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.
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
Carcello J. V., D. R. Hermanson, T. L. Neal 2002. Disclosures in Audit Committee Charters and Reports. Accounting Horizons 16(4): 291–304
Cohen J. R., G. Krishnamoorthy, A. Wright: 2004. The Corporate Governance Mosaic and Financial Reporting Quality. Journal of Accounting Literature 23: 87–152
Cormier D., I. M. Gordon 2001. An Examination of Social and Environmental Reporting Strategies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14(5): 587–616
Deegan C., B., Gordon 1996. A Study of the Environmental Disclosure Practices of Australian Corporations. Accounting and Business Research 26(3): 187–199
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
Farber D. B. 2005. Restoring Trust After Fraud: Does Corporate Governance Matter? The Accounting Review 80(2): 539–561
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
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
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
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
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
Klein A. 2002. Audit Committees, Board of Director Characteristics and Earnings Management. Journal of Accounting and Economics 33: 375–400
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
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
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
Patel S. A., G. Dallas 2002. Transparency and Disclosure: Overview of Methodology and Study Results – United States. New York: Standard & Poors
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
Securities and Exchange Commission. 1999. Final Rule: Audit Committee Disclosure. Release No. 34-42266. Washington, DC: SEC
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
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)
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9638-3