Monitoring Intensity and Stakeholders’ Orientation: How Does Governance Affect Social and Environmental Disclosure?
The aim of the paper is to investigate the effects of the corporate governance model on social and environmental disclosure (SED). We analyze the disclosures of the 100 U.S. Best Corporate Citizens in the period 2005–2007, and we posit a series of simultaneous relationships between different attributes of the governance system and a multidimensional construct of corporate social performance (CSP). We consider both the extent and the quality of SED, with the purpose of identifying increasing levels of corporate commitment to stakeholders and shedding some light on whether SED is used as a signal or rather as a legitimacy tool. Our empirical evidence shows that the stakeholders’ orientation of corporate governance is positively associated with CSP and SED. On the other hand, we do not find support for the monitoring intensity of corporate governance being negatively associated with social performance. We also find that CSP in the “product” dimension is positively associated with the extent and quality of SED whilst CSP in the “people” dimension is negatively associated with the extent and quality of SED. At a time when shareholders and stakeholders share more common aspects in their relationships with firms, this is a significant area to explore and this research fills an important lacuna in this respect.
KeywordsCorporate governance Corporate social responsibility Social and environmental disclosure Monitoring Structural equation modeling
The authors thank Thomas Clarke (Corporate Governance Section Editor), the referees, Charles Cho, the participants to the 1st French Congress on Social and Environment Accounting Research and at the research workshop at Concordia University for their valuable comments and feedback.
- Al-Tuwaijri, S., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, K. E. (2003). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5–6), 447–471.Google Scholar
- Belkaoui, A., & Karpik, P. G. (1989). Determinants of the corporate decision to disclose social information. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2(1), 36–51.Google Scholar
- Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Buckholtz, A. K., Brown, J. A., & Shabana, K. M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of CSR (pp. 327–345). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
- Global Corporate Governance Forum. (2009). Corporate governance: The foundation for corporate citizenship and sustainable businesses. Washington DC: GCGF.Google Scholar
- Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1990). Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 159–175.Google Scholar
- Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383–396.Google Scholar
- Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the Critical Perspectives of Accounting Conference, New York.Google Scholar
- Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2010). Stakeholder engagement: Corporate governance and sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management and Governance. doi: 10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3.
- Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2004). OECD principles of corporate governance. www.oecd.org.
- OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2010). Corporate Responsibility: Reinforcing a Unique Instrument—2010 Annual Report on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. www.oecd.org.
- Pfeffer, B. R., & Salancik, J. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
- Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Cho, C. (2011). Greening or Greenwashing: Does environmental governance matter? Paper presented at the 3rd CSEAR Conference North American, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
- Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Sur, S., Livna, E., & Magnan, M. (2008, June). Why do boards differ? Exploring ownership effects on board composition. Paper presented at the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada.Google Scholar
- Ullman, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–577.Google Scholar
- Zahra, S. A., & Stanton, W. W. (1988). The implications of Board of Directors’ composition for corporate strategy and performance. International Journal of Management, 5(2), 229–236.Google Scholar