The relationship between corporate environmental performance and financial performance has received a high degree of attention in research literature and the results are still contradictory. Most of the findings have shown that environmental performance improves financial performance while others have suggested that the relationship is neutral or even negative. Our article integrates prior research studying this relationship and identifies the potential moderators that may have played a role in the apparent inconsistent results observed to date. We conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies over a 35-year period that confirms a positive relationship between environmental performance and financial performance. Moderators’ analysis reveals that the relationship is significantly influenced by the environmental and financial performance measures, the regional differences, the activity sector and the duration of the studies. After discussing the theoretical and managerial implications, this meta-analysis tries to answer the question: “When and how does it pay to be green?”
AertsW.CormierD. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting Organizations and Society, 34, 1-27.
2.
*Al TuwaijriS. A.ChristensenT. E.HughesK. E. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and the economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting Organizations and Society, 29, 447-471.
3.
AlloucheJ.LarocheP. (2005). A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 57(August-September), 18-41.
4.
*Alvarez-GilM. J.Burgos-JimenezJ.Cespedes-LorenteJ. J. (2001). An analysis of environmental management, organizational context and performance of Spanish hotels. Omega, 29, 457-471.
5.
Aragon-CorreaJ. A.Martin-TupiaI.Hurtado-TorresN. E. (2013). Proactive environmental strategies and employee inclusion: The positive effects of information sharing and promoting collaboration and the influence of uncertainty. Organization & Environment, 26, 139-161.
6.
*Aragon-CorreaJ. A.Rubio-LopezE. A. (2007). Proactive corporate environmental strategies: Myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning, 40, 357-381.
7.
Aragon-CorreaJ. A.SharmaS. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28, 71-88.
8.
AshfordN. A. (1993). Understanding technological responses of industrial firms to environmental problems: Implications for government policy. In FischerK.SchotJ. (Eds.), Environmental strategies for industry: International perspectives on research needs and policy implications (pp. 277-307). Washington, DC: Island Press.
9.
BansalP. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197-218.
10.
BansalP.GaoJ. (2006). Building the future by looking to the past. Organization & Environment, 19, 458-478.
11.
BansalP.Knox-HayesJ. (2013). The time and space of materiality in organizations and the natural environment. Organization & Environment, 26, 61-82.
12.
BarneyJ. B.KetchenD. J.WrightM. (2011). The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline?Journal of Management, 37, 1299-1315.
13.
*BerroneP.Gomez-MeijaL. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 103-126.
14.
BijmoltT. H. A.PietersR. G. M. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12, 157-169.
15.
*BlacconiereW. G.NorthcutW. D. (1997). Environmental information and market reactions to environmental legislation. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 12, 149-178.
16.
*BlacconiereW. G.PattenD. M. (1994). Environmental disclosure, regulatory costs, and changes in firm value. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18, 357-377.
17.
BuhrN.GrayR. (2012). Environmental management, measurement, and accounting: Information for decision and control? In BansalP.HoffmannA. J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business & the natural environment (pp. 425-443). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
18.
*BushT.HoffmannV. H. (2011). How hot is your bottom line? Linking carbon and financial performance. Business & Society, 50, 233-265.
19.
CarrollA. B. (2000). A commentary and an overview of key questions on corporate social performance measurement. Business & Society, 39, 466-478.
20.
CarruthersB. G. (1995). Accounting, ambiguity, and the new institutionalism. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 313-328.
21.
CheungS. F.ChanD. K. S. (2004). Dependent effect size in meta-analysis: Incorporating the degree of interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 780-791.
22.
ChoC. H.PattenD. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosure as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 639-647.
23.
*ChristmannP. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 663-680.
24.
ChristmannP. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of a global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 747-760.
25.
ClarksonP. M.LiY. (2004). The market valuation of environmental capital expenditure by pulp and paper companies. Accounting Review, 79, 329-353.
26.
*ClarksonP. M.LiY.RichardsonG. D.VasvariF. P. (2004). The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies. Accounting Review, 79, 329-353.
27.
*ClemensB. (2006). Economic incentives and small firms: Does it pay to be green?Journal of Business Research, 59, 492-500.
28.
CochranP. L.WoodR. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42-56.
CollisonD. J.LorraineN. H.PowerD. M. (2004). An analysis of the stock market impact of environmental performance information. Accounting Forum, 28, 7-26.
31.
*CordeiroJ. J.SarkisJ. (1997). Environmental proactivism and firm performance: Evidence from security analyst earnings forecasts. Business Strategy and the Environment, 6, 101-114.
32.
CormierD.GordonI. M.MagnanM. (2004). Corporate environmental disclosure: Contrasting management’s perception with reality. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 143-165.
33.
CramerJ. (1998). Environmental management: From “fit” to “stretch”. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7, 162-172.
34.
DamanpourF. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590.
35.
DarnallD.SidesS. (2008). Assessing the performance of voluntary environmental programs: Does certification matter?Policy Studies Journal, 36, 95-117.
36.
DechantK.AltmanB. (1994). Environmental leadership: From compliance to competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 8(3), 7-20.
37.
*DelmasM.HoffmannV. H.KussM. (2011). Under the tip of the iceberg: Absorptive capacity, environmental strategy, and competitive advantage. Business & Society, 50, 116-154.
38.
*DooleyR. S.LernerL. D. (1994). Pollution, profits, and stakeholders: The constraining effects of economic performance on CEO concern with stakeholder expectations. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 701-711.
39.
DoucouliagosH.LarocheP. (2003). What do unions do to productivity? A meta-analysis. Industrial Relations, 42, 650-691.
40.
*DowellG.HartS.YeungB. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value. Management Science, 46, 1059-1074.
41.
*EarnhartD.LizalL. (2007). Effect of pollution control on corporate financial performance in a transition economy. European Environment, 17, 247-266.
42.
*FoglerH. R.NuttF. (1975). A note on social responsibility and stock valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 155-160.
43.
*FreedmanM.PattenD. M. (2004). Evidence of the pernicious effect of financial report environmental disclosure. Accounting Forum, 28, 27-41.
44.
*GilleyK. M.WorrelD. L.El JellyA. (2000). Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: The differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management, 26, 1199-1216.
45.
*Goh EngA.ZailaniS.WahidN. A. (2006). A study on the impact of environmental management system (EMS) certification toward firm’s performance in Malaysia. Management of Environmental Quality, 17, 73-93.
46.
GreenspanI.HandyF.Katz-GerroT. (2012). Environmental philanthropy: Is it similar to other types of environmental behavior?Organization & Environment, 25, 111-130.
47.
GrossmanW.HoskissonE. E. (1998). CEO pay at the crossroads of Wall Street and Main: Toward the strategic design of executive compensationAcademy of Management Executive, 12(1), 43-57.
48.
HalmeM.HuseM. (1997). The influence of corporate governance, industry and country factors on environmental reporting. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13, 137-157.
49.
*HamiltonJ. T. (1995). Pollution as news: Media and stock market reactions to the Toxics Release Inventory Data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 98-113.
50.
HarringN.JagersS. C.MartinssonJ. (2011). Explaining ups and downs in the public’s environmental concern in Sweden: The effects of ecological modernization, the economy, and the media. Organization & Environment, 24, 388-403.
51.
HartS. L. (1994). How green production might sustain the world. Journal of the Northwest Environment, 10, 4-14.
52.
HartS. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20, 996-1014.
53.
HartS. L. (1997, January). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 67-76.
54.
*HartS. L.AhujaG. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5, 30-37.
55.
HartS. L.DowellG. (2011). A natural-resource-based view of the firm: 15 years after. Journal of Management, 37, 1464-1479.
56.
*HasselL.NilsonH.NyquistS. (2005). The value relevance of environmental performance. European Accounting Review, 14, 41-61.
57.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
58.
HenriquesI.SadorskyP. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 87-99.
HoffmanA. J. (2001). Linking organizational and field-level analysis: The diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization & Environment, 14, 133-156.
61.
HoffmanA. J. (2011). Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change. Organization & Environment, 24, 1.
62.
HorvathovaE. (2010). Does environmental performance affect financial performance? A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 70, 52-59.
63.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L.JacksonG. B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66.
IlinitchA. Y.SoderstromN. S.ThomasT. E. (1998). Measuring corporate environmental performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 17, 383-408.
67.
JaffeA. B.PalmerK. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 610-619.
68.
*JaggiB.FreedmanM. (1992). An examination of the impact of pollution performance on economic and market performance: Pulp and paper firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 19, 697-713.
69.
*JudgeW. Q.DouglasT. J. (1998). Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 241-262.
70.
KallioT. J.NordbergP. (2006). The evolution of organizations and natural environment discourse: Some critical remarks. Organization & Environment, 19, 439-457.
71.
*KaragozogluN.LindellM. (2000). Environmental management: Testing the win-win model. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43, 817-829.
72.
*KhannaM.DamonL. A. (1999). EPA’s Voluntary 33/55 Program: Impact on toxic release and economic performance of firms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37, 1-25.
73.
*KhannaM.QuimioW. R.BojilovaD. (1998). Toxic release information: A policy tool for environmental protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36, 243-266.
74.
*KingA.LenoxM. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1), 105-116.
75.
*KlassenR. D.McLaughlinC. P. (1996). The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42, 1199-1214.
76.
*KlassenR. D.WhybarkD. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 599-615.
77.
*KonarS.CohenM. A. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 281-289.
78.
LanoieP.Laurent-LucchettiJ.JohnstoneN.AmbecS. (2011). Environmental policy, innovation and performance: New insights on the porter hypothesis. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20, 803-841.
79.
LarocheP.SchmidtG. (2004). La méta-analyse en sciences de gestion: utilités, utilisations et débats [Meta-analysis in management science, usefulness, utilizations and debates]. In SavallH.Bonnet etM.PéronM. (coord.), Crossing frontiers in quantitative and qualitative research methods. Lyon, France: Research Methods Division, Academy of Management.
80.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Pratical meta-analysis (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
81.
*MadsenP. M. (2008, August1). Environmental regulation as a link between corporate environmental and financial performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2008(Meeting Abstract Suppl.), 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2008.33641763
82.
*MahapatraS. (1984). Investor reaction to a corporate social accounting. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 11, 29-40.
83.
*MakniR.FrancoeurC.BellavanceF. (2009). Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 409-422.
84.
McPeakC.DevirianJ.SeamanS. (2010). Do environmentally friendly companies outperform the market?Journal of Global Business Issues, 4, 61-66.
85.
*MelnyckS. A.SroufeR. P.CalantoneR. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21, 329-351.
86.
*MengucB.AuhS.OzanneL. K. (2010). The interactive effect of internal and external factors on a proactive environmental strategy and its influence on a firm’s performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 279-298.
87.
*MengucB.OzanneL. K. (2005). Challenging of the “green imperative”: A natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation-business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58, 430-438.
88.
Molina-AzorínJ. F.Claver-CortésE.Lopez-GameroM. D.TariJ. J. (2009). Green management and financial performance: A literature review. Management Decision, 47, 1080-1100.
89.
*MontabonF. R.SroufeR. P.NarisimhanR. (2007). An examination of corporate reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 998-1014.
90.
*MorrisS. A. (1997, August1). Environmental pollution and competitive advantage: An exploratory study of U.S. industrial-goods manufacturers. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1997, 411-415.
91.
*MurrayA.SinclairD.PowerD.GrayR. (2006). Do financial markets care about social and environmental disclosure: Further evidence and exploration from the UK. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19, 228-255.
92.
*NakaoY.AmanoA.MatsumuraK.GenbaK.NakanoM. (2007). Relationship between environmental performance and financial performance: An empirical analysis of Japanese corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 106-118.
93.
*NehrtC. (1996). Timing and intensity effects of environmental investments. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 535-547.
94.
OrlitzkyM. (2005). Payoffs to social and environmental performance. Journal of Investing, 14(3), 48-51.
95.
OrlitzkyM.SchmidtF. L.RynesS. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403-441.
96.
PearlmanK.SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1980). Validity generalization results for test used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 373-406.
97.
PolonskyM.ZeffaneR.MedleyP. (1992). Corporate environmental commitment in Australia: A sectorial comparison. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2(2), 25-39.
98.
PorterM. E.van der LindeC. (1995a). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120-134.
99.
PorterM. E.van der LindeC. (1995b). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.
100.
ReinhardtF. (1998). Environmental product differentiation: Implications for corporate strategy. California Management Review, 40(4), 43-73.
101.
ReinhardtF. (1999). Bringing the environment down to Earth. Harvard Business Review, 77(4), 149-158.
102.
RooneyC. (1993). Economics of pollution prevention: How waste reduction pays. Pollution Prevention Review, Summer, 261-276.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
105.
*RussoM. V.FoutsP. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534-559.
106.
*SarkisJ.CordeiroJ. J. (2001). An empirical evaluation of environmental efficiencies and firm performance: Pollution prevention versus end of pipe practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 135, 102-113.
107.
SchmidheinyS. (1992). Changing course. Cambridge: MIT Press.
108.
SchultzeW.TrommerR. (2012). The concept of environmental performance and its measurement in empirical studies. Journal of Management Control, 22, 375-412.
109.
SharmaS. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681-697.
110.
SharmaS.PabloA. L.VredenburgH. (1999). Corporate environmental responsiveness strategy: The importance of issue interpretation and organizational context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 87-108.
111.
*SharmaS.VredenburgH. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 729-753.
ShrivastavaP.KennellyJ. J. (2013). Sustainability and place-based enterprise. Organization & Environment, 26, 83-101.
114.
SroufeR. (2003). Effects of environmental management systems on environmental management practices and operations. Production and Operations Management, 12, 416-431.
115.
StanleyT. D. (2001). Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 131-150.
116.
StanwickS. D.StanwickP. A. (1999). Exploring voluntary environmental partnerships. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 10(3), 111-125.
117.
SteadW. E.SteadJ. G. (1996). Management for a small planet: Strategic decision making and the environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
118.
SteelP. D.Kammeyer-MuellerJ. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96-111.
119.
*ThomasA. (2001). Corporate environmental policy and abnormal stock price returns: An empirical investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10, 125-134.
120.
*WagnerM. (2005). Sustainability and competitive advantage: Empirical evidence on the influence of strategic choices between environmental management approaches. Environmental Quality Management, 14(3), 31-48.
121.
*WagnerM.SchalteggerS. (2004). The effect of corporate environmental strategy choice and environmental performance on competitiveness and economic performance: An empirical study of EU manufacturing. European Management Journal, 22, 557-572.
122.
*WahbaH. (2008). Does the market value corporate environmental responsibility? An empirical examination. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, 15, 89-99.
123.
*WallsJ. L.PhanP. H.BerroneP. (2011). Measuring environmental strategy: Construct development, reliability, and validity. Business & Society, 50, 71-115.
124.
WhitenerE. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315-321.
125.
WilmshurstT. D.FrostG. R. (2000). Corporate environmental reporting—A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13, 10-26.
126.
WolfF. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Quantitative applications in the social sciences series (Sage University Paper, Book 59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
127.
WoodD.JonesR. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 229-267.
128.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
129.
WuJ.LiuL.SulkowskiA. (2010). Environmental disclosure, firm performance, and firm characteristics: An analysis of S&P 100 firms. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 10(4), 73-83.
130.
YoungJ. (1991). Reducing waste, saving materials. In Brown et al.L. (Eds.), State of the world (pp. 39-55). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
131.
YuV.TingH. I.WuY.-C. J. (2009). Assessing the greenness effort for European firms: A resource efficiency perspective. Management Decision, 47, 1065-1079.
