@misc{8330,
  abstract     = {{In an attempt to realize decision usefulness of corporate sustainability reporting, standard setters and scholars are discussing a shift from a voluntary to a mandatory reporting approach. However, the EU Commission and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) follow different approaches regarding the materiality definition of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. While the EU Commission focuses on double materiality, the ISSB concentrates on single materiality. In view of this controversy, the purpose of this paper is to analyze both materiality concepts and related sustainability reporting frameworks that significantly influence the future standardization process. Referring to a ’block model' between the EU Commission and the ISSB, a systematic connection of future sustainability reporting with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as the monetized reporting of externalities and science based climate targets are proposed. As the proposed ’block model' will contribute to the goal of climate neutral economy, it will also trigger a fundamental shift in the standardization process of sustainability reporting.}},
  author       = {{Stawinoga, Martin and Velte, Patrick}},
  booktitle    = {{Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht : ZfU ; Beiträge zur rechts-, wirtschafts- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Umweltforschung = Journal of environmental law and policy = Revue de la politique et du droit d'environnement }},
  issn         = {{0931-0983}},
  keywords     = {{Sustainability, reporting, corporate social responsibility, FRS Foundation, International Sustainability Standards Board, European Commission, materiality, Global Reporting Initiative}},
  number       = {{2}},
  pages        = {{210--248}},
  publisher    = {{dfv Mediengruppe}},
  title        = {{{Single versus double materiality of corporate sustainability reporting: Which concept will contribute to climate neutral business?}}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

@misc{7696,
  abstract     = {{Although an increasing amount of empirical research has been linked to the impact of management control and governance on corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues since the financial crisis of 2008/09, heterogeneous results have characterised this research field. Regarding the group level of corporate governance, the efficacy of board committees (e.g., audit, compensation or CSR committees) has been included in recent research designs. However, analyses of corporate governance at the individual level are related to the effects of top management members [e.g., chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO) or chief sustainability officer (CSO)] on CSR outcomes. This paper aims to convey a detailed understanding of sustainable management control's impact as CSR-related board expertise. In more detail, we focus on the influence of both CSR committees and CSOs on three CSR measures mainly analysed in empirical-quantitative research: (1) CSR reporting; (2) CSR assurance (CSRA); and (3) CSR performance. We motivate our analysis with increased relevance from practical, regulatory and research perspectives, and we employ a systematic literature review of the symbolic vs. substantive effects of sustainability-related board composition. Based on our theoretical model (legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and upper-echelons theory), we selected 48 quantitative peer-reviewed empirical studies on this research topic. Our analysis shows that CSR committees positively influence CSR reporting and performance. Thus, there are indications that the implementation of a CSR committee is not a symbolic act, but instead substantively contributes to CSR activities. However, in light of inconclusive empirical research results and a lack of studies that have analysed CSO-related effects, a notable research gap has been identified. Moreover, we note the main limitations of prior research in this review and develop an agenda with useful recommendations for future studies.}},
  author       = {{Velte, Patrick and Stawinoga, Martin}},
  booktitle    = {{Journal of Management Control}},
  issn         = {{2191-477X}},
  keywords     = {{CSR committee, Chief sustainability officer (CSO), CSR reporting, CSR performance, CSR assurance, Board expertise}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{333--377}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{Do chief sustainability officers and CSR committees influence CSR-related outcomes? A structured literature review based on empirical-quantitative research findings}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s00187-020-00308-x}},
  volume       = {{31}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}

@misc{7894,
  author       = {{Stawinoga, Martin}},
  booktitle    = {{Umwelt-Wirtschafts-Forum : uwf ; die betriebswirtschaftlich-ökologisch orientierte Fachzeitschrift }},
  issn         = {{1432-2293 }},
  keywords     = {{Directive 2014/95/EU     CSR-Directive-Implementation-Act     Regulation     Non-financial reporting     Assurance of qualitative sustainability disclosures}},
  number       = {{25}},
  pages        = {{ 213–227}},
  publisher    = {{Springer Spektrum }},
  title        = {{{Die Richtlinie 2014/95/EU und das CSR-Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz – Eine normative Analyse des Transformationsprozesses sowie daraus resultierender Implikationen für die Rechnungslegungs- und Prüfungspraxis}}},
  doi          = {{https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-017-0463-6}},
  year         = {{2017}},
}

@misc{7895,
  author       = {{Velte, Patrick and Stawinoga, Martin}},
  booktitle    = {{Journal of Business Economics}},
  issn         = {{0044-2372}},
  keywords     = {{CSR assurance     CSR reporting     Stakeholder management     Corporate governance     Assurance level     Assurance provider}},
  pages        = {{1017--1066}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{Empirical research on corporate social responsibility assurance (CSRA): A literature review}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s11573-016-0844-2}},
  volume       = {{87}},
  year         = {{2017}},
}

@misc{7896,
  author       = {{Velte, Patrick and Stawinoga, Martin}},
  booktitle    = {{Journal of Management Control}},
  issn         = {{2191-4761}},
  keywords     = {{Integrated reporting     Legitimization theory     Institutional theory     Behavioural decision theory     Resource dependency theory     Empirical research}},
  pages        = {{275--320}},
  publisher    = {{Springer}},
  title        = {{{Integrated reporting: The current state of empirical research, limitations and future research implications}}},
  doi          = {{10.1007/s00187-016-0235-4}},
  volume       = {{28}},
  year         = {{2017}},
}

@misc{7943,
  author       = {{Müller, Stefan and Stawinoga, Martin and Velte, Patrick}},
  booktitle    = {{Corporate ownership & control}},
  issn         = {{1727-9232}},
  keywords     = {{Corporate Disclosure, Stakeholder Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility Management, CSR reporting, Corporate Governance}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{506--513}},
  publisher    = {{Virtus Interpress }},
  title        = {{{Stakeholder expectations on CSR management and current regulatory developments in Europe and Germany}}},
  doi          = {{https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i4c4p8}},
  year         = {{2015}},
}

@misc{7947,
  author       = {{Stawinoga, Martin and Velte, Patrick}},
  booktitle    = {{Problems and Perspectives in Management}},
  issn         = {{1810-5467 }},
  keywords     = {{corporate governance, business reporting, CSR reporting, CSR management.}},
  number       = {{2}},
  pages        = {{36--50}},
  publisher    = {{Business Perspectives}},
  title        = {{{CSR management and reporting between voluntary bonding and legal regulation. First empirical insights of the compliance to the German Sustainability Code}}},
  volume       = {{13}},
  year         = {{2015}},
}