{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02375102375102375, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020475020475020475, 'mean_word_length': 5.674863387978142, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Association between Sustainability Governance Characteristics and the Assurance of Corporate Sustainability Reports

specifically, the authors identify that past literature has been mainly built on (i) instrumental (contribution to the achievement of organisational performance) (ii) social/political (in response to institutional pressures and external social expectations and to secure legitimacy) or (iii) normative (in response to moral duty and ethical considerations) theoretical perspectives to explain the implementation of an SBSC. Thereafter, Hensen and Schaltegger develop a typology summarising the various SBSC architectures proposed in the literature. This typology is structured according to two dimensions, namely (i) a value system that refers to the various types of hierarchies among the individual performance perspective (strictly hierarchical, semi-hierarchical, and non-hierarchical), and (ii) a sustainability strategy that refers to the actual design of performance perspective (add-on, partly integrated, fully integrated, and extended). The authors use these two dimensions to create 12 different generic SBSC architectures and provide an in-depth discussion of the fundamental differences between the SBSC architectures proposed in the literature. Hensen and Schaltegger end by providing discussions about future research on SBSC architectures. Notably, they encourage researchers to focus on the hierarchical dimension of the SBSC architecture, which they believe remains ‘more ambiguous, controversial and in fact less well understood’ (212). The authors also call on researchers to refocus and broaden future research from the design of the SBSC to its implementation and use. For instance, the authors mention that more research is required to better understand the benefits and pitfalls of the SBSC in organisations, how organisational learning processes are triggered by the SBSC, and what the trade-offs are between the various SBSC goals. In sum, this paper has the merit of providing a comprehensive synthesis of SBSC literature that has mostly remained scattered and fragmented in the past. It greatly contributes to consolidating our knowledge of SBSC and provides an extended agenda for future research in this field. This paper marks a potential turning point in the level of maturity of SBSC literature, contributing to a shift from an emergent to a more established and mature field of research.