Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate governance and CSR disclosure: evidence from European financial institutions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present work aimed to empirically examine the association between corporate governance mechanisms and the extent of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in European financial institutions. The corporate governance variables, particularly board size, board independence, the proportion of female directors, chief executive officer (CEO) duality, ownership concentration and CEO ownership, were used. The sample of this empirical research consisted of 115 financial institutions belonging to 12 European countries from 2007 to 2017, and panel data regression was used for analysis. The results indicate that board size, board independence, the proportion of female directors and the CEO ownership have positive associations with the extent of CSR disclosure, while CEO duality and ownership concentration have no significant associations with the extent of CSR disclosure. This study is important due to following reasons: First, it focused on the financial sector which is often excluded from CSR studies due to its specific legal regulations and its little environmental impact. Second, this study provides empirical evidence that some governance mechanisms are important determinants of CSR disclosure in the financial sector. Third, it uses the environmental, social and governance score, which has not been widely used in CSR studies, especially in financial institutions. Finally, the research states the crucial implications for the financial sector and regulatory bodies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdul Hamid, F.Z. 2004. Corporate social disclosure by banks and finance companies: Malaysian evidence. Corporate Ownership and Control 1 (4): 118–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abeysekera, I. 2010. The influence of board size on intellectual capital disclosure by Kenyan listed firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital 11 (4): 504–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R., and D. Ferreira. 2009. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics 94 (2): 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agustia, D., W. Dianawati, and D.R.A. Indah. 2018. Managerial ownership, corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate performance. Management of Sustainable Development 10 (2): 67–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, A.S., and S. Duellman. 2007. Accounting conservatism and board of director characteristics: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics 43 (2–3): 411–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhter, F., and M.R. Kabir. 2018. Does good governance make the companies more socially responsible? International Journal of Business and Technopreneurship 8 (2): 125–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Gamrh, B., and R.A. Al-Dhamari. 2016. Firm characteristics and corporate social responsibility disclosure. International Business Management 10 (18): 4283–4291.

  • Al-Janadi, Y., R. Rahman, and N. Omar. 2013. Corporate governance mechanisms and voluntary disclosure in Saudi Arabia. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting 4 (4): 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrikopoulos, A., A. Samitas, and M. Bekiaris. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in financial institutions: Evidence from Euronext. Research in International Business and Finance 32 (C): 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arayssi, M., M. Jizi, and H.H. Tabaja. 2020. The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC countries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 11 (1): 137–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aslam, S., M.A.M. Makki, S. Mahmood, and S. Amin. 2019. Gender diversity and managerial ownership response to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Empirical evidence from Australia. Journal of Managerial Sciences 12 (2): 131–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barako, D.G., P. Hancock, and H.Y. Izan. 2006. Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by Kenyan companies. Corporate Governance An International Review 14 (2): 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnea, A., and A. Rubin. 2010. Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics 97 (1): 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R.A., and V.H. Threadgill. 2010. Women directors and corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organizational Studies 15 (2): 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernardi, R.A., D.F. Bean, and K.M. Weippert. 2002. Signaling gender diversity through annual report pictures: A research note on image management. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 15 (4): 609–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, P.H. 1984. The choice of strategic alternatives under increasing regulation in high technology companies. Academy of Management Journal 27 (3): 489–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M.C., and L.L. Rodrigues. 2008. Social responsibility disclosure: A study of proxies for the public visibility of Portuguese banks. The British Accounting Review 40 (2): 161–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buniamin, Sh., B. Alrazi, N. Hasimah, and J.N. Raida. 2011. Corporate governance practices and environmental reporting of companies in Malaysia: Finding possibilities of double thumbs up. Jurnal Pengurusan 32: 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D.A., B.J. Simkins, and W.G. Simpson. 2003. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review 38 (1): 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaganti, R.S., V. Mahajan, and S. Sharman. 1985. Corporate board size, composition and corporate failures in retailing industry. Journal of Management Studies 22 (4): 400–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.J., and B. Jaggi. 2001. Association between independent non-executive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 19 (4): 285–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, E.C.M., and S.M. Courtenay. 2006. Board composition, regulatory regime and voluntary disclosure. The International Journal of Accounting 41 (3): 262–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ching, H.Y., and F. Gerab. 2017. Sustainability reports in Brazil through the lens of signaling, legitimacy and stakeholder theories. Social Responsibility Journal 13 (1): 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B.L., S.T. Certo, R.D. Ireland, and C.R. Reutzel. 2011. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management 37 (1): 39–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisóstomo, V.L., and F.S. Freire. 2015. The influence of ownership concentration on firm resource allocations to employee relations, external social actions, and environmental action. Review of Business Management 17 (55): 987–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahya, J., A.A. Lonie, and D.M. Power. 1996. The case for separating the roles of Chairman and CEO: An analysis of stock market and accounting data. Corporate Governance An International Review 4 (2): 71–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C.M., and D.R. Dalton. 2003. Women in the boardroom: A business imperative. Journal of Business Strategy 24 (5): 8–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dam, L., and B. Scholtens. 2013. Ownership concentration and CSR Policy of European Multinational Enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (1): 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, N.U., and R.O. Urhoghide. 2018. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure in Nigerian financial sector. International Accounting and Taxation Research Group 2 (4): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darus, F., S. Mad, and M. Nejati. 2015. Ethical and social responsibility of financial institutions: Influence of internal and external pressure. Procedia Economics and Finance 28 (5): 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, S., R. Dixon, and A. Michael. 2015. Corporate social responsibility reporting: A longitudinal study of listed banking companies in Bangladesh. World Review of Business Research 5 (1): 130–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daub, C.H. 2007. Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: An alternative methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (1): 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Graaf, F.J., and C.A.J. Herkstroter. 2007. How corporate social performance is institutionalised within the governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics 74 (2): 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., and C. Blomquist. 2006. Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between the World Wide Fund for nature and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting Organizations and Society 31 (4–5): 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., and M. Rankin. 1996. Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 9 (2): 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, J.T., and M.A. Huselid. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal 39 (4): 949–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. 1983. The structure of ownership and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducassy, I. 2015. Corporate social performance, ownership structure, and corporate governance in France. Research in International Business and Finance 34 (C): 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunstan, K. 2008. The determinants of corporate governance quality in Thailand. Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand 47 (1): 1–47.

  • Esa, E., and N.A. Mohd Ghazali. 2012. Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Malaysian government-linked companies. Corporate Governance 12 (3): 292–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteban, V.A., I.M. Garcıá-Sanchez, and M.P. Galindo-Villardón. 2017. Analysing the effect of legal system on corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the country level, from a multivariate perspective. Social Indicator Research 140 (1): 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahad, P., and P.M. Rahman. 2020. Impact of corporate governance on CSR disclosure. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 17 (2): 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fallah, M.A., and F. Mojarrad. 2019. Corporate governance effects on corporate social responsibility disclosure: Empirical evidence from heavy-pollution industries in Iran. Social Responsibility Journal 15 (2): 208–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E.F., and M.C. Jensen. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics 26 (2): 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forker, J. 1992. Corporate governance and disclosure quality. Accounting and Business Research Journal 22 (86): 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance 33 (4): 173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. 2017. The impact of board structure on corporate social responsibility: A temporal view. Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (3): 358–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazali, N.M. 2007. Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Some Malaysian evidence. The International Journal of Business in Society 27 (3): 251–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannarakis, G. 2014. Corporate governance and financial characteristic effects on the extent of corporate social responsibility disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal 10 (4): 569–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., and L.D. Parker. 1989. Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research 19 (76): 343–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme, M., and M. Huse. 1997. The influence of corporate governance, industry and country factors on environmental reporting. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13 (2): 137–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R., and T. Cooke. 2002. Culture, corporate governance and disclosure in Malaysian corporations. A Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies 38 (3): 317–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R.M., and T.E. Cooke. 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24 (5): 391–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C.W., and T. Jones. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies 29 (2): 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, P.L., and G. Taylor. 2013. Corporate governance and different types of voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Malaysian listed firms. Pacific Accounting Review 25 (1): 4–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S.S., and K.S. Wong. 2001. A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 10 (2): 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Htay, S.N.N., H.M.A. Rashid, M.A. Adnan, and A.K.M. Meera. 2012. Impact of corporate governance on social and environmental information disclosure of Malaysian listed banks: Panel data analysis. Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting 4 (1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., A. Safieddine, and M. Rabbath. 2008. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review 16 (5): 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C., and W.H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji, X.D., K. Ahmed, and W. Lu. 2015. The impact of corporate governance and ownership structure reforms on earnings quality in China. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 23 (2): 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jizi, M. 2017. The influence of board composition on sustainable development disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment 26 (5): 640–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jizi, M., A. Salama, R. Dixon, and R. Stratling. 2014. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics 125 (4): 601–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.A., and D.W. Greening. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A., M.B. Muttakin, and J. Siddiqui. 2013. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics 114 (2): 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. 2010. The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: Empirical evidence from private commercial banks of Bangladesh. International Journal of Law and Management 52 (2): 82–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiliç, M., C. Kuzey, and A. Uyar. 2015. The impact of ownership and board structure on corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting in the Turkish banking industry. Corporate Governance 15 (3): 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., H. Li, and S. Li. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance 43 (1): 1–13.

  • La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, and A. Shleifer. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. The Journal of Finance 54 (2): 471–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laeven, L., and R. Levine. 2009. Bank governance, regulation and risk taking. Journal of Financial Economics 93 (2): 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.P., and H.J. Chen. 2011. Corporate governance and firm value as determinants of CEO compensation in Taiwan: 2SLS for panel data model. Management Research Review 34 (3): 252–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Letendre, L. 2004. The dynamics of the boardroom. Academy of Management Executive 18 (1): 101–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., M. Fetscherin, I. Alon, C. Lattemann, and K. Yeh. 2010. Corporate social responsibility in emerging markets the importance of the governance environment. Management International Review 50 (5): 635–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, L., L. Luo, and Q. Tang. 2014. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review 47 (4): 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo, P.J.M., G.I. Alvarez, and G.I.M. Sanchez. 2009. Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: The ownership structure effect. Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management 16 (2): 94–107.

  • Majeed, S., T. Aziz, and S. Saleem. 2015. The effect of corporate governance elements on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure: An empirical evidence from listed companies at KSE Pakistan. International Journal of Financial Studies 3 (4): 530–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik, F., F. Wang, M.A. Naseem, A. Ikram, and S. Ali. 2020. Determinants of corporate social responsibility related to CEO attributes: An empirical study. SAGE Open 10 (1): 215824401989909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandojana, D.N., and A.J. Correa. 2015. Boards and sustainability: the contingent influence of director interlocks on corporate environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 24 (6): 499–517.

  • Martínez, P.M.C.O., and G.I. Álvarez. 2018. An international approach of the relationship between board attributes and the disclosure of corporate social responsibility issues. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26 (3): 612–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, J., and C. Muscarella. 1985. Corporate capital expenditure decisions and the market value of the firm. Journal of Financial Economics 14 (3): 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., and A. Parbonetti. 2012. The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management and Governance 16 (3): 477–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, S., and M. Hossain. 2011. Corporate governance attributes and remediation of internal control material weaknesses reported under SOX Section 404. Review of Accounting and Finance 10 (1): 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molz, R. 1988. Managerial domination of board of directors and financial performance. Journal of Business Research 16 (3): 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousa, G., A. Desoky, and G.H. Khan. 2018. The association between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure-evidence from GCC countries. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 22 (4): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murwaningsari, E. 2009. Hubungan Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility dan Corporate Financial Performance Dalam Satu Continuum. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan 11 (1): 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muttakin, M.B., and N. Subramaniam. 2015. Firm ownership and board characteristics: Do they matter for corporate social responsibility disclosure of Indian companies? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6 (2): 277–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muttakin, M.B., A. Khan, and D.G. Mihret. 2018. The effect of board capital and CEO power on corporate social responsibility disclosures. Journal of Business Ethics 150 (3): 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naseem, M.A., S. Riaz, and R.U.R. Rehman. 2017. Impact of board characteristics on corporate social responsibility disclosure. International Journal of Business Research 33 (4): 801–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, W.Y., Y.K. Chang, and A. Martynov. 2011. The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (2): 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okoye, A. 2009. Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially contested concept: Is a definition necessary? Journal of Business Ethics 89 (4): 613–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orazalin, N. 2019. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in an emerging economy: Evidence from commercial banks of Kazakhstan. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 19 (3): 490–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orij, R.P. 2010. Corporate social disclosures in the context of national cultures and stakeholder theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 23 (7): 868–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. 2007. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (version 15), Version 15. McGraw Hill: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panigrahi, A.K., and T.N. Sukla. 2016. Sustainable corporate social responsibility in financial institutions and banks in India. SSRN Electronic Journal 14 (1): 157–172.

  • Petra, S.T. 2005. Do outside independent directors strengthen corporate boards. Corporate Governance 5 (1): 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prado-Lorenzo, J.-M., I. Gallego-Alvarez, and I.M. Garcia-Sanchez. 2009. Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: The ownership structure effect. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16 (2): 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quirós, M.M.M., M.J.L. Quirós, and V.L.M. Gonçalves. 2018. The value relevance of environmental, social and governance performance: The Brazilian case. Sustainability 10 (3): 574.

  • Rahman, A.A., and A.A. Bukair. 2013. The influence of the Shariah supervision board on corporate social responsibility disclosure by Islamic banks of Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting 6 (1): 65–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, K., C. Tilt, and L. Lester. 2012. Corporate governance and environmental reporting: An Australian study. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 12 (2): 143–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razak, S.E.A., and M. Mustapha. 2013. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and board structure: Evidence from Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi 64 (3): 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reverte, C. 2009. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (2): 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R.W. 1992. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (6): 595–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstein, S., and J.G. Wyatt. 1990. Outside directors, board independence, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics 26 (2): 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Said, R., Y.H. Zainuddin, and H. Haron. 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal 5 (2): 212–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salehi, M., H. Tarighi, and M. Rezanezhad. 2017. The relationship between board of directors’ structure and company ownership with corporate social responsibility disclosure: Iranian angle. Humanomics 33 (4): 398–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanda, A., Mukaila, A. and Garba, T. (2003). Corporate governance mechanisms and firm financial performance in Nigeria. Biannual Research Workshop of the AERC, Nairobi: 24–29.

  • Sbais, Y., and L. Kalai. 2019. Governance characteristics and corporate social responsability disclosure policy. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics 175: 1450–2887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S.P. 1974. Business and the consumer: Wither goes the confrontation? California Management Review 17 (2): 82–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahab, Y., and C.H. Ye. 2018. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate governance: Empirical insights on neo-institutional framework from China. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 15 (2): 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharif, M., and K. Rashid. 2014. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: An empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology 48 (5): 2501–2521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., and R. Vishny. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance 52 (2): 737–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siregar, S.V., and Y. Bachtiar. 2010. Corporate social reporting: Empirical evidence from Indonesia stock exchange. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management 3 (3): 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soliman, M.M., B.E.D. Mohamed, and A. Sakr. 2012. Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility (CSR): An empirical study of the listed companies in Egypt. The International Journal of Social Sciences 5 (1): 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sufian, M.A., and M. Zahan. 2013. Ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure in Bangladesh. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues 3 (4): 901–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundarasen, S.D., T. Je-Yen, and N. Rajangam. 2016. Board composition and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 16 (1): 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taj, S.A. 2016. Application of signaling theory in management research: Addressing major gaps in theory. European Management Journal 34 (4): 338–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamba, E.G.H., and A. Chariri. 2015. Pengaruh Struktur Kepemilikan Terhadap Pengungkapan tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan. Jurnal Akuntansi 3 (1): 1–85.

  • Tapver, T. 2019. CSR reporting in banks: Does the composition of the board of directors matter? Quantitative Finance and Economics 3 (2): 286–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, S., and T. Pedersen. 2000. Ownership structure and economic performance in the largest European companies. Strategic Management Journal 21 (6): 689–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, M.S., M.B. Muttakin, and A. Khan. 2019. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures in insurance companies. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 27 (2): 284–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, A. 1985. Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance. Academy of Management Review 10 (3): 540–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uwuigbe, O.R. 2012. An empirical investigation of the association between firms’ characteristics and corporate social disclosures in the Nigerian financial sector. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 13 (1): 442–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vafeas, N. 2000. Board structure and the informativeness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 19 (2): 139–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vafeas, N., and E. Theodorou. 1998. The relationship between board structure and firm performance in the UK. The British Accounting Review 30 (4): 383–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaid, M.A.A., M. Wang, and S.T.F. Abuhijleh. 2019. The effect of corporate governance practices on corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from Palestine. Journal of Global Responsibility 10 (2): 134–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J.Q., H. Zhu, and H. Ding. 2013. Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics 114 (3): 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management of Sfax, Research Laboratory of Information Technologies, Governance and Entrepreneurship (LARTIGE), University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

    Hanen Ben Fatma & Jamel Chouaibi

Authors
  1. Hanen Ben Fatma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jamel Chouaibi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanen Ben Fatma.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben Fatma, H., Chouaibi, J. Corporate governance and CSR disclosure: evidence from European financial institutions. Int J Discl Gov 18, 346–361 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00117-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00117-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation