96, 141–163.
  93. Chen, Q.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, Y. The Effects of Audit Quality Disclosure on Audit Effort and Investment Efficiency. Account. Rev. 2019, 94, 189–214.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback