IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i1p63-d62004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Supervisory Board Composition on CSR Reporting. Evidence from the German Two-Tier System

Author

Listed:
  • Dominik Dienes

    (Institute of Auditing and Taxation, University of Hamburg, Max-Brauer-Allee 60, 22527 Hamburg, Germany)

  • Patrick Velte

    (Institute of Banking, Finance and Accounting, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany)

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting is becoming increasingly relevant in light of modern corporate governance. There is growing activity among empirical research in one-tier systems that considers the link between board composition and CSR reporting. This study is the first of its kind on the German two-tier system with special regard for the supervisory board. We analyze gender diversity, expertise, the presence of former managers, frequency of meetings, and the size of the supervisory board. Our multiple regressions indicate that gender diversity has a positive impact on CSR disclosure intensity, which is in line with prior studies on one-tier systems. Our findings have implications for both users and public policy and suggest that current European corporate governance regulations could help to increase the decision usefulness of CSR reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominik Dienes & Patrick Velte, 2016. "The Impact of Supervisory Board Composition on CSR Reporting. Evidence from the German Two-Tier System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:1:p:63-:d:62004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/63/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/1/63/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mehmoona Sharif & Kashif Rashid, 2014. "Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: an empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2501-2521, September.
    2. Liao, Lin & Luo, Le & Tang, Qingliang, 2015. "Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 409-424.
    3. Azlan Amran & Shiau Ping Lee & S. Susela Devi, 2014. "The Influence of Governance Structure and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Toward Sustainability Reporting Quality," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 217-235, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicola Cucari & Salvatore Esposito De Falco & Beatrice Orlando, 2018. "Diversity of Board of Directors and Environmental Social Governance: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 250-266, May.
    2. Eduardo Ortas & Igor Álvarez & Eugenio Zubeltzu, 2017. "Firms’ Board Independence and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, June.
    3. Alicia Girón & Amirreza Kazemikhasragh & Antonella Francesca Cicchiello & Eva Panetti, 2021. "Sustainability Reporting and Firms’ Economic Performance: Evidence from Asia and Africa," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(4), pages 1741-1759, December.
    4. Waris Ali & Zeeshan Mahmood & Jeffrey Wilson & Hina Ismail, 2024. "The impact of sustainability governance attributes on comprehensive CSR reporting: A developing country setting," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 1802-1817, May.
    5. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Mohammad Nurunnabi & Seong Mi Bae, 2018. "The effects of corporate governance on environmental sustainability reporting: empirical evidence from South Asian countries," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-26, December.
    6. Camélia Radu & Nadia Smaili, 2022. "Alignment Versus Monitoring: An Examination of the Effect of the CSR Committee and CSR-Linked Executive Compensation on CSR Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 145-163, September.
    7. Nurlan Orazalin, 2020. "Do board sustainability committees contribute to corporate environmental and social performance? The mediating role of corporate social responsibility strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 140-153, January.
    8. Vitiana L'Abate & Nicola Raimo & Francesco Albergo & Filippo Vitolla, 2024. "Social media to disseminate circular economy information. An empirical analysis on Twitter," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 528-539, January.
    9. Yinglin Huang & Claude Francoeur & Stephen Brammer, 2022. "What drives and curbs brownwashing?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2518-2532, July.
    10. Govindan, Kannan & Kilic, Merve & Uyar, Ali & Karaman, Abdullah S., 2021. "Drivers and value-relevance of CSR performance in the logistics sector: A cross-country firm-level investigation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    11. Mohammad Jizi, 2017. "The Influence of Board Composition on Sustainable Development Disclosure," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 640-655, July.
    12. Zhongtian Li & Jing Jia & Larelle (Ellie) Chapple, 2022. "The corporate sustainability committee and its relation to corporate environmental performance," Meditari Accountancy Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(5), pages 1292-1324, July.
    13. Giuliana Birindelli & Stefano Dell’Atti & Antonia Patrizia Iannuzzi & Marco Savioli, 2018. "Composition and Activity of the Board of Directors: Impact on ESG Performance in the Banking System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Camélia Radu & Nadia Smaili, 2021. "Corporate performance patterns of Canadian listed firms: Balancing financial and corporate social responsibility outcomes," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3344-3359, November.
    15. Waris Ali & Stelios Bekiros & Nazim Hussain & Sana Akbar Khan & Duc Khuong Nguyen, 2024. "Determinants and consequences of corporate social responsibility disclosure: A survey of extant literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 793-822, July.
    16. Marcelle Colares Oliveira & Manuel Salgueiro Rodrigues Júnior & Sérgio Henrique De Oliveira Lima & George Alberto De Freitas, 2018. "The Influence of the Characteristics of the National Business System in the Disclosure of Gender-Related Corporate Social Responsibility Practices," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Tobias Gerwing & Peter Kajüter & Maximilian Wirth, 2022. "The role of sustainable corporate governance in mandatory sustainability reporting quality," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 517-555, April.
    18. Ginesti, Gianluca & Campa, Domenico & Spano’, Rosanna & Allini, Alessandra & Maffei, Marco, 2023. "The role of CSR committee characteristics on R&D investments," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(5).
    19. Francesco Paolone & Matteo Pozzoli & Nicola Cucari & Rosario Bianco, 2023. "Longer board tenure and audit committee tenure. How do they impact environmental performance? A European study," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 358-368, January.
    20. Renata Konadu & Gabriel Sam Ahinful & Samuel Owusu-Agyei, 2021. "Corporate governance pillars and business sustainability: does stakeholder engagement matter?," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(3), pages 269-289, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:1:p:63-:d:62004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.