Do sustainability reporting conduct and corporate governance attributes relate? Empirical evidence from China
-
Author(s)Oleh PaskoLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6275-5885
,
Li ZhangLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4837-8630
,
Kateryna TuzhykLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7057-3400
,
Nelia ProskurinaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8674-1720
,
Viktoriia GrynLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6758-7374
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(4).2021.10
-
Article InfoVolume 19 2021, Issue #4, pp. 110-123
- Cited by
- 844 Views
-
236 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Adopting agency and stakeholders theories, this study aims to investigate the relationship between corporate governance attributes (board size, board independence, female directors, and CEO duality) and sustainability reporting conduct in China. The empirical analysis is based on a sample of 10,330 firm-year observations of Chinese listed companies over the period from 2015 to 2018. Data are supplied by WIND and CSMAR databases, whilst regression analysis is applied to test the hypotheses. Results indicate that board size and board independence were found to be positively associated with the sustainability reporting conduct, while female directors and CEO duality both do not have a significant effect on sustainability reporting conduct in the Chinese institutional settings. This paper advances on arguments of the agency and stakeholders theories with these findings. The larger and more independent board facilitates better monitoring of the managers, what leads to decision-making based on a more appreciation of stakeholders’ perspectives. The study is premised on the presence/absence of sustainability reporting, and it does not take into consideration the quality aspect, which can result in erroneous interpretation. The results should not be generalized as the sample was based on China’s companies for 2015–2018. This study has policy implications for managers and policymakers alike concerning designing board composition conducive to sustainability reporting conduct.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G34, M14, M41
-
References48
-
Tables8
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. Prior studies on the effect of sustainability reporting conduct and corporate governance attributes*
- Table 2. Sample selection procedure
- Table 3. Description of the variables
- Table 4. Descriptive statistics
- Table 5. Correlations matrix
- Table 6. T-test results on type of property rights holder
- Table 7. T-test results on sustainability reporting conduct
- Table 8. Multiple regression results
-
- Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference. Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382-402.
- Ali, M., & Ayoko, O. B. (2020). The impact of board size on board demographic faultlines. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 20(7), 1205-1222.
- Andreu-Pinillos, A., Fernández-Fernández, J.-L., & Fernández-Mateo, J. (2020). Corporate governance in sustainability indexes: a Spanish case study. Revista de Comunicación, 19(2), 7-28.
- Arena, C., Petrides, Y., & Vourvachis, P. (2020). Determinants of CSR disclosure in Mexico. International Journal of Banking, Accounting and Finance, 11(3), 303.
- Arnaboldi, F., Casu, B., Kalotychou, E., & Sarkisyan, A. (2020). The performance effects of board heterogeneity: what works for EU banks? The European Journal of Finance, 26(10), 897-924.
- Aureli, S., Del Baldo, M., Lombardi, R., & Nappo, F. (2020). Nonfinancial reporting regulation and challenges in sustainability disclosure and corporate governance practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2392-2403.
- Birindelli, G., Iannuzzi, A. P., & Savioli, M. (2019). The impact of women leaders on environmental performance: Evidence on gender diversity in banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1485-1499.
- Biswas, P. K., Mansi, M., & Pandey, R. (2018). Board composition, sustainability committee and corporate social and environmental performance in Australia. Pacific Accounting Review, 30(4), 517-540.
- Calderón, R., Piñero, R., & Redín, D. M. (2020). Understanding Independence: Board of Directors and CSR. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
- Chen, S., Hermes, N., & Hooghiemstra, R. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility and NGO Directors on Boards. Journal of Business Ethics.
- Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2017). Board Structure to Enhance Social Responsibility Development: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of US Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 524-542.
- Cucari, N. (2019). Qualitative comparative analysis in corporate governance research: a systematic literature review of applications. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(4), 717-734.
- Djankov, S., Glaeser, E., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2003). The new comparative economics. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(4), 595-619.
- Field, L. C., Souther, M. E., & Yore, A. S. (2020). At the table but can not break through the glass ceiling:Board leadership positions elude diverse directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 137(3), 787-814.
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press.
- Gallego-Álvarez, I., & Pucheta-Martínez, M. C. (2020). Corporate social responsibility reporting and corporate governance mechanisms: An international outlook from emerging countries. Business Strategy & Development, 3(1), 77-97.
- Galli, D., & Bassanini, F. (2020). Reporting Sustainability in China: Evidence from the Global Powers of Luxury Goods. Sustainability, 12(9), 3940.
- Giannarakis, G. (2014). Corporate governance and financial characteristic effects on the extent of corporate social responsibility disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4), 569-590.
- Goergen, M., Limbach, P., & Scholz-Daneshgari, M. (2020). Firms’ rationales for CEO duality: Evidence from a mandatory disclosure regulation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 65, 101770.
- Guest, P. M. (2009). The impact of board size on firm performance: evidence from the UK. The European Journal of Finance, 15(4), 385-404.
- Hart, C. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). From Fault Line to Group Fission: Understanding Membership Changes in Small Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 392-404.
- Hur, W.-M., Kim, H., & Jang, J. H. (2016). The Role of Gender Differences in the Impact of CSR Perceptions on Corporate Marketing Outcomes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(6), 345-357.
- Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate Governance and Sustainability Performance: Analysis of Triple Bottom Line Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 411-432.
- Jain, T., & Jamali, D. (2016). Looking Inside the Black Box: The Effect of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 253-273.
- Jizi, M. I., Salama, A., Dixon, R., & Stratling, R. (2014). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 601-615.
- Kao, E. H., Huang, H.-C., Fung, H.-G., & Liu, X. (2020). Co-opted directors, gender diversity, and crash risk: evidence from China. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 55(2), 461-500.
- Khlif, H., Samaha, K., & Amara, I. (2021). Internal control quality and voluntary disclosure: does CEO duality matter? Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(2), 286-306.
- Kılıç, M., Uyar, A., Kuzey, C., & Karaman, A. S. (2021). Drivers and consequences of sustainability committee existence? Evidence from the hospitality and tourism industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102753.
- Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409-424.
- Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2017). Theorizing stakeholders of sustainability in the digital age. Sustainability Science, 12(2), 235-245.
- Mallin, C. A., & 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.
- Manita, R., Bruna, M. G., Dang, R., & Houanti, L. (2018). Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 19(2), 206-224.
- Manning, B., Braam, G., & Reimsbach, D. (2019). Corporate governance and sustainable business conduct-Effects of board monitoring effectiveness and stakeholder engagement on corporate sustainability performance and disclosure choices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 351-366.
- Miglani, S., Ahmed, K., & Henry, D. (2020). Corporate governance and turnaround: Evidence from Australia. Australian Journal of Management, 45(4), 549-578.
- Mio, C., Fasan, M., Marcon, C., & Panfilo, S. (2020). The predictive ability of legitimacy and agency theory after the implementation of the EU directive on non-financial information. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2465-2476.
- Naciti, V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117727.
- Nadeem, M. (2021). Corporate Governance and Supplemental Environmental Projects: A Restorative Justice Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 173, 261-280.
- O’Dwyer, B. (2002). Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 406-436.
- Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., & Gallego-Álvarez, I. (2018). Environmental reporting policy and corporate structures: An international analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 788-798.
- Ruigrok, W., Peck, S., Tacheva, S., Greve, P., & Hu, Y. (2006). The Determinants and Effects of Board Nomination Committees. Journal of Management & Governance, 10(2), 119-148.
- Tibiletti, V., Marchini, P. L., Furlotti, K., & Medioli, A. (2021). Does corporate governance matter in corporate social responsibility disclosure? Evidence from Italy in the “era of sustainability.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2), 896-907.
- Tyson, T., & Adams, C. A. (2020). Increasing the scope of assurance research: new lines of inquiry and novel theoretical perspectives. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(2), 291-316.
- Uyar, A., Kilic, M., Koseoglu, M. A., Kuzey, C., & Karaman, A. S. (2020). The link among board characteristics, corporate social responsibility performance, and financial performance: Evidence from the hospitality and tourism industry. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 100714.
- Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 885-913.
- Wysocki, P. (2011). New institutional accounting and IFRS. Accounting and Business Research, 41(3), 309-328.
- Yang, Y., Orzes, G., Jia, F., & Chen, L. (2021). Does GRI Sustainability Reporting Pay Off? An Empirical Investigation of Publicly Listed Firms in China. Business & Society, 60(7), 1738-1772.
- Younas, Z. I., Klein, C., Trabert, T., & Zwergel, B. (2019). Board composition and corporate risk-taking: a review of listed firms from Germany and the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 20(4), 526-542.
- Zaman, R., Nadeem, M., & Carvajal, M. (2021). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies: evidence from New Zealand. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(1), 135-160.
-
The role of accounting in sustainable development
Inna Makarenko ,
Alex Plastun
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/afc.01(2).2017.01
Accounting and Financial Control Volume 1, 2017 Issue #2 pp. 4-12 Views: 5663 Downloads: 4301 TO CITEIdeology of Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals influence the transformation of business processes in the companies. Professional accountants are important part of this transformation. In this paper the role of accounting in Sustainable Development Goals achievement is discussed. Different approaches to structuring the role of professional accountants in Sustainable Development are investigated. Among them are types of roles that perform accountants, their professional functions, skills and competencies in the corporate environment. As the result a holistic vision of the role of accounting in sustainable development in the new economic conditions is provided.
-
The relationship between corporate social responsibility and earnings management: accounting for endogeneity
Hyunjung Choi , Byungchul Choi ,
Jungyoon Byun
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(4).2018.06
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 15, 2018 Issue #4 pp. 69-84 Views: 4329 Downloads: 493 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study examines the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and earnings management after controlling for endogeneity of CSR. Using a sample of non-financial firms listed on Korean Securities Market between 2002 and 2010, this study finds that ignoring endogeneity biases the estimated relation between CSR and earnings management. Specifically, the results show that the negative and significant relation between CSR commitment and discretionary accruals reported in the previous studies becomes insignificant. However, the negative and significant relation between CSR commitment and real activities manipulation remains significant even when the endogeneity of CSR commitment is taken into account. Therefore, this study provides evidence that proactive CSR engagement significantly affects firm’s practice of real activities manipulation, while it does not affect its practice of discretionary accruals. These results indicate that CSR commitment leads managers to be more responsible in management of operational activities than in accruals management.
-
Does board composition have an impact on CSR reporting?
Patrick Velte
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(2).2017.02
Problems and Perspectives in Management Volume 15, 2017 Issue #2 pp. 19-35 Views: 4181 Downloads: 1609 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯCorporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting plays a key role in management control, particularly in light of the increased demand for non-financial reporting after the financial crisis of 2008–2009. This literature review evaluates 47 empirical studies that concentrate on the influence of several board composition variables on the quantity and quality of CSR reporting. The author briefly introduces the research framework that underpins current empirical studies in this field. This is followed by a discussion of the main variables of board composition: (1) committees (audit and CSR committees), (2) board independence, (3) board expertise, (4) CEO duality, (5) board diversity (gender and foreign diversity), (6) board activity, and (7) board size. The author, then, summarizes the key findings, discusses the limitations of the existing research and offers useful recommendations for researchers, firm practice and regulators.
