Halo Coronal Mass Ejections during Solar Cycle 24: reconstruction of the global scenario and geoeffectiveness

In this study we present a statistical analysis of 53 fast Earth-directed halo CMEs observed by the SOHO/LASCO instrument during the period Jan. 2009-Sep. 2015, and we use this CME sample to test the capabilities of a Sun-to-Earth prediction scheme for CME geoeffectiveness. First, we investigate the CME association with other solar activity features by means of multi-instrument observations of the solar magnetic and plasma properties. Second, using coronagraphic images to derive the CME kinematical properties at 0.1 AU, we propagate the events to 1 AU by means of the WSA-ENLIL+Cone model. Simulation results at Earth are compared with in-situ observations at L1. By applying the pressure balance condition at the magnetopause and a solar wind-Kp index coupling function, we estimate the expected magnetospheric compression and geomagnetic activity level, and compare them with global data records. The analysis indicates that 82% of the CMEs arrived at Earth in the next 4 days. Almost the totality of them compressed the magnetopause below geosynchronous orbits and triggered a geomagnetic storm. Complex sunspot-rich active regions associated with energetic flares result the most favourable configurations from which geoeffective CMEs originate. The analysis of related SEP events shows that 74% of the CMEs associated with major SEPs were geoeffective. Moreover, the SEP production is enhanced in the case of fast and interacting CMEs. In this work we present a first attempt at applying a Sun-to-Earth geoeffectiveness prediction scheme - based on 3D simulations and solar wind-geomagnetic activity coupling functions - to a statistical set of potentially geoeffective halo CMEs. The results of the prediction scheme are in good agreement with geomagnetic activity data records, although further studies performing a fine-tuning of such scheme are needed.Comment: Accepted for publication in the Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate (SWSC

The Fruits of Intellectual Production: Economic and scientific specialisation among OECD countries

This paper brings together data from 14 OECD countries on scientific publications, patents and production specialisation to explore the relationship between economic and production specialisation for 17 manufacturing sectors. Since Marx, there has been a fundamental debate in economics about the link between science and the economic system. Marx argued that the developments in the science system are strongly influenced by changes in the economic sphere, whereas Polanyi argued that developments in science are largely independent of economic sphere. Using a panel data model and econometric estimations at the sectoral-level, the paper assesses the two positions and finds considerable support for Marx's position, that is, that scientific and production specialisation are, often, tightly linked.Scientific specialisation, international economic specialisation, bibliometric data

The effect of the board on corporate social responsibility: bibliometric and social network analysis

[EN] This is the first study that presents a full picture of the field by using a combination of two methodologies, bibliometric and social network analysis (SNA). Thus, this work maps the knowledge of previous research and suggest new avenues for future research for the relationship between board characteristics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) and CSR disclosure (CSRD). We analysed 242 articles published on Web of Science database (WoS) journals for the period 1992-2019. The results show that board characteristics have a significant impact on CSR literature in terms of citations and high-quality journals. Moreover, the trend of the papers published in the field is increasing in the last five years. Our work clusters the literature according to keywords and draws the primary authors' networks. This study also draws potential future avenues for research in the field in terms of research gaps (governance mechanisms, variables, countries, etc.). Furthermore, our results suggest some potential areas of interest for future political reforms of board of directors' guidelines.Dwekat, A.; Seguí-Mas, E.; Tormo-Carbó, G. (2020). The effect of the board on corporate social responsibility: bibliometric and social network analysis. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istra ivanja. 33(1):1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1776139S125331Adams, R. B., Almeida, H., & Ferreira, D. (2005). Powerful CEOs and Their Impact on Corporate Performance. Review of Financial Studies, 18(4), 1403-1432. doi:10.1093/rfs/hhi030Al-Dah, B., Dah, M., & Jizi, M. (2018). Is CSR reporting always favorable? Management Decision, 56(7), 1506-1525. doi:10.1108/md-05-2017-0540Omair Alotaibi, K., & Hussainey, K. (2016). Determinants of CSR disclosure quantity and quality: Evidence from non-financial listed firms in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 13(4), 364-393. doi:10.1057/jdg.2016.2Angelidis, J., & Ibrahim, N. A. (2011). The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on the Ethical Judgment of Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(S1), 111-119. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1158-5Appuhami, R., & Tashakor, S. (2017). The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on CSR Disclosure: An Analysis of Australian Firms. Australian Accounting Review, 27(4), 400-420. doi:10.1111/auar.12170Arora, 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, 19(2), 136-152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00843.xBarakat, F. S. Q., López Pérez, M. V., & Rodríguez Ariza, L. (2014). Corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD) determinants of listed companies in Palestine (PXE) and Jordan (ASE). Review of Managerial Science, 9(4), 681-702. doi:10.1007/s11846-014-0133-9Barako, D. G., & Brown, A. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and board representation: evidence from the Kenyan banking sector. Journal of Management & Governance, 12(4), 309-324. doi:10.1007/s10997-008-9053-xBear, 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. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2Brick, I. E., Palmon, O., & Wald, J. K. (2006). CEO compensation, director compensation, and firm performance: Evidence of cronyism? Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3), 403-423. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2005.08.005Cabeza-García, L., Fernández-Gago, R., & Nieto, M. (2017). Do Board Gender Diversity and Director Typology Impact CSR Reporting? European Management Review, 15(4), 559-575. doi:10.1111/emre.12143Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295. doi:10.1177/000765039903800303Chang, Y. K., Oh, W.-Y., Park, J. H., & Jang, M. G. (2015). Exploring the Relationship Between Board Characteristics and CSR: Empirical Evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2), 225-242. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2651-zChen, W. (Tina), Zhou, G. (Stephen), & Zhu, X. (Kevin). (2019). CEO tenure and corporate social responsibility performance. Journal of Business Research, 95, 292-302. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.018Chung, K. H., Kim, J.-S., Park, K., & Sung, T. (2012). Corporate Governance, Legal System, and Stock Market Liquidity: Evidence Around the World. Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 41(6), 686-703. doi:10.1111/ajfs.12002Clarivate. (2020). Web of science group. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & García-Sánchez, I.-M. (2015). The role of independent directors at family firms in relation to corporate social responsibility disclosures. International Business Review, 24(5), 890-901. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.04.002Cucari, N., Esposito De Falco, S., & Orlando, B. (2017). Diversity of Board of Directors and Environmental Social Governance: Evidence from Italian Listed Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 250-266. doi:10.1002/csr.1452Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983‐1997. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312-343. doi:10.1108/09513570210435861De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806452Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 37(6), 817-842. doi:10.1016/s0306-4573(00)00051-0Eberhardt-Toth, E. (2017). Who should be on a board corporate social responsibility committee? Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1926-1935. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.127Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325. doi:10.1086/467037Feng, Y., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K.-H. (2017). Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 158, 296-307. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.018Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz-Blanco, S. (2013). Women on Boards: Do They Affect Sustainability Reporting? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 351-364. doi:10.1002/csr.1329Franceschini, S., Faria, L. G. D., & Jurowetzki, R. (2016). Unveiling scientific communities about sustainability and innovation. A bibliometric journey around sustainable terms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 127, 72-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.142Fuente, 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. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.155Galant, A., & Cadez, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance relationship: a review of measurement approaches. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 676-693. doi:10.1080/1331677x.2017.1313122García-Sánchez, I. M., & Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2016). Independent Directors and CSR Disclosures: The moderating effects of proprietary costs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(1), 28-43. doi:10.1002/csr.1389Ghosh, S., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Insiders’ personal stock donations from the lens of stakeholder, stewardship and agency theories. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(4), 342-358. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01633.xGiannarakis, G., Konteos, G., & Sariannidis, N. (2014). Financial, governance and environmental determinants of corporate social responsible disclosure. Management Decision, 52(10), 1928-1951. doi:10.1108/md-05-2014-0296Global Reporting Initiative. (2016). Global reporting initiative (GRI): Sustainability reporting standards (G4 version). https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/gri-standards-download-center/.Godos-Díez, J.-L., Cabeza-García, L., Alonso-Martínez, D., & Fernández-Gago, R. (2016). Factors influencing board of directors’ decision-making process as determinants of CSR engagement. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 229-253. doi:10.1007/s11846-016-0220-1Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2002). Culture, Corporate Governance and Disclosure in Malaysian Corporations. Abacus, 38(3), 317-349. doi:10.1111/1467-6281.00112Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate Governance and CSR Nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 45-67. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0772-6Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2014). Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641-660. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2343-0Helfaya, A., & Moussa, T. (2017). Do Board’s Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy and Orientation Influence Environmental Sustainability Disclosure? UK Evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1061-1077. doi:10.1002/bse.1960Jaén, M. H., Auletta, N., Bruni Celli, J., & Pocaterra, M. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of indexed research on corporate social responsibility in Latin America (2000-2017). Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 31(1), 105-135. doi:10.1108/arla-06-2017-0190Jain, T., & Jamali, D. (2016). Looking Inside the Black Box: The Effect of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 253-273. doi:10.1111/corg.12154Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Synergies and Interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(5), 443-459. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00702.xJensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360. doi:10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-xJizi, M. I., Salama, A., Dixon, R., & Stratling, R. (2013). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the US Banking Sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 601-615. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1929-2Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2011). Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351-383. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0869-yKessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10-25. doi:10.1002/asi.5090140103Khan, A., Muttakin, M. B., & Siddiqui, J. (2012). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2), 207-223. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1336-0Kolsi, M. C., & Attayah, O. F. (2018). Environmental policy disclosures and sustainable development: Determinants, measure and impact on firm value for ADX listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 807-818. doi:10.1002/csr.1496Li, K., Rollins, J., & Yan, E. (2017). Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics, 115(1), 1-20. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2622-5Li, S., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Lattemann, C., & Yeh, K. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility in Emerging Markets. Management International Review, 50(5), 635-654. doi:10.1007/s11575-010-0049-9Liao, L., Lin, T., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Corporate Board and Corporate Social Responsibility Assurance: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 211-225. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3176-9Macaulay, C. D., Richard, O. C., Peng, M. W., & Hasenhuttl, M. (2017). Alliance Network Centrality, Board Composition, and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 997-1008. doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3566-7Mallin, C. A., & Michelon, G. (2011). Board reputation attributes and corporate social performance: an empirical investigation of the US Best Corporate Citizens. Accounting and Business Research, 41(2), 119-144. doi:10.1080/00014788.2011.550740Mallin, C., Farag, H., & Ow-Yong, K. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance in Islamic banks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 103, S21-S38. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.03.001Merigó-Lindahl, J. M. (2012). Bibliometric Analysis of Business and Economics in the Web of Science. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 3-17. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30451-4_1Montiel, I., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2014). Defining and Measuring Corporate Sustainability. Organization & Environment, 27(2), 113-139. doi:10.1177/1086026614526413Nekhili, M., Nagati, H., Chtioui, T., & Nekhili, A. (2017). Gender-diverse board and the relevance of voluntary CSR reporting. International Review of Financial Analysis, 50, 81-100. doi:10.1016/j.irfa.2017.02.003Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., & Chiva-Ortells, C. (2018). The role of directors representing institutional ownership in sustainable development through corporate social responsibility reporting. Sustainable Development, 26(6), 835-846. doi:10.1002/sd.1853Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2015). Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Diversity, Gender, Strategy and Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 327-347. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2613-5SANDISON, A. (1989). DOCUMENTATION NOTE. Journal of Documentation, 45(1), 59-64. doi:10.1108/eb026839Sarkar, S., & Searcy, C. (2016). Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1423-1435. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.157Sharif, M., & Rashid, K. (2013). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: an empirical evidence from commercial banks (CB) of Pakistan. Quality & Quantity, 48(5), 2501-2521. doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9903-8Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. (2015). Board Attributes, Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy, and Corporate Environmental and Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 569-585. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2460-9Veronica Siregar, S., & Bachtiar, Y. (2010). Corporate social reporting: empirical evidence from Indonesia Stock Exchange. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 3(3), 241-252. doi:10.1108/17538391011072435Skare, M., & Golja, T. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Financial Performance – Is There A Link? Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 25(sup1), 215-242. doi:10.1080/1331677x.2012.11517563Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and Research Agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 320-337. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00742.xVan Raan, A. F. J. (2000). Scientometrics, 47(2), 347-362. doi:10.1023/a:1005647328460Velte, P. (2017). Does board composition have an impact on CSR reporting? Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15(2), 19-35. doi:10.21511/ppm.15(2).2017.02Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., & Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology – I: The multiple uses of bibliometric indicators. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 179-211. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00083Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771-778. doi:10.1007/bf00872309Williams, S. M., & Ho Wern Pei, C.-A. (1999). Corporate social disclosures by listed companies on their web sites: an international comparison. The International Journal of Accounting, 34(3), 389-419. doi:10.1016/s0020-7063(99)00016-3Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50-84. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00274.xZaid, M. A. A., Wang, M., & Abuhijleh, S. T. F. (2019). The effect of corporate governance practices on corporate social responsibility disclosure. Journal of Global Responsibility, 10(2), 134-160. doi:10.1108/jgr-10-2018-0053Zaid, M. A. A., Abuhijleh, S. T. F., & Pucheta‐Martínez, M. C. (2020). Ownership structure, stakeholder engagement, and corporate social responsibility policies: The moderating effect of board independence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1344-1360. doi:10.1002/csr.1888A. A. Zaid, M., Wang, M., Adib, M., Sahyouni, A., & T. F. Abuhijleh, S. (2020). Boardroom nationality and gender diversity: Implications for corporate sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251, 119652. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119652Żemigała, M. (2017). Application of Social Responsibility standards in Poland and the World. Ekonomia i Prawo, 16(2), 229. doi:10.12775/eip.2017.016Zemigala, M. (2019). Tendencies in research on sustainable development in management sciences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 796-809. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.009Zhang, J. Q., Zhu, H., & Ding, H. (2012). Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Empirical Investigation in the Post Sarbanes-Oxley Era. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 381-392. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1352-0Zhu, J., & Hua, W. (2016). Visualizing the knowledge domain of sustainable development research between 1987 and 2015: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 110(2), 893-914. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2187-

Technological business strategies for environmental sustainability among Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) member states: a bibliometric study

The implementation of sustainable development within the member states of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) takes into account business technologies and strategies as key to progress. As such, this paper proposes a methodology for a systematization of the literature that recognizes the importance and growth of the topic over time. It encompasses an analysis of the countries with the greatest scientific output, the most productive authors, and a characterization of the areas and variables researched, as well as some possible future lines of research. The bibliometric analysis was based on a review of 234 scientific papers in the Scopus database. The main results reveal increasing interest in information systems and technologies in relation to environmental problems, with interdisciplinary perspectives to environmental sustainability

Uso de la Realidad Virtual en Educación: un análisis bibliométrico

Virtual Reality includes different technologies through which a user can experience a virtual world created in 3 dimensions by computer. Although its adoption has been slow, since the devices required to access virtual reality were expensive, there have been experiences in education since the 1990s. The present study carries out a bibliometric study in which 1074 articles related to the use of virtual reality in education from 1990 to the beginning of 2021 have been analyzed. It has been studied, from a quantitative point of view, the evolution of the annual scientific production, collaboration and production of authors, nationalities and sources of the articles. An analysis of citations, co-citations and bibliographical coupling has also been carried out.La Realidad Virtual incluye diferentes tecnologías a través de las cuales un usuario puede experimentar un mundo virtual en 3 dimensiones creado por ordenador. Aunque su adopción ha sido lenta, ya que los dispositivos requeridos para acceder a la realidad virtual eran caros, ha habido experiencias en el campo de la educación desde 1990. El presente estudio lleva a cabo un análisis bibliométrico en el que se han analizado 1074 artículos relacionados con el uso de la realidad virtual en educación desde 1990 hasta principios de 2021. Se ha analizado, desde un punto de vista cuantitativo, la evolución anual de la producción científica, la colaboración y producción de autores, nacionalidades y fuentes de los artículos. También se ha llevado a cabo un análisis de citaciones, co-citaciones y acoplamiento bibliográfico.Grant PRE2020-093276 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ESF Investing in your future”