Internal and external pressures on the use of social and environmental information disclosure standards widely accepted: a corporate governance structure analysis, institutional environment and the legitimacy perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8069.2017v14n31p3Abstract
The aim of this study is to verify if internal pressures represented by the corporate governance structure of organizations, and external pressures represented by the legal institutional environment and pressures exerted from shareholders and creditors influence the use of voluntary social and environmental information disclosure standards (i.e., GRI) widely accepted. The sample consists of 96 companies and it was used the statistical technique of Logistic Regression for analyzing the data. The results showed that corporate governance structure is a relevant factor for the use of these disclosure standards. The governance mechanism presence associated to socio- environmental responsibility exerts influences on the use of standards isolated from the set of mechanisms that make up the governance structure. The legal institutional environment was not significantly presented, while the exerted pressures from creditors and shareholders were relevant on taking the decision to use the disclosure standard under analysis. The results corroborate with the Institutional Theory legitimacy perspective.
References
AGRAWAL, A; CHADHA, S. Corporate governance and accounting scandals. Journal of Law and Economics, v. 48, p. 371–406, 2005. DOI: 10.1086/430808
AGUILERA, R. V; JACKSON, G. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of management review, v. 28, n. 3, p. 447-465, 2003. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2003.10196772.
AGUILERA, R. V. et al. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of management review, vol. 32, n. 3, p. 836-863, 2007. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.25275678
AGUILERA, R. V. et al. An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and complementarities. Organization Science, v. 19, n. 3, p. 475-492, 2008. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0322.
AHRENS, T.; FILATOTCHEV, I.; THOMSEN, S. The research frontier in corporate governance. Journal of Management & Governance, v. 15, n. 3, p. 311-325, 2011. doi:10.1007/s10997-009-9115-8.
BARAKAT, F.S.Q.; PÉREZ, M.V.L.; ARIZA, L.R. Corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD) determinants of listed companies in Palestine (PXE) and Jordan (ASE). Review of Managerial Science, v. 9, n. 4, p. 681-702. doi: 10.1007/s11846-014-0133-9
BARAKO, D.G.; HANCOCK, P.; IZAN, H.Y. Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by Kenyan companies. Journal of Corporate Governance, v.14, n. 2, p.107-125, 2006. doi: 10.1080/10291954.2015.999471.
BAYSINGER, B. D.; HOSKISSON, R. E. The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, v.15, n. 1, p. 72–87, 1990. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1990.4308231.
BRAMMER, S.; JACKSON, G.; MATTEN, D. Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, v. 10, n. 1, p. 3-28, 2012. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwr030.
BROWN, H.S.; DE JONG, M.; LESSINDRENSKA, T. The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, v. 18, n. 2, p. 182-200, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010802682551
______; DE JONG, M.; LEVY, D. L. Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.17, n. 6, p. 571-580, 2009. doi: 10.1080/09644010802682551.
CHO, C. H.; PATTEN, D. M. The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, v. 32, n. 7, p. 639-647, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009.
CHOUDHARY, P.; SCHLOETZER, J. D; STURGESS, J. D. Boards, auditors, attorneys, and compliance with mandatory SEC disclosure rules. Managerial and Decision Economics, v. 34, n. 7-8, p. 471–487, 2013. doi: 10.1002/mde.2623.
COLLIER, P. Factors affecting the formation of audit committees in major UK listed companies. Accounting and Business Research, v. 23, n. 91, p. 421–430, 1993. doi: 10.1080/00014788.1993.9729909.
CORRAR, L.J.; PAULO, E.; DIAS FILHO, J.M. (Coord.). Análise multivariada: para cursos de administração, ciências contábeis, atuariais e financeiras. São Paulo: Atlas, 2007.
DACIN, M.T.; GOODSTEIN, J.; SCOTT, W.R. Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, v. 45, n. 1, p. 45-57, 2002.
DE GRAAF, F. J; STOELHORST, J. W. The role of governance in corporate social responsibility: Lessons from Dutch finance. Business Society, v. 52, n. 2, p. 282-317, 2013.
DEEGAN, C. Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, v. 15, n. 3, p. 282-311, 2002. doi: 10.1108/09513570210435852.
DI MAGGIO, P. J.; POWELL, W. W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, v. 48, n. 2, p. 147-160, 1983.
ENG, L.L.; MAK, Y.T. Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, v. 22, n. 4, p. 325-345, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4254(03)00037-1.
FAMA, E.; JENSEN, M. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, v. 26, n. 2, p. 301–326, 1983.
FILATOTCHEV, I.; BOYD, B.K. Taking stock of corporate governance research while looking to the future. Corporate Governance: An International Review, v. 17, n. 3, p. 257-265, 2009. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00748.
______; NAKAJIMA, C. Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and corporate social responsibility: Organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy? The Academy of Management Perspectives, v. 28, n. 3, p. 289-306, 2014. doi: 10.5465/amp.2014.0014.
FRANSEN, L. Multi-stakeholder governance and voluntary program interactions: Legitimation politics in the institutional design of corporate social responsibility. Socio-Economic Review, vol. 10, n.1, p. 163–191, 2012. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwr029.
FREEMAN, R.E.; REED, D. L. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective in corporate governance. California Management Review, v. 25, n.3, p. 88-103, 1983.
GIRERD-POTIN, I.; JIMENEZ-GARCÈS, S.; LOUVET, P. Which dimensions of social responsibility concern financial investors? Journal of Business Ethics, v. 121, n. 4, p. 559-576, 2014. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1731-1.
GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE. Disponível em: <https://www.globalreporting.org/information/about-gri/alliances-and-synergies/Pages/IFC.aspx>. Acesso em: 28 nov. 2014.
______. G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Disponível em: <https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part2-Implementation-Manual.pdf > Acesso em: 28 nov. 2014.
GRAAF, F.J; STOELHORST, J.W. The Role of Governance in Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, v. 52, n. 2, p. 282 –317, 2013.
GRAY, R.; KOUHY, R.; LAVERS, S. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, v. 8, n. 2, p. 47-77, 1995. doi: 10.1108/09513579510146996.
GUL, F. A.; LEUNG, S. Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, v. 23, n.5, p. 351–379, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2004.07.001.
HALL, P.A.; GINGERICH, D.W. Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the political economy. British Journal of Political Science, v. 39, n. 3, p. 449-482, 2009. doi: 10.1017/S0007123409000672.
HANIFFA, R.M; COOKE, T.E. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, v. 24, n. 5, p. 391-430, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001.
HO, S.S.M.; WONG, K.S. A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, v. 10, n. 2, p. 139-156, 2001. doi: 10.1016/S1061-9518(01)00041-6.
HOSKISSON, R.; YIU, D.; KIM, H. Corporate governance systems: Effects of capital and labor market congruency on corporate innovation and global competitiveness. Journal of High Technology Management, v. 15, n. 2, p. 293-307, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.hitech.2004.03.008.
JAMALI, D.; SAFIEDDINE, A. M.; RABBATH, M. Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Synergies and Interrelationships. Corporate Governance, v. 16, n. 5, p. 443-459, 2008. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00702.x
JUDGE, W. Q. Editorial–toward a global theory of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, v. 17, n. 2, p. iii-iv, 2009. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00736.x
______; DOUGLAS, T. J.; KUTAN, A. M. Institutional antecedents of corporate governance legitimacy. Journal of Management, v. 34, n. 4, p.765-785, 2008. doi: 10.1108/JAOC-02-2012-0014.
______; LI, S.; PINSKER, R. National adoption of international accounting standards: an institutional perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, v. 18, n. 3, p. 161-174, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00798.x
KUASIRKUN, N.; SHERER, M. Corporate social accounting disclosure in Thailand. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 17, n. 4, p. 629-660, 2004. doi: 10.1108/09513570410554588.
LEVY, D. L.; BROWN, H. S.; DE JONG, M. The contested politics of corporate governance: the case of the global reporting initiative. Business & Society, v. 49, n. 1, p. 88-115, 2010.
LIAO, L.; LUO, L.; TANG, Q. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, v. 47, n. 4, p. 409-424, 2015. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002.
LUO L.; LAN, Y.C.; TANG Q. Corporate incentives to disclose carbon information: evidence from the CDP Global 500 report. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, v. 23, n. 2, p. 93–120, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-646X.2012.01055.x
______.; TANG, Q.; LAN, Y. Comparison of propensity for carbon disclosure between developing and developed countries. Accounting Research Journal, v. 26, n. 1, p. 6-34, 2013. doi: 10.1108/ARJ-04-2012-0024.
MEYER, J.W.; ROWAN, B. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, v. 83, n. 2, p. 340-363, 1977.
MICHELON, G.; PARBONETTI, A. The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance, v. 16, n. 3, p. 477-509, 2012. doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9160-3.
NORTH, D. C. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
NTIM, C.G.; SOOBAROYEN, T. Corporate governance performance in socially responsible corporations: new empirical insights from neo-institutional framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review, v. 21, n. 5, p. 468-494, 2013. doi: 10.1111/corg.12026.
ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) 2004. OECD principles of corporate governance, 2004. Disponível em: <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf>. Acesso: 28 nov. 2014.
ROSENSTEIN, S.; WYATT, J. G. Outside directors, board independence and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, v. 26, n. 2, p. 175–192, 1990. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(90)90002-H.
SUCHMAN, M.C. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, v. 20, n. 3, p. 517-610, 1995. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331.
WITT, M.A; REDDING, G. The Spirits of Corporate Social Responsibility: Senior Executive Perceptions of the Role of the Firm in Society in Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. Socio-Economic Review, v. 10, n.1, 109-134, 2012
WRIGHT, M.; FILATOTCHEV, I.; HOSKISSON, R. E.; PENG, M. W. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, v. 42, n. 1, p.1-33, 2005. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00487.x
YU, X. Securities fraud and corporate finance: Recent developments. Managerial and Decision Economics, v. 34, n. 7-8, p. 439–450, 2013. doi: 10.1002/mde.262.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Os Direitos Autorais para artigos publicados neste periódico são do autor, com direitos de primeira publicação para a Revista. Em virtude de aparecerem nesta Revista de acesso público, os artigos são de uso gratuito, com atribuições próprias, em aplicações educacionais, de exercício profissional e para gestão pública. A Revista adotou a licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional - CC BY NC ND. Esta licença permite acessar, baixar (download), copiar, imprimir, compartilhar, reutilizar e distribuir os artigos desde que com a citação da fonte, atribuindo os devidos créditos de autoria. Nesses casos, nenhuma permissão é necessária por parte dos autores ou dos editores. Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou um capítulo de livro).
Esta obra está licenciada sob uma Licença Creative Commons.
