Gender Diversity Impact on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the UK

• Autorzy: Renata Konadu
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study provides further evidence on the relationship between the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Committee and corporate environmental performance in the United Kingdom. For the purpose of exploring corporate environmental performance, the study uses Greenhouse Gas (GHG) scopes of emissions as the proxies. In the UK, listed companies report their GHG emissions under the three main emissions categories (i.e., Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3) as developed by GHG protocol standards. Using Scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions, the study proposes a negative relationship between the CSR committee and Scope 1 emissions, whereas, a positive link is proposed between CSR committee and Scope 2 emissions. The findings in this study support the hypotheses that scope 1 emission and CSR committees are negatively associated while a positive relationship was found between Scope 2 and CSR committee. Also, this research reveals the significant roles played by the presence of an environmental team and female gender diversity in moderating the CSR committee and GHG emissions relationship. Though, the CSR committee was found to have a positive effect on reducing GHG emissions, the presence of the environmental team had a much significant influence on reducing corporate GHG emissions. The findings are relevant for decision making and corporate governance measures to reduce corporate GHG emissions. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Gender; Biodiversity; Diversity management; Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); Environmental management; Gas emissions; Social Responsibility; Corporate governance

PL

Płeć; Różnorodność biologiczna; Zarządzanie różnorodnością; Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu; Zarządzanie środowiskiem; Emisja gazów; Społeczna odpowiedzialność; Ład korporacyjny

• Czasopismo: Economics and Business Review
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 3 (17)
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 127--148

Twórcy

autor

Renata Konadu

• Bournemouth University

Bibliografia

• Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C.R. (2012). Corporate governance and firm performance.
• Baltagi, B. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data. John Wiley & Sons.
• Bedeian, A.G. (2014). "More Than Meets the Eye": A guide to interpreting the descriptive statistics and correlation matrices reported in management research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 121-135.
• Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103-126.
• Biggins, J.V. (1999). Making board diversity work. Corporate Board, 20, 11-16.
• Boiral, O., & Henri, J.F. (2012). Modelling the impact of ISO 14001 on environmental performance: A comparative approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 99, 84-97.
• Borland H., & Paliwoda S. (2011). Marketing responsibility in an era of an economic and climactic challenge. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 29(1): 49-62.
• Boulouta I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2): 185-197.
• Chau, G., & Gray, S.J. (2010). Family ownership, board independence and voluntary disclosure: evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 19(2), 93-109.
• Coffey, B.S., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 1714, 1795e1603.
• Dawar, G., & Singh, S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity: A literature review. Journal of IMS Group, 13(1), 61-71.
• DEFRA Environmental Reporting Guidelines (2009). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69282/pb13309-ghg-guidance-0909011.pdf.
• de Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & van Staden, C.J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1636-1663.
• Dixon-Fowler, H.R., Ellstrand, A.E., & Johnson, J.L. (2015). The role of board environmental committees in corporate environmental performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16.
• Doğan, M. (2013). Does firm size affect the firm profitability? Evidence from Turkey. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4, 53-59.
• Dunn, J. (2005). Mobility contested: Ethical challenges for planners, administrators and policy analysts. In a conference on ethics and integrity of governance, Leuven, 2-.5
• Eberhardt-Toth, E. (2017). Who should be on a board corporate social responsibility committee? Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1926-1935.
• Elkington, J. (2006). Governance for sustainability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(6), 522-529.
• Fama, E.F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288-307.
• Fernandez, J.L., Luna Sotorrio, L.L., & Baraibar Díez, E. (2011). The relation between corporate governance and corporate social behaviour: a structural equation model analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management, 18 (2), 91-101.
• Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2014). Women on boards: do they affect sustainability reporting? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 351-364.
• Freeman, R.E. (1984). Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy. Pitman, Mansfield, MA.
• Frías-Aceituno, J., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., & Garcia-Sanchez, I.M. (2012). The role of the board in the dissemination of integrated corporate social reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management, 20, 219-233.
• Fuente, J.A., García-Sánchez, I.M., & Lozano, M.B. (2017). The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 737-750.
• Galbreath, J. (2011). Are there gender-related influences on corporate sustainability? A study of women on boards of directors. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(01), 17-38.
• GHG Protocol Standard (2001). Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/pdf/ghg_protocol_2001.pdf.
• Graves, S.B., & Waddock, S.A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management journal, 37(4), 1034-1046.
• Hall, M., & Weiss, L. (1967). Firm size and profitability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 319-331.
• Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641-660.
• Harrison, J.R. (1987). The strategic use of corporate board committees. California Management Review, 30(1), 109-125.
• Hayes, B.C. (2001). Gender, scientific knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment: A cross-national analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 657-671.
• Horváthová, E. (2010). Does environmental performance affect financial performance? A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 70(1), 52-59.
• Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of Panel Data, 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kose, Ma, Es Prasad, & Me Terrones (2003), Financial integration and macroeconomic volatility, Imf Staff Papers, 50, 119-142.
• Huse, M., Nielsen, S., & Hagen, I. (2009). Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4): 581-597.
• Ibrahim, N.A., & Angelidis, J.P. (1995). The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members: are there differences between inside and outside directors? Journal of Business Ethics, 14 (5), 405-419.
• Kassinis, G., Panayiotou, A., Dimou, A., & Katsifaraki, G. (2016). Gender and environmental sustainability: a longitudinal analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
• Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 399-415.
• Khatab, H., Masood, M., Zaman, K., Saleem, S., & Saeed, B. (2011). Corporate governance and firm performance: A case study of Karachi stock market. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(1), 39-43.
• Li, J., Zhao, F., Chen, S., Jiang, W., Liu, T., & Shi, S. (2016). Gender diversity on boards and firms' environmental policy. Business Strategy and the Environment.
• Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47, 409-424.
• Lu, J. (2016). Gender Diversity, board interlocks and environmental performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary).
• Lubatkin, M., & Chatterjee, S. (1994). Extending modern portfolio theory into the domain of corporate diversification: does it apply? Academy of Management Journal, 37, 109-136.
• Majumdar, S.K. (1997). The impact of size and age on firm-level performance: some evidence from India. Review of Industrial Organization, 12, 231-241.
• Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 994-1011.
• Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2012). The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3), 477-509.
• Misani, N., & Pogutz, S. (2015). Unravelling the effects of environmental outcomes and processes on financial performance: a non-linear approach. Ecological Economics, 109, 150-160.
• Murillo-Luna, J.L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders' pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1225 1240.
• Nelson, J., Zollinger, P., & Singh, A. (2001). The power to change: mobilising board leadership to deliver sustainable value to markets and society: corporate governance and the triple bottom line. International Business Leaders Forum. Retrieved from: http://sustainability.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/sustainability_powerto_change.pdf.
• Osemeke, L. (2011). The study of the effect of the role of board of directors bod characteristics on corporate social responsibility on CSR of public listed company PLC in Nigeria. SSRN Working Paper no. 1972954.
• Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: the organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (2), 218-228.
• Pletzer, J.L., Nikolova, R., Kedzior, K.K., & Voelpel, S.C. (2015). Does gender matter? Female representation on corporate boards and firm financial performance-a meta- analysis. PloS one, 10(6), e0130005.
• Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., Gallego-Alvarez, I., & Garcia-Sanchez, I.M. (2009). Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership structure effect. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(2), 94-107.
• Pulver, S. (2007). Introduction: developing-country firms as agents of environmental sustainability? Studies in Comparative International Development, 42(3-4), 191-207.
• Reed, W.R., & Ye, H. (2011). Which Panel Data Estimator Should I Use? Applied Economics, 43, 985-1000.
• Rodriguez-Dominguez, L., Gallego-Alvarez, I., & Garcia-Sanchez, I.M. (2009). Corporate governance and codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 187-202.
• Sen, S., & Farzin, R. (2000). Downsizing, capital intensity, and labour productivity. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 13(2), 73-81.
• Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159-180.
• Shepherd, W.G. (1972). The elements of market structure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 25-37.
• Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualising a "sustainability business model". Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103-127.
• Tanaka, K. (2011). Review of policies and measures for energy efficiency in industry sector. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6532-6550.
• Tonello, M. (2011). Sustainability matters: Why and how corporate boards should become involved. Conference Board. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032230.
• Vintila, G., & Duca, F. (2013). A Study of the Relationship between corporate social responsibility-financial performance-firm size. Romanian Statistical Review in its Journal Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, 61(1), 62-67.
• Waddock, S.A., & Graves, S.B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 303-319.
• Walls, J.L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P.H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 885-913.
• Whittington, G. (1980). The profitability and size of United Kingdom companies, 1960-74. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 335-352.
• Ziegler A., Busch T., Hoffmann V. (2009). Corporate responses to climate change and financial performance: The impact of climate policy (CER-ETH-Center of Economic Research at ETH Zurich, Working Paper No. 09/105). Retrieved from http://www.socialpolitik.ovgu.de/sozialpolitik_media/papers/Busch_Timo_uid955_pid273.pdf Google Scholar.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.18559/ebr.2017.1.7