Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Survey of Governance Disclosures Among U.S. Firms

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent years have featured a spate of regulatory action pertaining to the development and/or disclosure of corporate governance structures in response to financial scandals resulting in part from governance failures. During the same period, corporate governance activists and institutional investors increasingly have called for increased voluntary governance disclosure. Despite this attention, there have been relatively few comprehensive studies of governance disclosure practices and response to the regulation. In this study, we examine a sample of 50 U.S. firms and their public disclosure packages from 2004. We find a high degree of variability in the presentation and reporting format choices for many elements of the governance structure. This variability includes several items for which disclosure is mandated by regulators or legislative action. In particular, smaller firms offer fewer disclosures pertaining to independence, board selection procedures, and oversight of management (including whistleblowing procedures). There are also trends associated with board characteristics: boards that are less independent offer fewer disclosures of independence and management oversight matters. Moreover, large firms provide more disclosures of independence standards, board selection procedures, audit committee matters, management control systems, other committee matters, and whistleblowing procedures but do not appear to have a strictly superior information environment when compared to smaller firms. The findings raise questions about compliance with regulatory requirements and the degree to which conflicts of interest between managers and directors are being controlled. While there have been notable improvements in the information environment of governance disclosures, there remain structural issues that may possess negative ramifications for stakeholders.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Campbell D. J. 2000. Legitimacy Theory or Managerial Reality Construction? Corporate Social Disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc Corporate Reports, 1969–1997. Accounting Forum 24(1): 80–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcello J. V., D. R. Hermanson, T. L. Neal 2002. Disclosures in Audit Committee Charters and Reports. Accounting Horizons 16(4): 291–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J. R., G. Krishnamoorthy, A. Wright: 2004. The Corporate Governance Mosaic and Financial Reporting Quality. Journal of Accounting Literature 23: 87–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormier D., I. M. Gordon 2001. An Examination of Social and Environmental Reporting Strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14(5): 587–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan C., B., Gordon 1996. A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corporations. Accounting and Business Research 26(3): 187–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan C., 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 & Accountability Journal 9(2): 50–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farber D. B. 2005. Restoring Trust After Fraud: Does Corporate Governance Matter? The Accounting Review 80(2): 539–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, L. R., C. H. Botan and G. L. Kreps: 2000, Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods, 2e (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA)

  • Gandia, J. L.: 2005, ‹Corporate e-Governance Disclosure in the Digital Age: An Empirical Study of Spanish Listed Companies’, Working Paper, University of Valencia

  • Gray R., R. Kouhy, S. Lavers 1995a. Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting: A Review of the Literature and a Longitudinal Study of UK Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2): 47–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray R., R. Kouhy, S. Lavers 1995b. Methodological Themes: Constructing a Research Database of Social and Environmental Reporting by UK Companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 8(2): 78–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy P., K. Palepu. 2001. Information Asymmetry, Corporate Disclosure, and the Capital Markets: A Review of the Empirical Disclosure Literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31: 405–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman A. J., A. A. Cannella Jr., R. L. Paetzold 2000. The Resource Dependence Role of Corporate Directors: Strategic Adaptation of Board Composition in Response to Environmental Change. Journal of Management Studies 37(2): 235–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong Kong Society of Accountants. 2001. Corporate Governance Disclosure in Annual Reports: A Guide to Current Requirements and Recommendations for Enhancement. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Society of Accountants

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein A. 2002. Audit Committees, Board of Director Characteristics and Earnings Management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33: 375–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A.: 2008, ‹Sustainability, Accountability and Corporate Governance: Exploring Multinationals’ Reporting Practices’, Business Strategy and the Environment 17(1)

  • KPMG International. 2005. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005. Amsterdam: Drukkerij Reijnen Offset

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey and Company: 2002, Global Investor Opinion Survey: Key Findings

  • Milne M. J., R. W. Adler 1999. Exploring the Reliability of Social and Environmental Disclosures Content Analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 12(2): 237–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. A.: 2002, The Content Analysis Guidebook (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)

  • Neuman W. L. 2005. Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, (6th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel S. A., G. Dallas 2002. Transparency and Disclosure: Overview of Methodology and Study Results – United States. New York: Standard & Poors

    Google Scholar 

  • Radner, G.: 2002, ‹Best Practices in Online Corporate Governance Disclosure’, White Paper by CCBN

  • Securities and Exchange Commission. 1998. A Plain English Handbook: How to Create Clear SEC Disclosure Documents. New York: Securities and Exchange Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Securities and Exchange Commission. 1999. Final Rule: Audit Committee Disclosure. Release No. 34-42266. Washington, DC: SEC

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Investment Forum: 2006, 2005 Report on Social Responsible Investing Trends in the United States: 10-Year Review (Social Investment Forum Industry Research Program, Washington, DC)

  • Staubus G. J.: 2005, Ethics Failures in Corporate Financial Reporting, Journal of Business Ethics 57, 5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. P.: 1988, Basic Content Analysis. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-049 (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA and London)

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Investor Education Foundation (formerly the NASD Investor Education Foundation) and the research assistance of Belinda Hoff and Cameron Pratt. The views expressed in this paper are the view of the authors and not the views of the FINRA Investor Education Foundation. All information in this paper is available from public sources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lori Holder-Webb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J., Nath, L. et al. A Survey of Governance Disclosures Among U.S. Firms. J Bus Ethics 83, 543–563 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9638-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9638-3

Keywords

Navigation