Salta al menu principale di navigazione Salta al contenuto principale Salta al piè di pagina del sito


N. 1 (2019): Special Issue "Best practice and future trends in Corporate Governance"

The influence of corporate board on non-financial disclosure according to the main organizational theories

23 ottobre 2019


This study aims to define a theoretical framework of the main organisational theories identifying how the board composition influences both CSR activity and disclosure. Using the literature review as the research method, the analysis highlights some implications of each organisational theory on non-financial information disclosure and board’s role. Specifically, the research shows that the management’s influence on non-financial information practice of an organisation is not emphasized by all organizational theories. In addition, based on the research results, non-financial information can should be considered as an organizational tool to legitimise the firm performance and manage the perception of enterprises stakeholders. The study could be further developed by applying quantitative research methods, such as a multiple case study approach, which is useful to explore the dissemination of a new phenomenon.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Abdo H., Al-Drugi A. (2012). Do companies’ characteristics play key roles in the level of their environmental disclosures?, Energy Research Journal, vol. 3, n. 1, pp. 1-11. DOI: 10.3844/erjsp.2012.1.11.
  2. Adnan S.M., Hay D., Staden C.J. (2018). The influence of culture and corporate governance on corporate social responsibility disclosure: A cross country analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 198, pp. 820-832. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.057.
  3. Aldrugi A., Abdo H. (2014). Determining the motives or reasons that make companies disclose environmental information. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, vol. 2, n. 2, pp. 117-121. DOI: 10.7763/JOEBM.2014.V2.109.
  4. Allen W.T. (1992). Our schizophrenic conception of the business corporation. Cardozo Law Review, vol. 14, pp. 261-281. DOI: 10.9774/GLEAF.9781315574288_5.
  5. An Y., Davey H., Eggleton I.R.C. (2011). Towards a comprehensive theoretical framework for voluntary IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 12, n. 4, pp. 571-585. DOI: 10.1108/14691931111181733.
  6. Antonelli V., D’Alessio R., Cuomo F. (2016). Beyond stakeholders theory: financial reporting and voluntary disclosure in italian sme according to a unitary perspective. Economia Aziendale Online, vol. 7, n. 4, pp. 285-304. DOI: 10.13132/2038-5498/7.4.285-304.
  7. Arora P., Dharwadkar R. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 19, n. 2, pp. 136-152. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467 – 8683.2010.00843.x.
  8. Arthur E.E. (1987). The ethics of corporate governance. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 6, n. 1, pp. 59-70. DOI: 10.1007/BF00382949.
  9. Bear S., Rahman N., Post C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 97, n. 2, pp. 207-221. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2?.
  10. Branco M.C., Rodrigues L.L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility?and
  11. resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 69, pp. 111-132. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9071-z.
  12. Bravo F. (2018). Does board diversity matter in the disclosure process? An analysis of the association between diversity and the disclosure of information on risks. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, vol. 15, n. 2, pp. 104-114. DOI: 10.1057/s41310-018-0040-4.
  13. Carini C., Rocca L., Veneziani M., Teodori C. (2017). The regulation of sustainability information: the contribution of directive 2014/95. Preprints, pp. 1-16.
  14. Cucari N., Esposito De Falco S., Orlando B. (2018). Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 25, n. 3, pp. 250-266. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1452.
  15. Cuganesan S., Ward L., Guthrie J. (2007). Legitimacy theory: a story of reporting social and environmental matters within the Australian food and beverage industry. Presented to the 5th Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting (APIRA) Conference, pp. 8-10 July 2007, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from
  16. Davis J.H., Schoorman F.D., Donaldson L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, n. 1, pp. 20-47. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1997.9707180258.
  17. Dias A., Lùcia Lima L., Russell C. (2017). Corporate governance effects on social responsibility disclosures. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, vol. 11, n. 2, pp. 3-22. DOI: 10.14453/aabfj.v11i2.2.
  18. Di Carlo E. (2017). Interesse primario dell’azienda come principio-guida e bene comune. Torino: Giappichelli.
  19. Donaldson L., Davis J.H. (1989). CEO governance and shareholder returns: Agency theory or stewardship theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
  20. Donaldson L., Davis J.H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, vol. 16, n. 1, pp. 49-64. DOI: 10.1177/031289629101600103.
  21. Dumay J. (2016). A critical reflection on the future of intellectual capital: from reporting to disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 17, n. 1, pp. 168-184. DOI: 10.1108/JIC-08-2015-0072.
  22. Dumay J., Frost G., Beck C. (2015). Material legitimacy: Blending organisational and stakeholder concerns through non-financial information disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, vol. 11, n. 1, pp. 2-23. DOI: 10.1108/JAOC-06-2013-0057.
  23. Dumay J., Guthrie J. (2017). Involuntary disclosure of intellectual capital: is it relevant? Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 18, n. 1, pp. 29-44. DOI:
  24. 1108/JIC-10-2016-0102.
  25. Eisenhardt K.M. (1989). An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, n. 1, pp. 57-74. DOI: 10.2307/258191.
  26. Fama E., Jensen M. (1983). Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26, n. 2, pp. 327-349. DOI: 10.1086/467038.
  27. Freeman R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
  28. Freeman R.E., McVea J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Darden Business School Working Paper, n. 01-02. DOI:
  29. 2139/ssrn.263511.
  30. Friedman M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, vol. 33, pp. 122-126.
  31. Galbreath G. (2018). Is board gender diversity linked to financial performance? The mediating mechanism of CSR. Business & Society, vol. 57, n. 5, pp. 863-889. DOI: 10.1177/0007650316647967.
  32. Garriga E., Melé D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 53, n. 1-2, pp. 51-71. DOI: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039399.90587.34.
  33. Gilson R., Gordon J. (2003). Controlling controlling shareholders. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 152, n. 2, pp. 785-843. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.417181.
  34. 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 & Accountability Journal, vol. 8, n. 2, pp. 47-77. DOI: 10.1108/09513579510146996.
  35. Gray R.H., Owen D.L., Adams C. (1996). Accounting and accountability:
  36. Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting.
  37. London: Prentice Hall.
  38. Gray R., Owen D., Adams C. (2010). Some theories for social accounting?: A review essay and a tentative pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting. In: Freedman M., Jaggi B. (Eds.), Sustainability, environmental performance and disclosure: Advances in environmental accounting and management, Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
  39. Guthrie J., Petty R. (2000). Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 1, n. 3, pp. 241-254. DOI: 10.1108/14691930010350800.
  40. Guthrie J., Petty R., Ricceri F. (2006). The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol. 7, n. 2, pp. 254-271. DOI: 10.1108/ 14691930610661890.
  41. Hoang T.C., Abeysekera I., Ma S. (2016). Board diversity and corporate social disclosure: evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 151, n. 3, pp. 833-852. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3260-1.
  42. Huse M. (2007), Boards, governance and value creation: the human side of corporate governance. Cambridge University Press.
  43. Huse M., Nielsen S., Hagen I.M. (2009). Boards of directors, codetermination and women directors: Societal and business case CSR illustrations from Norway. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 89, n. 4, pp. 581-597.
  44. Jensen M.C., Meckling W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3, n. 4, pp. 305-360. DOI: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
  45. Johnson J.L., Daily C.M., Ellstrand, A.E. (1996). Boards of directors: a review and research agenda. Journal of Management, vol. 22, n. 3, pp. 409-438. DOI: 10.1177/014920639602200303.
  46. Manes-Rossi F., Tiron-Tudor A., Niccolò G., Zanellato G. (2018). Ensuring more sustainable reporting in Europe using non-financial disclosure de facto and de jure evidence. Sustainability, vol. 10, n. 1162, pp. 1-20. DOI: 10.3390/su10041162.
  47. Mansell S. (2013). Shareholder theory and Kant’s “duty of beneficence”. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 117, n. 3, pp. 583-599. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1542-9.
  48. Matuszak L., Ròzanska E. (2017). CSR disclosure in Polish-listed companies in the light of Directive 2014/95/EU requirements: empirical evidence. Sustainability, vol. 3, n. 2304, pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.3390/su9122304.
  49. Naciti V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: the effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117727.
  50. Ness K.E., Mirza A.M. (1991). Corporate social disclosure: a note on a test of agency theory. British Accounting Review, vol. 23, n. 3, pp. 211-217. DOI: 10.1016/0890-8389(91)90081-C.
  51. Nielsen S., Huse M. (2010). Women directors’ contribution to board decision making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. European Management Review, vol. 7, n. 1, pp. 16-29. DOI: 10.1057/emr.2009.27.
  52. Pfeffer J., Salancik G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
  53. Phillips M.J. (1993). Reappraising the real entity theory of the corporation. Florida State University Law Review, vol. 21, n. 4, pp. 1061-1124.
  54. Seierstad C., Warner-Søderholm G., Torchia M., Huse M. (2017). Increasing the number of women on boards: The role of actors and processes. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 141, n. 2, pp. 289-231. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2715-0.
  55. Solimene S., Coluccia D., Fontana S. (2017). Gender diversity on corporate
  56. boards: an empirical investigation of Italian listed companies. Palgrave
  57. Communications, vol. 3, n. 16109, pp. 1-7. DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.109.
  58. Spence M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, vol. 92, n. 3, pp. 434-459. DOI: 10.1257/00028280260136200.
  59. Suchman M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, n. 3, pp. 571-610. DOI: 10.2307/258788.
  60. Terjesen S., Aguilera R., Lorenz R. (2014). Legislating a woman's seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 50, n. 2, pp. 233-251. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2083-1.
  61. Tilt C.A. (2009). Corporate responsibility, accounting and accountants. In: Idowu S., Leal Filho W. (Eds.), Professionals’perspectives of corporate social responsibility. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-02630-0_2.
  62. Ulrich D., Barney J.B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, vol. 9, n. 3, pp. 471-481. DOI: 10.2307/258287.
  63. Van Marrewijk M. (2003). Concept and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethic, vol. 44, n. 2-3, pp. 95-105. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_32.


Caricamento metriche ...