Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 114, Issue 1, pp 29–43 | Cite as

Monitoring Intensity and Stakeholders’ Orientation: How Does Governance Affect Social and Environmental Disclosure?

  • Christine Mallin
  • Giovanna Michelon
  • Davide Raggi


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.


Corporate 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.


  1. Abbott, W., & Monsen, R. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bondy, K., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Multinational corporation codes of conduct: Governance tools for corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance an International Review, 16(4), 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. (1975). A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18(2), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Cespa, G., & Cestone, G. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and managerial entrenchment. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16(3), 741–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho, C., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cho, C. H., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2006). Corporate political strategy: An examination of the relation between political expenditures, environmental performance, and environmental disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4/5), 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coffey, B. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1991). Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(6), 437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1595–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B., & Parker, L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox, P., Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). An empirical examination of institutional investor preferences for corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. (2007). Investor activism managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox, J. (2006). Structural equation modeling with the SEM Package in R. Structural Equations Modelling, 13(3), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (1982). Pollution disclosures, pollution performance and economic performance. OMEGA, 10(2), 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  24. Gales, L. M., & Kesener, I. F. (1994). An analysis of board of director size and composition in bankrupt organisations. Journal of business research, 30(3), 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gillan, S. L. (2006). Recent developments in corporate governance: An overview. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3), 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Global Corporate Governance Forum. (2009). Corporate governance: The foundation for corporate citizenship and sustainable businesses. Washington DC: GCGF.Google Scholar
  27. Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, 8(2), 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guidry, R. D., & Patten, D. M. (2010). Market reactions to the first-time issuance of corporate sustainability reports: Evidence that quality matters. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1990). Corporate social disclosure practice: A comparative international analysis. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 3, 159–175.Google Scholar
  31. Hackston, D., & Milne, M. (1996). Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand. Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(1), 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hillman, A. J., Cannella, J., & Paetzold, A. A. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Luce, R. A. (2001). Board composition and stakeholder performance: Do stakeholder directors make a difference? Business and Society, 40(3), 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huse, M. (2003). Renewing management and governance: New paradigms of governance? Journal of Management and Governance, 7(3), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. M. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, R., & Greening, D. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koenig, T., & Gogel, R. (1981). Interlocking corporate directorships as a social network. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 40, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 553–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mallin, C., & Michelon, G. (2011). Board reputation attributes and corporate social performance: An empirical investigation of the US Best Corporate Citizens. Accounting and Business Research, 41(2), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2010). Stakeholder engagement: Corporate governance and sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management and Governance. doi: 10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3.
  46. Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., & Zona, F. (2009). Making boards effective: An empirical examination of board task performance. British Journal of Management, 20, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32, 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2004). OECD principles of corporate governance.
  50. 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.
  51. Patten, D. M. (1991). Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 10(4), 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry disclosure in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Patten, D. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(8), 763–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pfeffer, B. R., & Salancik, J. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  55. Provan, K. G. (1980). Board power and organizational effectiveness among human service agencies. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pugliese, A., Bezermer, P., Zattoni, A., Huse, M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, W. (2007). Board of Directors’ contribution to strategy: A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  58. Roberts, R. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Sacconi, L. (2006). A social contract account for CSR as an extended model of corporate governance (I): Rational bargaining and justification. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Surroca, J., & Tribò, J. A. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 35(5–6), 748–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trotman, K., & Bradley, G. W. (1981). Associations between social responsibility disclosure and characteristics of companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6(4), 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Verecchia, R. E. (1983). Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. II (1989). Boards of Directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Zattoni, A. (2011). Who should control a corporation? Toward a contingency stakeholder model for allocating ownership rights. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Mallin
    • 1
  • Giovanna Michelon
    • 2
  • Davide Raggi
    • 3
  1. 1.Birmingham Business SchoolUniversity of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamUK
  2. 2.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations