The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure

[ES] A través de cuatro trabajos interrelacionados, esta tesis llena el vacío existente en la literatura al examinar el efecto del Comité de Auditoría (CA) y las características del Consejo de Administración en la divulgación de información RSC. El primer artículo presenta una imagen completa del campo de estudio utilizando dos metodologías: el análisis bibliométrico y el de redes sociales, mapeando el conocimiento de trabajos anteriores y sugiriendo nuevas vías para futuras investigaciones. Este trabajo analizó 242 artículos publicados en revistas indexadas en la Web of Science (1992-2019). El segundo papel revisó la literatura previa sobre RSC y los consejos de administración mediante el análisis de contenido, ofreciendo una imagen novedosa de los impulsores más críticos de su desempeño y divulgación, y proporcionando sugerencias constructivas para guiar la investigación futura. El tercer artículo examina el efecto de las características del Comité de Auditoría y del Consejo de Administración sobre la divulgación de la RSC mediante la aplicación de una metodología de investigación novedosa: el análisis comparativo cualitativo difuso (fsQCA). Esta investigación utilizó una muestra de las 69 principales empresas europeas no financieras en el periodo 2016-2018. Los resultados principales de este trabajo muestran como las estrategias RSC se están formando a partir de determinadas configuraciones de las características del Consejo de Administración y señala como una única dimensión es insuficiente para generar una estrategia eficaz. En este contexto, se debe indicar que existen diversas configuraciones de características óptimas para lograr niveles más altos de divulgación de la RSC. Además, respondiendo a las recomendaciones del segundo trabajo para examinar más a fondo el vínculo entre las características del Consejo de Administración y la verificación del informe de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, el cuarto trabajo prueba el efecto de los atributos de Comité de Auditoría en la adopción de la verificación. Esta investigación utilizó una muestra de empresas europeas que cotizaron en el índice STOXX Europe 600 entre 2011 y 2018. Los dos primeros trabajos han mostrado como las características del Consejo de Administración tienen un impacto significativo y creciente en la literatura sobre RSC, y como sus prácticas juegan un papel crucial en la gestión del desempeño y la divulgación de la RSC. Los hallazgos también identifican el efecto y los patrones que vinculan las características críticas del Consejo sobre el desempeño de la RSC, así como sobre la cantidad y calidad de la información divulgada. En consecuencia, los hallazgos también trazan posibles vías futuras de investigación en el campo con respecto a los vacíos de investigación. El tercer trabajo sugiere que la divulgación de información sobre RSC se basa en una configuración compleja de algunos atributos del Comité de Auditoría y del Consejo de Administración. Estas características juegan un papel fundamental y, en una combinación adecuada, promueven el logro de altos niveles de divulgación. Los resultados empíricos ofrecen una información valiosa para los profesionales y los gobernantes a la hora de establecer y revisar las directrices sobre la composición del Comité Ejecutivo y del Consejo de Administración. Por último, en línea con la literatura anterior, el cuarto de los trabajos desarrollados encuentra que los atributos del Comité de Auditoría relacionados con su independencia, su tamaño, la existencia de un experto financiero y de un comité de RSC están positivamente vinculados con la verificación de la memoria RSC.[CA] A través de quatre treballs interrelacionats, aquesta tesi ompli el buit existent en la literatura en examinar l'efecte del Comitè d'Auditoria (CA) i les característiques del Consell d'Administració en la divulgació d'informació RSC. El primer article presenta una imatge completa del camp d'estudi utilitzant dues metodologies: l'anàlisi bibliomètrica i el de xarxes socials, traçant el mapa del coneixement dels treballs ja publicats i suggerint noves vies per a futures investigacions. Aquest treball va analitzar 242 articles publicats en revistes indexades en la Web of Science (1992-2019). El segon paper va revisar la literatura prèvia sobre RSC i els consells d'administració mitjançant l'anàlisi de contingut, oferint una imatge nova dels impulsors més crítics del seu acompliment i divulgació, i proporcionant suggeriments constructius per a guiar la investigació futura. El tercer article examina l'efecte de les característiques del Comitè d'Auditoria i del Consell d'Administració sobre la divulgació de la RSC mitjançant l'aplicació d'una metodologia d'investigació novedosa: l'anàlisi comparativa qualitativa difusa (fsQCA). Aquesta investigació va utilitzar una mostra de les 69 principals empreses europees no financeres en el període 2016-2018. Els resultats principals d'aquest treball mostren com les estratègies RSC s'estan formant a partir de determinades configuracions de les característiques del Consell d'Administració i assenyala com una única dimensió és insuficient per a generar una estratègia eficaç. En aquest context, s'ha d'indicar que existeixen diverses configuracions de característiques òptimes per a aconseguir nivells més alts de divulgació de la RSC. A més, responent a les recomanacions del segon treball per a examinar més a fons el vincle entre les característiques del Consell d'Administració i la verificació de l'informe de Responsabilitat Social Corporativa, el quart treball prova l'efecte dels atributs de Comité d'Auditoria en l'adopció de la verificació. Aquesta investigació va utilitzar una mostra d'empreses europees que van cotitzar en l'índex STOXX Europe 600 entre 2011 i 2018. Els dos primers treballs han mostrat com les característiques del Consell d'Administració tenen un impacte significatiu i creixent en la literatura sobre RSC, i com les seues pràctiques juguen un paper crucial en la gestió de l'acompliment i la divulgació de la RSC. Les troballes també identifiquen l'efecte i els patrons que vinculen les característiques crítiques del Consell sobre l'acompliment de la RSC, així com sobre la quantitat i qualitat de la informació divulgada. En conseqüència, les resultats obtinguts també tracen possibles vies futures d'investigació en el camp respecte als buits d'investigació. El tercer treball suggereix que la divulgació d'informació sobre RSC es basa en una configuració complexa d'alguns atributs del Comitè d'Auditoria i del Consell d'Administració. Aquestes característiques juguen un paper fonamental i, en una combinació adequada, promouen l'assoliment d'alts nivells de divulgació. Els resultats empírics ofereixen una informació valuosa per als professionals i els governants a l'hora d'establir i revisar les directrius sobre la composició del Comitè Executiu i del Consell d'Administració. Finalment, en línia amb la literatura anterior, el quart dels treballs desenvolupats troba que els atributs del Comitè d'Auditoria relacionats amb la seua independència, la seua grandària, l'existència d'un expert financer i d'un comitè de RSC estan positivament vinculats amb la verificació de la memòria RSC.[EN] This thesis fills the literature gap by examining the effect of Audit Committee (AC) and board characteristics on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure (CSRD) in four interrelated articles. The first article presents a full picture of the board-CSR field using two methodologies: bibliometric and social network analysis. Thus, it maps the knowledge of preceding works and suggests new avenues for future investigations to connect board characteristics, Corporate Social Responsibility Performance (CSRP), and CSRD. This article analysed 242 articles published on Web of Science database (WoS) journals (1992- 2019). The second article reviewed the previous board-CSR literature by applying a content analysis method. By doing so, this article offers a novel picture of the most critical drivers of CSRP/CSRD and provide constructive suggestions to guide future research. The first and second articles' main results suggest that little research on the board and CSR field have studied other board variables such as AC characteristics. In addition to that, CSR strategies are forming from several combinations of the board attributes and consider one dimension to be insufficient to generate an effective strategy. In this context, it must be pointed out that there is more than one best possible characteristics combination to achieve higher levels of CSRD. Therefore, building on the first and second articles, the third article examines the effect of AC and board characteristics on CSRD by applying a novel research methodology (fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis). Furthermore, responding to the second article recommendations to further examine the link between board characteristics and the decisions to obtain Corporate Social Responsibility Assurance (CSRA) report, the fourth article test the effect of AC attributes on the adoption of CSRA. The third article used a sample of the top 69 non-financial European companies for 2016-2018. In comparison, the fourth article used a sample of European companies listed on STOXX Europe 600 over 2011-2018. Our first and second articles indicate that board characteristics have a significant and increasing impact on CSR literature. The results also revealed that the board practices play a crucial role in managing CSRP/CSRD-related issues. The findings also identify the effect of the critical board characteristics on CSRP, CSRD quantity, and CSRD quality. Furthermore, our outcomes provide an overarching picture of the patterns and trends of the systematic nexus between board characteristics and CSRP/CSRD quality and quantity. The findings also draw potential future avenues for research in the field regarding research gaps. Furthermore, our results suggest some potential areas of interest for future political reforms of board of directors' guidelines. The third article suggests that CSRD relies on a complex configuration of some AC attributes, for example, independence, financial expert member, chair independence, size and activity, and other board characteristics. These characteristics play a leading part as a recipe ingredient and, in an appropriate combination, promote achieving high CSRD levels. Our empirical results offer multidimensional and valuable insights for professionals, regulators, and policymakers in establishing and revising the guidelines regarding the AC and board of directors' composition. In line with the complementary role of CG and AC mechanisms suggested by prior literature, our fourth article finds that AC attributes related to AC financial expert, AC independence and size of AC, and the existence of CSR committee are positively linked with the adoption of CSRA. However, our empirical analysis further indicates that AC with a higher percentage of financial expert members tends to choose higher assurance scopes.Dwekat, A. (2021). The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/172178TESI

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-

Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: mapping the most critical drivers in the board academic literature

[EN] Purpose This study aims to provide the intellectual structure of the academic literature on board characteristics and corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD) and corporate social responsibility performance (CSRP). To do that, the authors analyse the main theories, data sources and methodologies used by researchers, providing information on methodological bias and research gaps. Beyond that, this study offers a novel picture of the most critical drivers of CSRP/CSRD and offer constructive suggestions to guide future research. Design/methodology/approach A content analysis was performed on 242 articles extracted from the Web of Science database from 1992 to 2019. Findings Results indicate that board characteristics have a significant and increasing impact on corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature. The results also revealed that the board practices play a crucial role in managing CSRP/CSRD-related issues. The study also identifies the effect of the critical board characteristics on CSRP, CSRD quantity and CSRD quality. Furthermore, the study findings provide an overarching picture of the patterns and trends of the systematic nexus between board characteristics and CSRP/CSRD quality and quantity. Practical implications The study findings help provide an overarching picture of the systematic nexus patterns and trends between board characteristics and CSRP/CSRD quality and quantity. These results draw potential future avenues to bridge the void in the current board-CSR literature by presenting fruitful and indispensable directions for future research (governance mechanisms, new methodologies, variables, countries, etc.). It also suggests multidimensional and in-depth insights for reforming the board of directors' guidelines. Originality/value To the best of the authors' knowledge, minimal attention has been paid to systematising the literature on board and CSR.Dwekat, A.; Seguí-Mas, E.; Zaid, MAA.; Tormo-Carbó, G. (2022). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: mapping the most critical drivers in the board academic literature. Meditari Accountancy Research. 30(6):1705-1739. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2021-11551705173930

Corporate Governance Configurations and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Audit Committee and Board characteristics

[EN] Drawing on the complexity theory and responding to the recent calls to use such creative methods that mix between a quantitative and qualitative approach. Therefore, this study fills the literature gap, adding novelties, showing evidence from the unexplored (or underexplored) European context and, consequently, shedding light to inconclusive results in previous research concerning the effect of audit committee (AC) and board characteristics on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure by applying a novel research methodology: the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. The data were collected from Eikon database for a sample of the top 69 non¿financial European companies (based on market capitalisation) for the period 2016¿2018. The study results support the equifinality and complexity tenets of complexity theory. It also suggests that CSR disclosure relies on a complex configuration of some AC attributes, for example, independence, financial expert member, chair independence, size and activity, and other board characteristics (independence, gender, size, activity, and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) duality). These characteristics play a leading part as a recipe ingredient and, in an appropriate combination, promote achieving high CSR disclosure levels. Our empirical results offer multidimensional and valuable insights for professionals, regulators, and policymakers in establishing and revising the guidelines regarding the AC and board of directors' composition.Dwekat, A.; Seguí-Mas, E.; Tormo-Carbó, G.; Carmona, P. (2020). Corporate Governance Configurations and Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Audit Committee and Board characteristics. Corporate Social-Responsibility and Environmental Management (Online). 27(6):2879-2892. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2009S28792892276Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., & Peters, G. F. (2004). Audit Committee Characteristics and Restatements. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23(1), 69-87. doi:10.2308/aud.2004.23.1.69Adams, 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/hhi030Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance☆. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291-309. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007Agrawal, A., & Chadha, S. (2005). Corporate Governance and Accounting Scandals. The Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 371-406. doi:10.1086/430808Al-Dah, B., Dah, M., & Jizi, M. (2018). Is CSR reporting always favorable? Management Decision, 56(7), 1506-1525. doi:10.1108/md-05-2017-0540Al-Najjar, B. (2011). The Determinants of Audit Committee Independence and Activity: Evidence from the UK. International Journal of Auditing, 15(2), 191-203. doi:10.1111/j.1099-1123.2011.00429.xAngelidis, 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/s10551-011-1158-5Omair 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.2016.2Al-Shaer, H., & Zaman, M. (2018). Credibility of sustainability reports: The contribution of audit committees. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 973-986. doi:10.1002/bse.2046Appuhami, 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.12170Ashfaq, K., & Rui, Z. (2019). The effect of board and audit committee effectiveness on internal control disclosure under different regulatory environments in South Asia. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 17(2), 170-200. doi:10.1108/jfra-09-2017-0086Barakat, 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/s11846-014-0133-9Bear, 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/s10551-010-0505-2Be´dard, J., Chtourou, S. M., & Courteau, L. (2004). The Effect of Audit Committee Expertise, Independence, and Activity on Aggressive Earnings Management. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23(2), 13-35. doi:10.2308/aud.2004.23.2.13Bédard, J., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Strengthening the Financial Reporting System: Can Audit Committees Deliver? International Journal of Auditing. doi:10.1111/j.1099-1123.2009.00413.xBrick, 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.2005.08.005Buallay, A., & Al-Ajmi, J. (2019). The role of audit committee attributes in corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(2), 249-264. doi:10.1108/jaar-06-2018-0085Campbell, J. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Schijven, M. (2016). Fuzzy Logic and the Market: A Configurational Approach to Investor Perceptions of Acquisition Announcements. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 163-187. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0663Carmona, P., Fuentes, C. de, & Ruiz, C. (2016). RISK DISCLOSURE ANALYSIS IN THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ANNUAL REPORT USING FUZZY-SET QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 56(3), 342-352. doi:10.1590/s0034-759020160307Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2017). Board Structure to Enhance Social Responsibility Development: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of US Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 524-542. doi:10.1002/csr.1425Cucari, N. (2019). Qualitative comparative analysis in corporate governance research: a systematic literature review of applications. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(4), 717-734. doi:10.1108/cg-04-2018-0161Cucari, 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.1452Dah, M. A., & Jizi, M. I. (2017). Board Independence and the Efficacy of Social Reporting. Journal of International Accounting Research, 17(1), 25-45. doi:10.2308/jiar-51952DeFond, M. L., & Francis, J. R. (2005). Audit Research after Sarbanes-Oxley. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(s-1), 5-30. doi:10.2308/aud.2005.24.s-1.5Duşa, A. (2019). QCA with R. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75668-4Dwekat, 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 Istraživanja, 33(1), 3580-3603. doi:10.1080/1331677x.2020.1776139Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288-307. doi:10.1086/260866Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of Ownership and Control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325. doi:10.1086/467037Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á., & Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (2013). Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Governance: An Empirical Study on Board Diversity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(4), 193-207. doi:10.1002/csr.1333Fernandez-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.1329Fernández-Gago, R., Cabeza-García, L., & Nieto, M. (2018). Independent directors’ background and CSR disclosure. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 991-1001. doi:10.1002/csr.1515Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180-1198. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586092Frias-Aceituno, J. V., Rodriguez-Ariza, L., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. . (2012). The Role of the Board in the Dissemination of Integrated Corporate Social Reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 219-233. doi:10.1002/csr.1294Fuente, 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.2016.09.155García-Castro, R., Aguilera, R. V., & Ariño, M. A. (2013). Bundles of Firm Corporate Governance Practices: A Fuzzy Set Analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(4), 390-407. doi:10.1111/corg.12024García-Sánchez, I.-M., Frias-Aceituno, J. V., & Garcia-Rubio, R. (2012). Determining Factors of Audit Committee Attributes: Evidence from Spain. International Journal of Auditing, 16(2), 184-213. doi:10.1111/j.1099-1123.2012.00451.xGarcía-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.1389Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2012). Boardroom Diversity and its Effect on Social Performance: Conceptualization and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 463-479. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1272-zHaniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2002). Culture, Corporate Governance and Disclosure in Malaysian Corporations. Abacus, 38(3), 317-349. doi:10.1111/1467-6281.00112Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(5), 391-430. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2005.06.001Harjoto, 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.1960Hsu, S.-Y., Woodside, A. G., & Marshall, R. (2013). Critical Tests of Multiple Theories of Cultures’ Consequences. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 679-704. doi:10.1177/0047287512475218Huse, M., & Grethe Solberg, A. (2006). Gender‐related boardroom dynamics. Women in Management Review, 21(2), 113-130. doi:10.1108/09649420610650693Jain, 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.12154JENSEN, M. C. (1993). The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems. The Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831-880. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.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-yKatmon, N., Mohamad, Z. Z., Norwani, N. M., & Farooque, O. A. (2017). Comprehensive Board Diversity and Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from an Emerging Market. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 447-481. doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3672-6KARAMANOU, I., & VAFEAS, N. (2005). The Association between Corporate Boards, Audit Committees, and Management Earnings Forecasts: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(3), 453-486. doi:10.1111/j.1475-679x.2005.00177.xKassinis, G., Panayiotou, A., Dimou, A., & Katsifaraki, G. (2016). Gender and Environmental Sustainability: A Longitudinal Analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(6), 399-412. doi:10.1002/csr.1386Khan, 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/s10551-012-1336-0Khan, H. ur R., Ali, M., Olya, H. G. T., Zulqarnain, M., & Khan, Z. R. (2018). Transformational leadership, corporate social responsibility, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: Symmetrical and asymmetrical analytical approaches. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1270-1283. doi:10.1002/csr.1637KMPG(2018).On the 2018 Audit Committee Agenda. Retrieved fromhttps://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2018/01/audit‐committee‐agenda‐2018.pdf.Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2009). The integration of corporate governance in corporate social responsibility disclosures. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/csr.196La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). Government Ownership of Banks. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 265-301. doi:10.1111/1540-6261.00422Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Li, S., & Schneider, A.-M. (2009). CSR Communication Intensity in Chinese and Indian Multinational Companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 426-442. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2009.00758.xLi, 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/s10551-016-3176-9Jun Lin, Z., Xiao, J. Z., & Tang, Q. (2008). The roles, responsibilities and characteristics of audit committee in China. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(5), 721-751. doi:10.1108/09513570810872987Majeed, S., Aziz, T., & Saleem, S. (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. doi:10.3390/ijfs3040530Mangena, M., & Pike, R. (2005). The effect of audit committee shareholding, financial expertise and size on interim financial disclosures. Accounting and Business Research, 35(4), 327-349. doi:10.1080/00014788.2005.9729998Mangena, M., & Tauringana, V. (2007). Corporate Compliance with Non-Mandatory Statements of Best Practice: The Case of the ASB Statement on Interim Reports. European Accounting Review, 16(2), 399-427. doi:10.1080/09638180701391014Muttakin, M. B., & Subramaniam, N. (2015). Firm ownership and board characteristics. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(2), 138-165. doi:10.1108/sampj-10-2013-0042Muttakin, M. B., Khan, A., & Subramaniam, N. (2015). Firm characteristics, board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Pacific Accounting Review, 27(3), 353-372. doi:10.1108/par-01-2013-0007Othman, R., Ishak, I. F., Arif, S. M. M., & Aris, N. A. (2014). Influence of Audit Committee Characteristics on Voluntary Ethics Disclosure. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 145, 330-342. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.06.042Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A., & Rubera, G. (2013). When the Recipe Is More Important Than the Ingredients. Journal of Service Research, 17(2), 134-149. doi:10.1177/1094670513513337Paniagua, J., Rivelles, R., & Sapena, J. (2018). Corporate governance and financial performance: The role of ownership and board structure. Journal of Business Research, 89, 229-234. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.060Pinto, I., & Ng Picoto, W. (2016). Configurational analysis of firms’ performance: Understanding the role of Internet financial reporting. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5360-5365. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.138Pucheta-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.1853Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., & López-Zamora, B. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility Strategies of Spanish Listed Firms and Controlling Shareholders’ Representatives. Organization & Environment, 31(4), 339-359. doi:10.1177/1086026617722147Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001Said, R., Hj Zainuddin, Y., & Haron, H. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal, 5(2), 212-226. doi:10.1108/17471110910964496Samara, G., Jamali, D., Sierra, V., & Parada, M. J. (2018). Who are the best performers? The environmental social performance of family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9(1), 33-43. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2017.11.004Setó-Pamies, D. (2013). The Relationship between Women Directors and Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(6), 334-345. doi:10.1002/csr.1349Shahzad, A. M., Rutherford, M. A., & Sharfman, M. P. (2015). Stakeholder-Centric Governance and Corporate Social Performance: A Cross-National Study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(2), 100-112. doi:10.1002/csr.1368Shaukat, 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/s10551-014-2460-9SOX(2002).Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002: Conference report (to accompany H.R. 3763). Washington D.C.: U.S. G.P.O..Sundarasen, S. D. D., Je-Yen, T., & Rajangam, N. (2016). Board composition and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 16(1), 35-53. doi:10.1108/cg-05-2015-0059Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771-778. doi:10.1007/bf00872309Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463-472. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace•perform•model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495-2503. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.006Wu, P.-L., Yeh, S.-S., Huan, T.-C. (. T. C. )., & Woodside, A. G. (2014). Applying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1647-1670. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.012Yasser, Q. R., Al Mamun, A., & Ahmed, I. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Gender Diversity: Insights from Asia Pacific. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(3), 210-221. doi:10.1002/csr.1400Zaid, 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.1888Zubeltzu‐Jaka, E., Álvarez‐Etxeberria, I., & Ortas, E. (2020). The effect of the size of the board of directors on corporate social performance: A meta‐analytic approach. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), 1361-1374. doi:10.1002/csr.188