http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz Sustainability reporting and its implications for family firms Jeffrey F. Shields1, Dianne H. B. Welsh2, Joyce M. Shelleman3 1University of North Carolina at Asheville, jshields@unca.edu 2University of North Carolina at Greensboro, dhwelsh@uncg.edu 3University of Maryland University College, joyce.shelleman@faculty.umuc.edu A B S T R A C T This paper examines sustainability reporting as a global performance metric for the family business concerned with environmental sustainability. Examples of reporting requirements and widely employed reporting frameworks are provided, including consideration of how these can advance sustainability goals. Implications for family firms to integrate sustainability goals in order to better compete worldwide are identified. These include issues of family firm commitment to sustainability and sustainability reporting, selecting an appropriate reporting framework, and developing an organization that enables both reporting and innovation to achieve sustainability. Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2018, Vol. 28, No. 01, 66-71 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2018 Small Business Institute® APA Citation Information: Shields, J. F., Welsh, D. H. B., & Shelleman, J. M. (2018). Sustainability reporting and its implications for family firms. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(1), 66-71. w w w. j s b s . o rg Sustainability, Sustainability reporting, Family firms Introduction The gravity of achieving sustainable organizational op- erations has been amplifying over the past two decades worldwide. This conceptualization of sustainability means to meet current needs while not compromising the ability to meet human needs in the future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The World Com- mission impetus for success is to measure today’s progress in light of tomorrow’s outcomes, a long-term perspective instead of a short-term perspective. An emerging and growing trend is the reporting of companies’ sustainability performance, both voluntary and mandated. Nearly three fourths of the largest companies across 34 nations now participate in some form of sustainability reporting (KPMG, 2015). The global economy is impacted by family firms that play a significant role in terms of growth and stability (Chrisman, Sharma, & Taggar, 2007). Family firms and the factors that shape their dynamics are important. If family firms continue their predominance in leading edge tech- nology, they are likely to play a major role in sustainability efforts and reporting (Chrisman, Chua, & Sharma, 2005). Understanding the dimensions of the issue can be a first step in taking on this effort. In this paper, we outline the current state of sustain- ability and sustainability reporting as a performance metric for the family business concerned with environmental sus- tainability. Common reporting frameworks and how these may advance sustainability goals are considered. The paper concludes with implications for family firms to integrate sustainability goals in order to better compete worldwide. Sustainability Reporting A now classic conceptualization of sustainability was offered by The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) when it was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” For business organizations, sustainability is the process of meeting current stakeholders’ needs, while not conceding or diminishing the capability to address their future needs (Hubbard, 2009). These definitions imply that organiza- tions that focus only on short-term profits and current mar- ket demands need to change. They must also consider and take account of future impacts of current processes and outputs, as a system. Referred to as the 3 Ps of People, Planet, and Prof- its, the triple bottom line is a sustainability concept that reframes sustainable organizational performance from a solely economic-focused entity to one that must also consider social and environmental dimensions (Elkington, http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 67 J. F. Shields, D. H. B. Welsh, & J. M. Shelleman Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 66-71 1994; Savitz, 2006). It builds on premises long embedded in organization policy and corporate social responsibility. Its focus on comprehensive results of organization activity renders triple bottom line reporting as an important mech- anism to support sustainability goals (Slaper & Hall, 2011). Reporting and frameworks for sustainability have been developing over several decades. Although fewer than 100 companies issued reports two decades ago, more than 6000 firms did so by 2013 (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2014). Global public pressure and the involvement of large com- panies has accelerated the scope for reporting and its im- portance. In some cases, reporting is voluntary and in oth- er cases it is now mandated. In the United States, bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board have devel- oped requirements and set standards for integrated and economic sector reporting (Romero, Lin, Jeffers, & DeGae- tano, 2014; Schooley & English, 2015). Research conduct- ed by the accounting firm KPMG reveals that sustainability reporting is now practiced by roughly three out of every four of the biggest companies (73% of the N100, 34 na- tions). In the Fortune Global 500, 92% participate (KPMG, 2015). Companies offer rationales such as branding, cost savings, reputation, and risk management, among others, for voluntary reporting on environmental and social per- formance (Bonini & Bové, 2014; Chen & Kelly, 2015; Ernst & Young, 2014; KPMG, 2011; McKinsey & Company, 2010). The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is the most widely known and likely the most well formulated framework for sustainability reports (KPMG, 2015). For the largest firms, its rate of use is high at around 74% (KPMG, 2015). The GRI framework has companies reporting on each leg of the triple bottom line of their economic, environmental, and social performance. Each of these is divided into aspects such as materials, energy, water, waste, and so forth. With- in these aspects, there are specific indicators. For exam- ple, frequently reported environmental measures include energy use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions (GRI, 2014). The GRI 4.0 framework is a structured process in which organizations engage with their stakeholders to identify their material impacts with their economic, environmental and social framework. This process identifies the issues that are germane to the organization’s situation through stake- holder engagement. The organization must report on at least one measure for each material aspect within its eco- nomic, environmental, and social impacts. In addition to measures, the GRI report contains a section called Disclo- sures on Management Approach. Companies must report on how they will manage the identified material aspects of their economic, environmental, and social impacts. New in the 4.0 GRI reporting framework is an additional reporting requirement addressing the supply chain (GRI, 2015b). Re- porting organizations are required to examine their supply chains in terms of economic, environmental, and social im- pacts (GRI, 2015b). Another important and widely used framework is the CDP (formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project). By 2017, over 5,600 organizations participated in programs to report information on their climate change, water, for- est, and supply chain practices (Carbon Disclosure Project, 2017). For each of these practices, there are specific mea- sures to report. For example, when reporting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, there is specific measurement pro- tocol for scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Scope one emissions are direct emissions from organizations controlled by the reporting entity. Scope two emissions are indirect emis- sions caused by the reporting entity’s consumption of elec- tricity, heat, cooling or steam. Scope three emissions are indirect emissions other than scope two, and are caused by the reporting entities’ activities (e.g., outbound logistics, product use) (Carbon Disclosure Project, 2015). Similar to the growth in participation in the leading framework for sustainability reporting among large compa- nies (i.e., the GRI), the privately owned certified B Corpora- tion framework is expanding its participation among small to medium enterprises (SMEs). Participation has increased from 370 SMEs in 2010 to over 1600 in 2016 (B Corp, 2015; Stubbs, 2016). A Certified B Corporation is a company that has taken the B Impact Assessment and scored sufficient points on its environmental and social impacts (as scored by B Corp) to achieve the status of certification (Honey- man, 2014). The B Impact Assessment presents a series of questions for an organization to answer about its impacts on community, environment, governance, and workers (Honeyman, 2014). This assessment gives an SME an over- view of the company’s sustainability impact. This is hoped to stimulate it to take the next steps toward creating new performance measures to improve the sustainability score (Shields & Shelleman, 2017). The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has made the long-term perspective a focus of meetings to address the worldwide implications of sustain- ability, public-private partnerships, and innovation. The UNECE in 2015 passed sustainable development goals and a 2030 agenda (UNECE, 2017). One environmental conven- tion that was passed includes developing models of Pub- lic-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for mobilizing resources for financing in areas such as infrastructure, health, and ener- gy. Clearly, environmental sustainability reporting is a glob- al phenomenon. The European Energy Efficiency Directive (also called OATH), passed in 2012, establishes a commit- ment by Europe to reduce energy consumption by 20% pri- marily through decreasing greenhouse gas emissions along 68 J. F. Shields, D. H. B. Welsh, & J. M. Shelleman Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 66-71 with other pollutants, reducing energy bills, and reducing the dependence on imported fossil fuels (Jenny, 2016). A major action of this Directive is to enact mandatory energy audits for all businesses. Large businesses are required to submit an extensive energy report, while SMEs also are re- quired to report but to a lesser extent (Jenny, 2016). Examples of sustainability reporting efforts in Europe- an countries are many. The Netherlands has taken the lead to recognize the Green Globe certification for sustainable tourism and its auditing procedures (Green Globe, 2017). A number of countries (e.g., Denmark, France) mandate company sustainability reports (GRI, 2015a; Schooley & English, 2015). For example, France has mandatory sus- tainability reporting of its carbon emissions for financial in- stitutions, including pension funds, insurance companies; and, likewise, institutional investors in France must disclose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues (Mat- thews, 2015). France is setting itself apart as a leader in climate initiatives, including national emission reductions and reducing food waste. The United Kingdom (UK) already requires companies to disclose their climate change risks and mitigation efforts. It is predicted that Sweden will soon follow, as well as other countries. Yet, much reporting is still voluntary in most countries. Sustainability certification of buildings is a separate category of regulations that is garnering much internation- al attention to reduce the use of energy for climate comfort within buildings (Sanchini, 2013). The most widespread cer- tification system for buildings is LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), which originated in the United States by the Green Buildings Council (USGBC) in 1993 and has more than 110 countries as members (Sanchini, 2013). LEED is a voluntary system that provides standards for new buildings, existing buildings, and new houses separately while maintaining an overall consistent approach among the standards (Sanchini, 2013). Italy’s Friuli Venezia Giulia region has mandatory reporting although the rest of Italy does not. Dubai made its green building regulations re- quired for government buildings and voluntary for private- ly-owned buildings in 2011 but made it mandatory for all new buildings in Dubai in 2014 (Dubai Municipality, 2016). As of March 2014, a total of 44 government buildings that met the green building requirements had been built (Dubai Municipality, 2016). Denmark now requires its Central Government Departments to buy sustainable timber for buildings, furniture and paper products. This new proce- dure is overseen by the Danish Ministry of Environment and compliance is required for central government insti- tutions but is still voluntary for regions and municipalities (PEFC, 2013). Other European Union countries have similar legislation, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium (PEFC, 2013). The sustainability reporting process stimulates inno- vation consistent with many of the traditional sources of innovation, such as dealing with the unexpected and incon- gruity with past operations, needs for different processes, changes in perceptions, and new knowledge (Drucker, 1985). Companies that report sustainable performance measures seek to anticipate the effects of the information and modify operations to improve future reports. Organi- zational commitment to innovation is higher in this case because innovation is perceived as necessary (Adams, Bes- sant, & Phelps, 2006) to build on prior disclosures of the company’s sustainability performance. What’s more, the prior formal and often voluntary company commitment made to reporting creates a context for continuing com- mitment necessitating ongoing innovation and implemen- tation through entrepreneurship. A result of environmental sustainability reporting is establishing baseline measures for GHG emissions (scope 1, 2, and 3), energy use, water use, and waste that will necessitate the establishment of initiatives to improve on the disclosed levels of performance. This reporting pro- cess sets up the conditions in which product and process innovations can take place. In going through the reporting process and disclosing information, firms begin to look at their processes and products in a new way, asking new questions, such as “How can we reduce our use of water or our use of energy?” This search for clarity is the spark for innovation. Implementing these changes often leads to entrepreneurial ventures as products and services are created to handle the innovation change. It also can lead to changes in an organization’s models, organizational de- sign, financial structures, or production/supply chain (Day & Schoemaker, 2011). Implications for Family Firms This review of some examples of sustainability re- porting requirements and initiatives presents family firms concerned with environmental sustainability with oppor- tunities to enhance the sustainability of their businesses. This can improve their long-term environmental impact as well as help them reap corresponding economic benefits. Family firms have a stake in sustainability reporting and the global sustainability movement. From a global perspective, the predominance of family firms is well established. Physical and emotional support from family members in addition to entrepreneurial characteristics, such as gen- der, education, age, managerial skills, are important factors that influence business success (Kallerberg & Leicht, 1991; Masuo, Fong, Yanagida, & Cabal, 2001; Rowe, Haynes, & Bentley, 1993). This is in addition to business characteris- tics that affect success, such as age, size, and location of 69 J. F. Shields, D. H. B. Welsh, & J. M. Shelleman Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 66-71 the business (Kallerberg & Leicht, 1991; Kraut & Grambsch, 1987). Transgenerational survival and success for the con- tinuity of the firm throughout generations relies on high levels of dependence on family and non-family firm players (Barnett & Kellermanns; 2006; Pearson & Marler, 2010). From a sustainability perspective, sustainability goals and reporting efforts can translate into what is believed to be the collective commitment to family-centered goals (Kotlar & De Massis, 2013). Family firm members may have cer- tain wishes or desires, and these can take the shape of sus- tainability goals for environmental well-being, especially for the incoming generations of family members, who may have diverse goals. They can turn the goal diversity into collective commitment to family-centered goals through sustainability reporting and collective actions to preserve the environment through a cohesive effort to get behind sustainability reporting (Kotlar & De Massis, 2013). Family firms that focus on economic aims may approach sustain- ability differently than do those that focus more on fam- ily socio-emotional priorities (Miller, Le Breton-Miller, & Scholes, 2015). Family firms will need to decide on their level of col- lective commitment to sustainability. Although differences among family and nonfamily firms are well known and doc- umented (Chrisman et al., 2005; De Massis, Frattini, Pizzur- no, & Cassia, 2015; McGuire, Dow, & Ibrahim, 2012; Pear- son, Carr, & Shaw, 2008), recent findings also point to the existence of significant differences within the family firms themselves (Chrisman & Patel, 2012; Chrisman, Sharma, Steier, & Chua, 2013; Howorth, Rose, & Hamilton, 2010; Kim & Gao, 2013). A number of factors may determine a family firm’s commitment to social responsibility and sus- tainability, such as enlightened self interest (Peake, Davis, & Cox, 2015), family values, governance, and business en- vironment (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2016). These differ- ences mean that there is no one size fits all approach to en- vironmental sustainability and that each family firm must decide how sustainability efforts can best be integrated into its business model. This is a common challenge among all firms (Kiron, Kruschwitz, Rubel, Reeves, & Fuisz-Kehr- bach, 2013). In countries where sustainability reports are mandat- ed, the path is clear. However, for family firms located in places such as the United States, the choice of a sustain- ability reporting framework can be a significant decision just as it often is for non-family firms. For example, the GRI is the major framework for global reporting for businesses of all sizes. In contrast, the U.S. based B Impact Assessment is tailored more specifically to SMEs (Shields & Shelleman, 2017). The family firm’s supply chain partners’ preferences along with their own values, sustainability goals, and inter- nal administrative capabilities are variables at play in this decision. Finally, it will be important for the family firm to orga- nize itself to address sustainability reporting and environ- mental sustainability initiatives. Firm size and bureaucra- cy may stand in the way by making the connection to the community more impersonal (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2016). Thus, larger and more formalized family firms will want to make deliberate efforts to connect with the envi- ronmental sustainability preferences of their stakeholders. Internally, reporting requires staffing and management control and performance measurement systems dedicated to collecting the required data on company performance and compiling annual reports. Beyond reporting, sustain- ability efforts may require more organic forms of organiza- tion design in order to foster innovation (Kanter, 2006) of services, products, and processes. A stewardship culture within family firms, a prerequisite for innovation capabil- ity (Miller, Le Breton-Miller, Amore, Minichilli, & Corbet- ta, 2015), is associated with higher employee motivation and involvement (Bammens, Notelaers, & Van Gils, 2015) to support eco-friendliness (Craig & Dibrell, 2006). In turn, family firm innovation is positively affected by higher levels of employee commitment and more family member em- ployees (Ahluwalia, Mahto, & Walsh, 2017). Such engage- ment and collaboration is facilitated by a flexible organiza- tion design. In conclusion, family firms have an important role to play in global sustainability. In this paper, we have reviewed sustainability reporting, with a focus on environmental is- sues. We also posit implications for family firms with re- spect to commitment, reporting framework, and organiz- ing for sustainability. References Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation mea- surement: A review. International Journal of Man- agement Reviews, 8 (1), 21-47. Ahluwalia, S., Mahto, R. V., & Walsh, S. T. (2017). Innovation in small firms: Does family vs. non-family matter? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 27(3), 39-49. B Corp. (2015). 2011-2014 annual reports. Retrieved from: http://www.bcorporation.net/ Bammens, Y., Notelaers, G., & Van Gils, A. (2015). Implica- tions of family business employment for employ- ees’ innovative work involvement. Family Business Review, 28 (1), 123-144. Barnett, T., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2006). Are we family and are we treated as family? Nonfamily employees' perceptions of justice in the family firm. Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 837-854. Bonini, S. & Bové, A. T. (2014). Sustainability’s strategic http://www.bcorporation.net/ 70 J. F. Shields, D. H. B. Welsh, & J. M. Shelleman Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 66-71 worth: McKinsey Global Survey results. Retrieved from: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustain- ability/sustainabilitys_strategic_worth_mckinsey_ global_survey_results Carbon Disclosure Project. (2017). About us. Retrieved from: https://www.cdp.net/en/info/about-us Carbon Disclosure Project. (2015). Glossary of terms. Re- trieved from: https://www.cdp.net/Documents/ Guidance/2015/cdp-glossary-of-terms-2015.pdf Chen, X., & Kelly, T. F. (2015). B-Corps—A growing form of social enterprise: Tracing their progress and as- sessing their performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 102-114. Chrisman, J., Chua, J., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and di- rections in the development of a strategic manage- ment theory of the firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555−576. Chrisman, J., & Patel, P. (2012). Variations in R&D invest- ment in family and non-family firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 976−997. Chrisman, J., Sharma, P., Steier, L., & Chua, J. (2013). The influence of family goals, governance, and resourc- es on firm outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1249−1261. Chrisman, J., Sharma, P., & Taggar, S. (2007). Family influ- ences on firms: An introduction. Journal of Busi- ness Research, 60(10), 1005−1011. Craig, J., & Dibrell, C. (2006). The natural environment, in- novation, and firm performance: A comparative study. Family Business Review, 19(4), 275-288. Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2011). Innovating in uncertain markets: 10 lessons for green tech- nologies. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(4), 37. Retrieved from: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/ article/innovating-in-uncertain-markets-10-les- sons-for-green-technologies/ De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Pizzurno, E., & Cassia, L. (2015). Product innovation in family versus nonfamily firms: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 1-36. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Dubai Municipality. (2016). Green building in Dubai. Re- trieved from: http://bit.ly/2f8KAbx Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-Win-Win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90-100. Ernst & Young. (2014). Sustainability reporting – the time is now. Retrieved from: http://www.ey.com/Publica- tion/vwLUAssets/EY_Sustainability_reporting_-_ the_time_is_now/$FILE/EY-Sustainability-report- ing-the-time-is-now.pdf Green Globe. (2017). Retrieved from: https://greenglobe. com/ GRI. (2015a). Sustainability reporting policy initiatives in Eu- rope. Retrieved from: http://www.globalreporting. org/resourcelibrary/Sustainability-Reporting-Poli- cy-Initiatives-in-Europe.pdf GRI. (2015b). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines im- plementation manual. Retrieved from: https:// w w w. g l o b a l r e p o r t i n g . o r g / r e s o u r c e l i b ra r y / GRIG4-Part2-Implementation-Manual.pdf GRI. (2014). GRI benchmark disclosures. Retrieved from: http://database.globalreporting.org/benchmark Honeyman, R. (2014). The B corp handbook: How to use business as a force for good. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Howorth, C., Rose, M., & Hamilton, E. (2010). Family firm diversity and development: An introduction. Inter- national Small Business Journal, 28(5) 437–451. Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational perfor- mance: Beyond the triple bottom line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(3), 177-191. Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The consequences of mandatory sustainability reporting: Evidence from four countries. Harvard Business School Research Working Paper No. 11-100. Jenny, S. (2016). Green globe recognised for mandato- ry energy audits in the Netherlands. Retrieved from: http://greenglobe.com/latest-news/ green-globe-recognised-for-mandatory-energy-au- dits-in-the-netherlands/ Kallerberg, A. L., & Leicht, K. T. (1991). Gender and organi- zational performance: Determinants of small busi- ness survival and success. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 34(1), 136-161. Kanter, R. M. (2006, November). Innovation: The classic traps. Harvard Business Review, pp. 73-83. Kim, Y., & Gao, F. (2013). Does family involvement increase business performance? Family-longevity goals’ moderating role in Chinese family firms. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 265−274. Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Rubel, H., Reeves, M., & Fuisz-Keh- rbach, S. K. (2013). Sustainability’s next frontier: Walking the talk on the sustainability issues that matter most. MIT Sloan Management, 55, 1-28. Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and col- lective commitment to family-centered goals. En- trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1263- 1288. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/sustainabilitys_strategic_worth_mckinsey_global_survey_results http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/sustainabilitys_strategic_worth_mckinsey_global_survey_results http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/sustainabilitys_strategic_worth_mckinsey_global_survey_results https://www.cdp.net/en/info/about-us https://www.cdp.net/Documents/Guidance/2015/cdp-glossary-of-terms-2015.pdf https://www.cdp.net/Documents/Guidance/2015/cdp-glossary-of-terms-2015.pdf http://bit.ly/2f8KAbx https://greenglobe.com/ https://greenglobe.com/ https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Sustainability-Reporting-Policy-%20%20%0d%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Initiatives-in-Europe.pdf%0d https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part2-Implementation-Manual.pdf https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part2-Implementation-Manual.pdf https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part2-Implementation-Manual.pdf http://database.globalreporting.org/benchmark. http://greenglobe.com/latest-news/green-globe-recognised-for- http://greenglobe.com/latest-news/green-globe-recognised-for- 71 J. F. Shields, D. H. B. Welsh, & J. M. Shelleman Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 1 (2018) / 66-71 KPMG. (2015). The KPMG survey of corporate responsibili- ty 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.kpmg.com/ CN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/ Documents/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsi- bility-reporting-2015-O-201511.pdf KPMG. (2011). KPMG International survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. Retrieved from: https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndIn- sights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibili- ty/Pages/2011-survey.aspx Kraut, R. W., & Grambsch, P. (1987). Home-based white collar employment: Lessons from the 1980 census. Social Forces, 66(2), 410-426. Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2016). Family firms and practices of sustainability: A contingency view. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7, 26-33. Masuo, D., Fong, G., Yanagida, J., & Cabal, C. (2001). Fac- tors associated with business and family success: A comparison of single manager and dual manager family business households. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22(1), 55-73. Matthews, R. (2015, June 5). France makes sustainability reporting mandatory. The Green Market Oracle. Retrieved from http://www.thegreenmarketora- cle.com/2015/06/france-makes-sustainability-re- porting.html McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Ibrahim, B. (2012). All in the fami- ly? Social performance and corporate governance in the family firm. Journal of Business Research, 65(11), 1643−1650. McKinsey & Company. (2010). McKinsey global survey re- sults: How companies manage sustainability. Re- trieved from: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/ sustainability/how_companies_manage_sustain- ability_mckinsey_global_survey_results Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Amore, M. D., Minichilli, A., & Corbetta, G. (2015, January). Community val- ues, family firm governance and performance: An ecology of institutional logics. In Academy of Man- agement Annual Meeting Proceedings (pp. 11168). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management. Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Scholes, L. (2015). Resourc- es and innovation in family businesses. California Management Review, 58(1), 20-40. Peake, W. O., Davis, P. E., & Cox, M. Z. (2015). Being good for goodness sake: The influence of family involve- ment on motivations to engage in small business social responsibility. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 25(1), 1-25. Pearson, A., Carr, J., & Shaw, J. (2008). Toward a theory of familiness: A social capital perspective. Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 949–969. Pearson, A. W., & Marler, L. E. (2010). A leadership per- spective of reciprocal stewardship in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6), 1117- 1124. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). (2013, November 29). New Danish public procurement policy demands sustainable timber. Retrieved from: http://www.pefc.org/news-a- media/general-sfm-news/1403-new-danish-pub- lic-procurement-policy-demands-sustainable-tim- ber Romero, S., Lin, B., Jeffers, A. E., & DeGaetano, L. A. (2014). An overview of sustainability reporting practices. The CPA Journal, 84(3), 68-71. Rowe, B.R., Haynes, G.W., & Bentley, M. (1993). Economic outcomes in family owned home-based business- es. Family Business Review, 11(4), 383-396. Sanchini, A. (2013, March 20). Sustainability certifica- tions in buildings: International overview of the main schemes. Retrieved from: http://blog. m o u nte e . e u / 2 0 1 3 / 0 3 / 2 0 /s u sta i n a b i l i t y- c e r- t i f i c a t i o n s - o f- b u i l d i n g s - i n t e r n a t i o n a l - o v e r- view-of-the-main-schemes/ Savitz, A. (2006). The triple bottom line. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schooley, D. K., & English, D. M. (2015). SASB: A pathway to sustainability reporting in the United States. The CPA Journal, 85(4), 22-27. Shields, J., & Shelleman, J. (2017). A method to launch sus- tainability reporting in SMEs: The B Corp Impact Assessment framework. Journal of Strategic Inno- vation and Sustainability, 12(2). Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work? Indiana Business Re- view, 86(1), 4-8. Stubbs, W. (2016). Sustainable entrepreneurship and B Corps. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 331-344. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN- ECE). (2017). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ post2015/transformingourworld World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Pages/2011-survey.aspx https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Pages/2011-survey.aspx https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/corporate-responsibility/Pages/2011-survey.aspx http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/how_companies_manage_sustainability_mckinsey_global_survey_results http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/how_companies_manage_sustainability_mckinsey_global_survey_results http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/how_companies_manage_sustainability_mckinsey_global_survey_results http://blog.mountee.eu/2013/03/20/sustainability-certifications-of-buildings-international-overview-of http://blog.mountee.eu/2013/03/20/sustainability-certifications-of-buildings-international-overview-of http://blog.mountee.eu/2013/03/20/sustainability-certifications-of-buildings-international-overview-of http://blog.mountee.eu/2013/03/20/sustainability-certifications-of-buildings-international-overview-of