The relationship between governance and CR&S performance has attracted significant academic attention over the past decade. The OECD’s Global Corporate Sustainability Report (2023) found that companies increasingly have board-level committees responsible for overseeing sustainability risks and opportunities (OECD, 2023). This institutionalisation of CR&S at board level represents a structural shift in how organisations govern their social and environmental responsibilities.
Why does governance positioning matter so much? Brogi et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis of research on corporate governance and sustainability reporting, finding that governance mechanisms are among the most significant factors influencing both the extent and quality of CR&S disclosure. Organisations with strong governance frameworks are more likely to adopt comprehensive reporting standards and disclose meaningful ESG information. Crucially, the relationship works in both directions: governance shapes CR&S performance, and robust CR&S reporting in turn strengthens governance by giving stakeholders the tools to hold organisations accountable.
At the individual level, the role of the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) or equivalent has emerged as a significant variable. Research by Hess (2023) on the influence of CSOs and CSR committees found that where sustainability leaders have direct access to the board and sit at the executive table, CR&S outcomes are measurably stronger than in organisations where the function is buried within communications, HR or a single business unit. This is not simply about seniority; it is more importantly about the ability to influence resource allocation, risk management and strategic planning at the point where those decisions are made.
For practitioners working at the operational level, understanding where their CR&S function sits in the governance structure is essential for navigating what they can and cannot achieve. A CR&S practitioner who understands that their function reports to the Chief People Officer, for example, will understand that they have natural allies in employee engagement and culture change, but may find it harder to influence capital investment decisions or supply chain standards. One who understands that their organisation has a board-level ESG committee will know that there is a governance mechanism through which material risks can be escalated, and that board members have been assigned formal accountability for CR&S outcomes.
The emergence of regulatory frameworks has accelerated this structural shift. The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires companies to disclose detailed information about sustainability strategies, policies, targets and governance arrangements, and mandates that boards ensure the accuracy of sustainability information and integrate sustainability into company strategy (Rüdele and Wolf, 2024; Oskarsdottir, Sigurjónsson and Steinþórsson, 2025). The UK’s Companies Act and the Financial Conduct Authority’s sustainability disclosure requirements create similar accountability mechanisms. These regulations change who is responsible for it and at what level of the organisation those responsibilities must be held.
Ali et al. (2024) examined a comprehensive set of sustainability governance attributes, including the presence of a dedicated sustainability department, a sustainability committee, a sustainability officer and a sustainability policy, and found that each attribute, independently and in combination, was positively associated with the quality of CR&S reporting. Organisations with all four attributes significantly outperformed those with none. This suggests that CR&S performance is not simply a function of individual commitment or effort, but a function of the structures, mandates and resources that organisations put in place to support it.
For CR&S practitioners, this evidence points to a clear practical implication: building a self-sustaining CR&S capability requires understanding and influencing the governance architecture of the organisation, not just delivering individual projects or campaigns. This means knowing who holds formal accountability for CR&S at board and executive level, understanding how CR&S is embedded in the organisation’s risk management and reporting frameworks, identifying where structural gaps exist, and making the case with evidence for the governance changes needed to close them.
Action Point
Map the governance structure of your organisation and identify where CR&S currently sits. Who holds formal accountability for CR&S at board and executive level? Is there a dedicated committee, a named board sponsor, or a CR&S policy endorsed at the highest level? Consider what this positioning enables and limits and what one governance change would most strengthen your ability to create lasting CR&S impact.