Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!
The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:
- Faculty Member’s Name;
- Area of Expertise;
- Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
- Journal Name; and
- Date Range.
At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.
If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Cho, C.H., Maurice, J., Nègre, E. and Verdier, M-A. (2016). "Is Environmental Disclosure Good for the Environment? A Meta-Analysis and Research Agenda", Korean Accounting Review, 41(3), 239-277.
AbstractThis paper reviews the literature on the association between environmental disclosure and environmental performance. Results from previous studies are mixed. While some studies conducted in an economic perspective document a positive association between these two environmental dimensions, other studies obtain a negative association that they mainly explain using arguments drawn from socio-political theories. Given these conflicting results, we conduct a meta-analysis to provide an average direction and magnitude of the association between environmental disclosure and environmental performance. The meta-analysis reveals that there is no association between the environmental disclosure and the environmental performance of the 2,672 companies of our cumulated sample, and that this non-association remains constant over time despite the continuous reinforcement of environmental regulations. Based on these results, we discuss theoretical and methodological issues associated with prior literature that could explain this overall non-association and we suggest avenues for future research.
Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M. and Cho, C.H (2013). "Is Environmental Governance Substantive or Symbolic? An Empirical Investigation", Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 107-129.
AbstractThe emergence of environmental governance practices raises a fundamental question as to whether they are substantive or symbolic. Toward that end, we analyze the relationship between a firm’s environmental governance and its environmental management as reflected in its ultimate outcome, environmental performance. We posit that substantive practices would bring changes in organizations, most notably in terms of improved environmental performance, whereas symbolic practices would portray organizations as environmentally committed without making meaningful changes to their operations. Focusing on a sample of environmentally sensitive firms, results are consistent with environmental governance mechanisms being predominantly part of a symbolic approach to manage stakeholder perceptions on environmental management, having little substantial impact on organizations. Statistical analyses show mostly that there is no relation between environmental governance mechanisms and environmental performance, measured in terms of regulatory compliance, pollution prevention, and environmental capital expenditures. However, there is some indication that environmental incentives are associated with pollution prevention. Interviews with corporate directors shed further light on these results by underlining that environmental governance mechanisms are employed at the board level to protect the organization from reputational and/or regulatory harm, but are not necessarily intended to proactively improve environmental performance.
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P. (2013). "Environmental Management Practices and Performance in Canada", Canadian Public Policy, 39(2), 157-75.