Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Business Ethics
Published in: Journal of Business Ethics 2/2022

02-01-2021 | Original Paper

Not Just a Gender Numbers Game: How Board Gender Diversity Affects Corporate Risk Disclosure

Authors: Andreas Seebeck, Julia Vetter

Published in: Journal of Business Ethics | Issue 2/2022

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper examines how board gender diversity affects corporate risk disclosure. We exploit an exogenous shock on firms’ risk environment created by the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union (Brexit) and analyze related risk disclosure in annual reports of public firms in the UK. Using this unique setting, we mitigate concerns about omitted variables in concurrent studies. The findings suggest that board gender diversity is positively related to corporate risk disclosure. However, our results also indicate that the proportion of female directors needs to reach a critical mass to impact the risk disclosure decision. Moreover, we find lower bid–ask spreads immediately after the referendum date for those firms that disclosed Brexit-related risks in their annual reports prior to the vote. Collectively, our results are consistent with board gender diversity promoting the disclosure of decision-relevant information through improved board group dynamics.
previous article Vulnerable Populations and Individual Social Responsibility in Prosocial Crowdfunding: Does the Framing Matter for Female and Rural Entrepreneurs?
next article Longitudinal Patterns of Ethical Organisational Culture as a Context for Leaders’ Well-Being: Cumulative Effects Over 6 Years

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Similarly, the proportion of women on corporate boards of S&P 500 firms increased from 16% in 2009 to 26% in 2019 (Spencer Stuart 2019).
 
2
California was the first state in the United States to adopt a board gender resolution, followed by five other states that passed similar resolutions urging more women directors on corporate boards.
 
3
Figures are self-computed based on daily closing stock prices of FTSE 350 firms derived from Thomson Reuters Datastream.
 
4
Briefing paper CBP-7960 of the House of Commons Library provides a detailed timeline of the major events leading up to the referendum and subsequent dates of note (Walker 2019).
 
5
FRS 5 has been superseded by FRS 102, the Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2015.
 
6
In the case of a hard Brexit, there is no close alignment to the EU which implies that the UK will leave the EU’s single market and its custom union. If a soft Brexit occurs, the UK is closely aligned to the EU which means that the UK will stay in the EU’s single market and its custom union. In the case of a no-deal Brexit, the UK will immediately leave the EU and its single market and custom union without any agreement.
 
7
Even though using an instrumental variable approach significantly reduces concerns of endogeneity, finding instrumental variables is challenging (Larcker and Rusticus 2010; Lousdal 2018). Thus, in line with prior studies we cannot fully rule out endogeneity bias, even though we carefully identified the instrumental variables used.
 
8
We thank KPMG’s Macroeconomics Team in the UK for providing useful insight in the underlying data of their study (KPMG 2017).
 
9
In addition, Wooldridge’s (1995) test of over-identification yields a robust score χ2 of 2.06 with a corresponding p-value of 0.1508. In line with Wahid (2019), we also performed Sargan’s χ2 test (1.42; p-value 0.2328) and Bassmann’s χ2 test (1.4055; p-value 0.2358) yielding similar results.
 
10
Underlying data stems from Thomson Reuters Datastream.
 
11
In the post-referendum phase, 92.4% of the firms report Brexit-related risks. However, 7.6% of the firms still do not disclose Brexit-related risks in their annual reports.
 
12
In untabulated analyses, we replace the proportion of independent directors with the proportion of non-executive directors and yield similar results.
 
13
Following Joecks et al. (2013) and Ben-Amar et al. (2017), we also analyze whether the relation between female board representation and corporate risk disclosure is U-shaped by including quadratic terms of our board gender diversity variables (FEMALE and BLAU) in our regression model. Consistent with Ben-Amar et al. (2017), we do not find a non-linear relation between our board gender diversity variables and corporate risk disclosure. Results are untabulated.
 
14
In further robustness checks (results are untabulated), we extend the time period for the measurement of BA and include the week before the referendum took place. Again, we find that the coefficient of BA is still negative and significant which further reflects the robustness of our results.
 
15
In untabulated analyses, we replace FEMALE with BLAU. The results remain qualitatively unchanged and confirm the finding that board gender diversity is significantly positively related with the disclosure of Brexit-related risks only in the pre-referendum phase.
 
16
Following Campbell et al. (2014), we take the logarithm of the number of the words of the Brexit-related risk disclosure.
 
17
In further robustness checks (results are untabulated), we replace FEMALE with BLAU. The positive coefficient for BLAU confirms our finding that board gender diversity is positively and significantly related to the extent of corporate risk disclosure.
 
18
Bill McDonald’s Word List Page provides the word lists: http://​www3.​nd.​edu/​~mcdonald/​Word_​Lists.​html.
 
19
Since the dependent variable UNCERT is calculated relative to the total number of words, it is important to control for the total number of words.
 
20
In further robustness checks (results are untabulated) we replace FEMALE with BLAU. The positive coefficient of BLAU confirms our finding that board gender diversity is positively and significantly related to the uncertainty of corporate risk disclosure.
 
21
In further additional analyses we conduct an analysis of the different board types according to Kanter (1977a, b) and the extent and tone of corporate risk disclosure. Our findings suggest that a critical mass of 20 to 40% also exists for the effect of board gender diversity on the extent of corporate risk disclosure. Results are untabulated.
 
Literature
Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.CrossRef
Adams, R. B., & Funk, P. (2012). Beyond the glass ceiling: Does gender matter? Management Science, 58(2), 219–235.CrossRef
Allini, A., Rossi, F. M., & Macchioni, R. (2014). Do corporate governance characteristics affect non-financial risk disclosure in government-owned companies? The Italian experience. Financial Reporting, 1, 5–31.CrossRef
Allini, A., Rossi, F. M., & Hussainey, K. (2016). The board’s role in risk disclosure: An exploratory study of Italian listed state-owned enterprises. Public Money and Management, 36(2), 113–120.CrossRef
Anderson, R. C., Mansi, S. A., & Reeb, D. M. (2004). Board characteristics, accounting report integrity, and the cost of debt. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37(3), 315–345.CrossRef
Arlow, P. (1991). Personal characteristics in college students’ evaluations of business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(1), 63–69.CrossRef
Baker, S., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1593–1636.CrossRef
Barton, J., & Waymire, G. (2004). Investor protection under unregulated financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 38(1–3), 65–116.CrossRef
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, 97(2), 207–221.CrossRef
Beasley, M. S. (1996). An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. The Accounting Review, 71(4), 443–465.
Beckmann, D., & Menkhoff, L. (2008). Will women be women? Analyzing the gender difference among financial experts. Kyklos, 61(3), 364–384.CrossRef
Beltramini, R. F., Peterson, R. A., & Kozmetsky, G. (1984). Concerns of college students regarding business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(3), 195–200.CrossRef
Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M., & McIlkenny, P. (2017). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 369–383.CrossRef
Bernardi, R. A., & Arnold, D. F. (1997). An examination of moral development within public accounting by gender, staff level, and firm. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14(4), 653–668.CrossRef
Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 321–324.CrossRef
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Bloom, N., Bunn, P., Chen, S., Mizen, P., Smietanka, P., & Thwaites, G. (2019). The impact of Brexit on UK firms. No. w26218. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bonsall, S. B., & Miller, B. P. (2017). The impact of narrative disclosure readability on bond ratings and the cost of debt. Review of Accounting Studies, 22(2), 608–643.CrossRef
Borghans, L., Heckman, J. J., Golsteyn, B. H., & Meijers, H. (2009). Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 649–658.CrossRef
Bøhren, Ø., & Staubo, S. (2014). Does mandatory gender balance work? Changing organizational form to avoid board upheaval. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 152–168.CrossRef
Byrd, J. W., & Hickman, K. A. (1992). Do outside directors monitor managers? Evidence from tender offer bids. Journal of Financial Economics, 32(2), 195–207.CrossRef
Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 435–451.CrossRef
Campbell, J. L., Chen, H., Dhaliwal, D. S., Lu, H.-M., & Steele, L. B. (2014). The information content of mandatory risk factor disclosures in corporate filings. Review of Accounting Studies, 19(1), 396–455.CrossRef
Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., Neal, T. L., & Riley, R. A. (2002). Board characteristics and audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(3), 365–384.CrossRef
Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. The Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.CrossRef
Chiu, T.-T., Guan, Y., & Kim, J.-B. (2018). The effect of risk factor disclosures on the pricing of credit default swaps. Contemporary Accounting Research, 35(4), 2191–2224.CrossRef
Daily, C. M., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, D. R. (2000). The future of corporate women: Progress toward the executive suite and the boardroom? In R. J. Burke & M. C. Mattis (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: International challenges and opportunities (pp. 11–23). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2013). Adopting a label: Heterogeneity in the economic consequences around IAS/IFRS adoptions. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(3), 495–547.CrossRef
De Cabo, R. M., Gimeno, R., & Nieto, M. J. (2012). Gender diversity on European banks’ boards of directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 145–162.CrossRef
Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., & Sweeney, A. P. (1996). Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation: An analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC. Contemporary Accounting Research, 13(1), 1–36.CrossRef
Drake, M. S., Roulstone, D. T., & Thornock, J. R. (2015). The determinants and consequences of information acquisition via EDGAR. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), 1128–1161.CrossRef
Ferrell, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 103–109.CrossRef
Forbes, D., & Milliken, F. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.CrossRef
Franke, G. R., Crown, D. F., & Spake, D. F. (1997). Gender differences in ethical perceptions of business practices: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 920.CrossRef
García-Lara, J. M., García Osma, B., Mora, A., & Scapin, M. (2017). The monitoring role of female directors over accounting quality. Journal of Corporate Finance, 45, 651–668.CrossRef
García Osma, B. (2008). Board Independence and real earnings management: The case of R&D expenditure. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 116–130.CrossRef
Gray, J. (2009). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: Practical guide for improving communication. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Gul, F. A., Srinidhi, B., & Ng, A. C. (2011). Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(3), 314–338.CrossRef
Heinle, M. S., & Smith, K. C. (2017). A theory of risk disclosure. Review of Accounting Studies, 22(4), 1459–1491.CrossRef
Hinz, R. P., McCarthy, D. D., & Turner, J. A. (1997). Are women conservative investors? Gender differences in participant-directed pension investments. In M. G. Gordorn, O. S. Mitchell, & M. Twinney (Eds.), Positioning pensions for the twenty-first century (pp. 91–103). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hollindale, J., Kent, P., Routledge, J., & Chapple, L. (2019). Women on boards and greenhouse gas emission disclosures. Accounting and Finance, 59(1), 277–308.CrossRef
Hope, O.-K., Hu, D., & Lu, H. (2016). The benefits of specific risk-factor disclosures. Review of Accounting Studies, 21(4), 1005–1045.CrossRef
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, ICAEW. (2006). Briefing 06.02. No Surprises: Working for better risk reporting, briefing document. The Faculty of Finance and Management of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, London.
Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass”?”. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 61–72.CrossRef
Kang, E., Ding, D. K., & Charoenwong, C. (2010). Investor reaction to women directors. Journal of Business Research, 63(8), 888–894.CrossRef
Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990.CrossRef
Kaya, D., & Seebeck, A. (2019). The dissemination of firm information via company register websites: Country-level empirical evidence. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 15(3), 382–429.CrossRef
Kim, H. A., Jeong, S. W., Kang, T., & Lee, D. (2017). Does the presence of female executives curb earnings management? Evidence from Korea. Australian Accounting Review, 27(4), 494–506.CrossRef
Kothari, S. P., Li, X., & Short, J. E. (2009). The effect of disclosures by management, analysts, and business press on cost of capital, return volatility, and analyst forecasts: A study using content analysis. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1639–1670.CrossRef
Kravet, T., & Muslu, V. (2013). Textual risk disclosures and investors’ risk perceptions. Review of Accounting Studies, 18(4), 1088–1122.CrossRef
Krishnan, G. V., & Parsons, L. M. (2008). Getting to the bottom line: An exploration of gender and earnings quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1–2), 65–76.CrossRef
Lai, K. M. Y., Srinidhi, B., Gul, F. A., & Tsui, J. S. L. (2017). Board gender diversity, auditor fees, and auditor choice. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(3), 1681–1714.CrossRef
Lambert, R., Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2007). Accounting information, disclosure, and the cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(2), 385–420.CrossRef
Lang, M., Lins, K. V., & Maffett, M. (2012). Transparency, liquidity, and valuation: International evidence on when transparency matters most. Journal of Accounting Research, 50(3), 729–774.CrossRef
Larcker, D. F., Richardson, S. A., & Tuna, I. (2007). Corporate governance, accounting outcomes, and organizational performance. The Accounting Review, 82(4), 963–1008.CrossRef
Larcker, D. F., & Rusticus, T. O. (2010). On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(3), 186–205.CrossRef
Laux, C., & Laux, V. (2009). Board committees, CEO compensation, and earnings management. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 869–891.CrossRef
Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2000). The economic consequences of increased disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 91–124.CrossRef
Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2014). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409–424.CrossRef
Loughran, T., & McDonald, B. (2011). When is a liability not a liability? Textual analysis, dictionaries, and 10-Ks. The Journal of Finance, 66(1), 35–65.CrossRef
Lousdal, M. L. (2018). An introduction to instrumental variable assumptions, validation and estimation. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 15(1), 1.CrossRef
Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., & Punćochaŕ, J. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.CrossRef
Mahadeo, J. D., Soobaroyen, T., & Hanuman, V. O. (2012). Board composition and financial performance: Uncovering the effects of diversity in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(3), 375–388.CrossRef
McInerney-Lacombe, N., Billimoria, D., & Salipante, P. (2008). Championing the discussion of tough issues: How women corporate directors contribute to board deliberations. In S. Vinnicombe, V. Singh, R. J. Burke, D. Bilimoria, & M. Huse (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors: International research and practice (pp. 123–139). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ntim, C. G., Lindop, S., & Thomas, D. A. (2013). Corporate governance and risk reporting in South Africa: A study of corporate risk disclosures in the pre- and post-2007/2008 global financial crisis periods. International Review of Financial Analysis, 30, 363–383.CrossRef
O’Connor, M. A. (2003). The Enron Board: The perils of groupthink. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 71, 1233.
Oehler, A., Horn, M., & Wendt, S. (2017). Brexit: Short-term stock price effects and the impact of firm-level internationalization. Finance Research Letters, 22, 175–181.CrossRef
Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 50(1), 189–223.CrossRef
Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605–628.CrossRef
Quick, R., Schenk, N., Schmidt, F., & Towara, T. (2018). The impact of corporate governance on auditor choice: Evidence from Germany. Journal of Management and Governance, 22(2), 251–283.CrossRef
Rajab, B., & Handley-Schachler, M. (2009). Corporate risk disclosure by UK firms: Trends and determinants. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 5(3), 224–243.CrossRef
Riley, W. B., & Chow, K. V. (1992). Asset allocation and individual risk aversion. Financial Analysts Journal, 48(6), 32–37.CrossRef
Rose, C. (2007). Does female board representation influence firm performance? The Danish evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(2), 404–413.CrossRef
Sampson, T. (2017). Brexit: The economics of international disintegration. Journal of Economic perspectives, 31(4), 163–184.CrossRef
Schiereck, D., Kiesel, F., & Kolaric, S. (2016). Brexit: (Not) another Lehman moment for banks? Finance Research Letters, 19, 291–297.CrossRef
Seebeck, A., & Kaya, D. (2020). The power of words: An empirical analysis of the textual characteristics of extended auditor reports. Working Paper, June 2020.
Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Norton, S. D., & Joseph, N. L. (2000). A conceptual framework for corporate risk disclosure emerging from the agenda for corporate governance reform. The British Accounting Review, 32(4), 447–478.CrossRef
Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2002). What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review, 80, 106.
Srinidhi, B., Gul, F. A., & Tsui, J. (2011). Female directors and earnings quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(5), 1610–1644.CrossRef
Sun, S. L., Zhu, J., & Ye, K. (2015). Board openness during an economic crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 363–377.CrossRef
Sundén, A. E., & Surette, B. J. (1998). Gender differences in the allocation of assets in retirement savings plans. The American Economic Review, 88(2), 207–211.
Thorne, L., Massey, D. W., & Magnan, M. (2003). Institutional context and auditors’ moral reasoning: A Canada–U.S. comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 305–321.CrossRef
Tielmann, A., & Schiereck, D. (2017). Arising borders and the value of logistic companies: Evidence from the Brexit referendum in Great Britain. Finance Research Letters, 20, 22–28.CrossRef
Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(2), 299–317.CrossRef
Triana, M., Miller, T. L., & Trzebiatowski, T. M. (2014). The double-edged nature of board gender diversity: Diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors as predictors of strategic change. Organization Science, 25(2), 609–632.CrossRef
Wahid, A. S. (2019). The effects and the mechanisms of board gender diversity: Evidence from financial manipulation. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 705–725.CrossRef
Welker, M. (1995). Disclosure policy, information asymmetry, and liquidity in equity markets. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11(2), 801–827.CrossRef
Wooldridge, J. M. (1995). Score diagnostics for linear models estimated by two stage least squares. In G. S. Maddala, P. C. B. Phillips, & T. N. Srinivasan (Eds.), Advances in econometrics and quantitative economics: Essays in honor of Professor C. R. Rao (pp. 66–87). Oxford: Blackwell.
Xie, B., Davidson, W. N., III., & DaDalt, P. J. (2003). Earnings management and corporate governance: The role of the board and the audit committee. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9(3), 295–293.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Not Just a Gender Numbers Game: How Board Gender Diversity Affects Corporate Risk Disclosure
Authors
Andreas Seebeck
Julia Vetter
Publication date
02-01-2021
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Business Ethics / Issue 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04690-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2022

Journal of Business Ethics 2/2022 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Longitudinal Patterns of Ethical Organisational Culture as a Context for Leaders’ Well-Being: Cumulative Effects Over 6 Years

Original Paper

Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Response to Cyber Risk: Evidence from Cybersecurity Related Disclosure

Original Paper

Theoretical Insights of CSR Research in Communication from 1980 to 2018: A Bibliometric Network Analysis

Original Paper

Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence and CSR: Radical Feminist Theory and a Human Rights Perspective

Original Paper

The Effect of Regulation on Sustainable Procurement: Organisational Leadership and Culture as Mediators

Original Paper

Vulnerable Populations and Individual Social Responsibility in Prosocial Crowdfunding: Does the Framing Matter for Female and Rural Entrepreneurs?