The purpose of this study is to investigate whether corporate social disclosure levels relate to national cultures.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether corporate social disclosure levels relate to national cultures.
Design/methodology/approach
The sample consisted of 600 large companies from 22 countries. Cultural measures were applied: a measure for secrecy, as proposed by Hope et al. and a newly constructed measure for generic types of cultures (Gannon), both derived from Hofstede's national culture dimensions. Two other dimensions, masculinity and long‐term orientation, not part of secrecy and generic types of culture measures, were also tested separately.
Findings
A number of significant statistical relationships between corporate social disclosures and cultural measures are identified. The results are consistent with the associations suggested by stakeholder theory and a country‐specific stakeholder orientation. It is concluded that corporate social disclosure levels are likely to be influenced by national cultures.
Research limitations/implications
The results of Van der Laan Smith et al. are largely supported. Culture is clearly related to corporate social disclosure levels, although cultural data may need refinement. Further, the potential limitations of the application of stakeholder theory for this type of study need to be taken into account.
Practical implications
The outcomes can be useful to the managers of multinational corporations, when preparing corporate social disclosures.
Originality/value
Instead of a comparison between two nations, as is undertaken by Van der Laan Smith et al. a scaled relationship between generic types of cultures and CSD levels is found.
Details
Keywords
This study aims to explore the set of corporate social responsibility (CSR) committee attributes that may enhance CSR performance and CSR strategy formation and reduce CSR…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to explore the set of corporate social responsibility (CSR) committee attributes that may enhance CSR performance and CSR strategy formation and reduce CSR controversies.[AQ1] Towards this end, the study also explores the differences between companies with and without CSR committees in terms of these three CSR performance facets.
Design/methodology/approach
The study uses a sample of financial times stock exchange (FTSE) 100 non-financial companies in 2015–2017. Kruskal-Wallis test is conducted to test the differences in CSR performance in firms with CSR board-level committee, CSR management committee and no committees. Additionally, a regression model is used to explore the attributes of CSR committees that lead to better/less CSR performance and CSR strategy/CSR controversies. A two-stage least squares regression model was used as a robustness check.
Findings
Firms with board CSR committee have better CSR performance and CSR strategy and lower CSR controversies than both firms with no CSR committees and firms with a CSR management committee. Regression results show that CSR committees that are predominantly consisting of independent board members, chaired by a female director and setting more meetings have better CSR performance. Additionally, CSR committees were found to have lower CSR controversies when having more independent directors and a chair with CSR expertise. CSR strategy was better with the CSR committee represented by a larger group of members.
Originality/value
This study makes several contributions to the sustainability governance literature and regulatory/guidance interfaces. There is extant literature examining audit committee attributes and their effects on various firm outcomes. The same can be said on the regulations of the audit committee. CSR committees’ composition and benefits are, by far, less regulated and largely under-researched. Hence, this paper is considered an early attempt to explore the CSR performance improvements a CSR committee may bring and the composition that would bring better CSR performance.