Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate governance in the digital age: the role of social media and board independence in CSR disclosure. Evidence from Italian listed companies

  • Published:
Journal of Management and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article aims to investigate the role of board independence on corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRDisc) and the moderating role of stakeholder e-engagement by social media (SM) in the relationship between these variables. The study uses econometric panel data dependence techniques on a sample of 347 firm-year observations related to Italian non-financial listed companies for the period 2017–2019. The results highlight that independent directors, particularly those appointed by minority shareholders, influence positively CSR disclosure. Additionally, this relationship is strengthened by stakeholder e-engagement created by social media (SM), since higher is the companies visibility on Facebook, Linked In, and Twitter, and hence the institutional pressure felt by its independent directors, greater is the CSRDisc. This article suggests a new metric to evaluate stakeholder engagement by SM and a new index to measure CSRDisc based on both Directive 95/2014 and Global Reporting Initiative standard. The article contributes to academic research on the relationship between board independence and disclosure analysing the moderating role by institutional pressure coming from SM.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali, W., Frynas, J. G., & Mahmood, Z. (2017). Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in developed and developing countries: A literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(4), 273–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amidjaya, P. G., & Widagdo, A. K. (2019). Sustainability reporting in Indonesian listed banks: Do corporate governance, ownership structure and digital banking matter? Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(2), 231–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amran, A., Lee, S. P., & Devi, S. S. (2014). The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B., & Rahman, S. S. (2017). Unfolding stakeholder thinking theory, responsibility and engagement. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, C. S., Guay, W. R., & Weber, J. P. (2010). The role of information and financial reporting in corporate governance and debt contracting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 179–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barako, D. G., Hancock, P., & Izan, H. Y. (2006). Factors influencing voluntary corporate disclosure by Kenyan companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(2), 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baughn, C. C., Bodie, N. L., & McIntosh, J. C. (2007). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(4), 189–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1990). The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 72–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, M. K. (2012). Watchdog or lapdog? A behavioral view of the media as a corporate governance mechanism. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci, M., & Manetti, G. (2017). Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting? Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

  • Bewley, K., & Li, Y. (2000). Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 1(1), 201–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharyya, A., & Cummings, L. (2015). Measuring corporate environmental performance–stakeholder engagement evaluation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(5), 309–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogan, V. (2008). Stock market participation and the Internet. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 43(1), 191–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonsón, E., & Ratkai, M. (2013). A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Information Review, 37(5), 787–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2008). Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), 120–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N. M., & Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: An overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 885–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—A dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29(1), 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bueno, G., Marcon, R., Pruner-da-Silva, A. L., & Ribeirete, F. (2018). The role of the board in voluntary disclosure. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 18(5), 886–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1980). Cooptive corporate character net- works: A reconsideration of interlocking directorates involving American manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 557–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerbioni, F., & Parbonetti, A. (2007). Exploring the effects of corporate governance on intellectual capital disclosure: An analysis of European biotechnology companies. European Accounting Review, 16(4), 791–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaher, S. & Spellman, J. D. (2012), Corporate Governance and Social Media: A Brave New World for Board Directors. Private Sector Opinion; no. 27. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank

  • Chan, A. K. M., Nickson, C. P., Rudolph, J. W., Lee, A., & Joynt, G. M. (2020). Social media for rapid knowledge dissemination: early experience from the COVID‐19 pandemic. Anaesthesia.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. J. P., & Jaggi, B. (2000). Association between independent non-executive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19, 285–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, E. C., & Courtenay, S. M. (2006). Board composition, regulatory regime and voluntary disclosure. The International Journal of Accounting, 41(3), 262–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chintrakarn, P., Jiraporn, P., & Treepongkaruna, S. (2021). How do independent directors view corporate social responsibility (CSR) during a stressful time? Evidence from the financial crisis. International Review of Economics & Finance, 71, 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, D. S., & Kim, J. (2007). Outside directors, ownership structure and firm profitability in Korea. Corporate Governance, 15(2), 239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P., Li, Y., Gordon, R., & Vasvari, F. P. (2008). Revisiting the Relation Between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure: An Empirical Analysis. Accounting Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 303–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal., 18(2), 228–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B. L., Hoskisson, R. E., Tihanyi, L., & Certo, S. T. (2010). Ownership as a form of corporate governance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(8), 1561–1589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2015). The economic relevance of environmental disclosure and its impact on corporate legitimacy: An empirical investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 431–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuadrado-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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Integration of micro and macro studies in governance research: CEO duality, board composition, and financial performance. Journal of Management, 37(2), 404–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beelde, I., & Tuybens, S. (2015). Enhancing the credibility of reporting on corporate social responsibility in Europe. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(3), 190–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beer, E., & Rensburg, R. (2011). Toward a theoretical frame- work for the governing of stakeholder relationships: A perspective from South Africa. Journal of Public Affairs, 11(4), 208–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Domenico, G., Sit, J., Ishizaka, A., & Nunan, D. (2021). Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 124, 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong-Song, C., & Zootae, J. (2007). Outside directors, ownership structure and firm profitability in Korea. Corporate Governance, 15(2), 239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, R., & Mulcahy, M. (2008). Board structure, ownership, and voluntary disclosure in Ireland. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(5), 416–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducassy, I., & Montandrau, S. (2015). Corporate social performance, ownership structure, and corporate governance in France. Research in International Business and Finance, 34, 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, K., & Harness, D. (2018). Communicating corporate social responsibility in a social world: The effects of company-generated and user-generated social media content on CSR attributions and scepticism. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(17–18), 1503–1529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elijido-Ten, E. (2011). Media coverage and voluntary environmental disclosures: A developing country exploratory experiment. Accounting Forum, 35(3), 139–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etter, M., Colleoni, E., Illia, L., Meggiorin, K., & D’Eugenio, A. (2018). Measuring organizational legitimacy in social media: Assessing citizens’ judgments with sentiment analysis. Business & Society, 57(1), 60–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etter, M., Ravasi, D., & Colleoni, E. (2019). Social media and the formation of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 28–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, J., Park, Y. W., Reising, J., & Shin, H. H. (2005). Board composition and firm value under concentrated ownership: The Canadian evidence. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 13(4), 387–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasan, M., & Mio, C. (2017). Fostering stakeholder engagement: The role of materiality disclosure in integrated reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 288–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatma, M., Ruiz, A. P., Khan, I., & Rahman, Z. (2020). The effect of CSR engagement on eWOM on social media. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(4), 941–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick, M., McCahery, J. A., & Vermeulen, E. P. (2019). The end of ‘corporate’ governance: Hello ‘platform’ governance. European Business Organization Law Review, 20(1), 171–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Gago, R., Cabeza-García, L., & Nieto, M. (2018). Independent directors’ background and CSR disclosure. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 991–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fich, E. M., & Shivdasani, A. (2007). Financial fraud, director reputation, and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 86(2), 306–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C., Hong, B., & Minor, D. (2019). Corporate governance and the rise of integrating corporate social responsibility criteria in executive compensation: Effectiveness and implications for firm outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 40(7), 1097–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foltean, F. S., Trif, S. M., & Tuleu, D. L. (2019). Customer relationship management capabilities and social media technology use: Consequences on firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 104, 563–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forker, J. J. (1992). Corporate governance and disclosure quality. Accounting and Business Research, 22(86), 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Stakeholder management: A strategic approach. Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., & Trottier, D. (Eds.). (2015). Social media, politics and the state: Protests, revolutions, riots, crime and policing in the age of Facebook, twitter and Youtube. Routledge.

  • Fuente, J. A., García-Sanchez, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallego-Alvarez, I., Ortas, E., Vicente-Villardón, J. L., & Álvarez Etxeberria, I. (2017). Institutional constraints, stakeholder pressure and corporate environmental reporting policies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(6), 807–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Ayuso, M., & Larrinaga, C. (2003). Environmental disclosure in Spain: Corporate characteristics and media exposure. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting/revista Española De Financiación y Contabilidad, 32(115), 184–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Sánchez, I. M., Gomez-Miranda, M. E., David, F., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2019). The explanatory effect of CSR committee and assurance services on the adoption of the IFC performance standards, as a means of enhancing corporate transparency. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 10(5), 773–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Sánchez, I. M., & Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2017). Independent directors and CSR disclosures: The moderating effects of proprietary costs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(1), 28–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Sánchez, I. M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., & Sepulveda, C. (2014). Does media pressure moderate CSR disclosures by external directors? Management Decision, 52(6), 1014–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garg, S. (2020). Venture governance: A new horizon for corporate governance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(2), 252–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillan, S. L. (2006). Recent developments in corporate governance: An overview. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3), 381–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gisbert, A., & Navallas, B. (2013). The association between voluntary disclosure and corporate governance in the presence of severe agency conflicts. Advances in Accounting, 29(2), 286–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal., 8(2), 47–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. A. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. Prentice Hall Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul, F. A., & Leung, S. (2004). Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23, 351–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 19(76), 343–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, M., & Saez, M. (2013). Deconstructing independent directors. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 13(1), 63–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2002). Culture, corporate governance and disclosure in Malaysian corporations. Abacus, 38(3), 317–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasseldine, J., Salama, A. I., & Toms, J. S. (2005). Quantity versus quality: The impact of environmental disclosures on the reputations of UK Plcs. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), 231–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. S. M., & Wong, K. S. (2001). A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, 10, 139–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, C. P., & Lutz, C. (2015). The impact of online media on stakeholder engagement and the governance of corporations. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(2), 163–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmstrom, B. (1999). Managerial incentives problems: A dynamic perspective. Review of Economic Studies, 66(1), 169–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihm, J. (2015). Network measures to evaluate stakeholder engagement with nonprofit organizations on social networking sites. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 501–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivaninskiy, I. (2019). The impact of the digital transformation of business on corporate governance. An overview of recent studies. Кopпopaтивныe финaнcы, 13(3)

  • Jaggi, B., Allini, A., Macchioni, R., & Zagaria, C. (2018). The factors motivating voluntary disclosure of carbon information: Evidence based on Italian listed companies. Organization & Environment, 31(2), 178–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagadeesha, H., & Srinivasrao, M. (2020). E-governance: An effective tool for digital democracy. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(4), 361–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency cost and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2021). Fostering dialogic engagement: Toward an architecture of social media for social change. Social Media + Society, 7(1), 2056305120984462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knyazeva, A., Knyazeva, D., & Masulis, R. (2013). The supply of corporate directors and board independence. Review of Financial Studies, 26, 1561–1605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, T., Forstater, M., Monaghan, P., Sillanpää, M., Van der Lugt, C., Partridge, K., & Zohar, A. (2005). From words to action. The stakeholder engagement manual, 2.

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumay, B., & Geyer, S. (2016). The role of social media for stakeholder involvement: A literature review. BLED.

  • Kumar, P., & Zattoni, A. (2018). Ownership structure, corporate governance and institutional environment: Going beyond managerial opportunism and the principal-agent framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 26(2), 82–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Oh, W. Y., & Kim, N. (2013). Social media for socially responsible firms: Analysis of Fortune 500’s Twitter profiles and their CSR/CSIR ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), 791–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. J., Yoon, H. J., & O’Donnell, N. H. (2018). The effects of information cues on perceived legitimacy of companies that promote corporate social responsibility initiatives on social networking sites. Journal of Business Research, 83, 202–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepore, L., Paolone, F., Pisano, S., & Alvino, F. (2017). A cross-country comparison of the relationship between ownership concentration and firm performance: Does judicial system efficiency matter? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 17(2), 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, S., & Horwitz, B. (2004). Director ownership and voluntary segment disclosure: Hong Kong evidence. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 15(3), 235–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, J. S., & Greenwood, C. A. (2017). Communicating corporate social responsibility (CSR): Stakeholder responsiveness and engagement strategy to achieve CSR goals. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 768–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., Matolcsy, Z., & Chow, D. (2007). The association between board composition and different types of voluntary disclosure. European Accounting Review, 16(3), 555–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llena, F., Moneva, J. M., & Hernandez, B. (2007). Environmental disclosures and compulsory accounting standards: The case of Spanish annual reports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(1), 50–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodhia, S., Kaur, A., & Stone, G. (2020). The use of social media as a legitimation tool for sustainability reporting. Meditari Accountancy Research, 28(4), 613–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M., & Zhao, E. Y. (2013). Neo-institutional theory. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manetti, G., & Bellucci, M. (2016). The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(6), 985–1011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manita, R., Elommal, N., Baudier, P., & Hikkerova, L. (2020). The digital transformation of external audit and its impact on corporate governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, F., Peattie, K., & Vazquez-Brust, D. (2019). Beyond win–win: A syncretic theory on corporate stakeholder engagement in sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(5), 896–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Ferrero, J., Ruiz-Cano, D., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2016). The causal link between sustainable disclosure and information asymmetry: The moderating role of the stakeholder protection context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(5), 319–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martini, S. B., Corvino, A., Doni, F., & Rigolini, A. (2016). Relational capital disclosure, corporate reporting and company performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(2), 186–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maury, B., & Pajuste, A. (2005). Multiple large shareholders and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(7), 1813–1834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menard, S. (2002). Longitudinal research. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2012). The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3), 477–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., Bozzolan, S., & Beretta, S. (2015). Board monitoring and internal control system disclosure in different regulatory environments. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 16(1), 138–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miras-Rodríguez, M., Martínez-Martínez, D., & Escobar-Pérez, B. (2019). Which corporate governance mechanisms drive CSR disclosure practices in emerging countries? Sustainability, 11(1), 61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscariello, N., Pizzo, M., Govorun, D., & Kostyuk, A. (2019). Independent minority directors and firm value in a principal–principal agency setting: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Management and Governance, 23(1), 165–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moşneanu, D. (2020). Corporate Governance in the Digital world. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence (Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 333–342).

  • Nikolaeva, R., & Bicho, M. (2011). The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 136–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nørreklit, L., Jack, L., & Nørreklit, H. (2019). Moving towards digital governance of university scholars: Instigating a post-truth university culture. Journal of Management and Governance, 23(4), 869–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odriozola, M. D., & Baraibar-Diez, E. (2017). Is corporate reputation associated with quality of CSR reporting? Evidence from Spain. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(2), 121–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paniagua, J., Rivelles, R., & Sapena, J. (2019). Social Determinants of Success: Social Media, Corporate Governance and Revenue. Sustainability, 11(19), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papagiannakis, G., Voudouris, I., Lioukas, S., & Kassinis, G. (2019). Environmental management systems and environmental product innovation: The role of stakeholder engagement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 939–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patelli, L., & Prencipe, A. (2007). The relationship between voluntary disclosure and independent directors in the presence of a dominant shareholder. European Accounting Review, 16(1), 5–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M., & Nance, J. R. (1998). Regulatory cost effects in a good news environment: The intra-industry reaction to the Alaskan oil spill. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 17(4–5), 409–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlopoulos, A., Magnis, C., & Iatridis, G. E. (2017). Integrated reporting: Is it the last piece of the accounting disclosure puzzle? Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 41, 23–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, E. R. G., Neergaard, P., Pedersen, J. T., & Gwozdz, W. (2013). Conformance and deviance: Company responses to institutional pressures for corporate social responsibility reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(6), 357–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, S., Lepore, L. & Agrifoglio, R. (2015), Corporate governance and information asymmetry between shareholders and lenders: an analysis of Italian listed companies, Financial Reporting, n. 2.

  • Pisano, S., Lepore, L., & Lamboglia, R. (2017). Corporate disclosure of human capital via LinkedIn and ownership structure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(1), 102–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prado-Lorenzo, J. M., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. M. (2010). The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3), 391–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., Bel-Oms, I., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2020). Does stakeholder engagement encourage environmental reporting? The mediating role of firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3025–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffournier, B. (1995). The determinants of voluntary financial disclosure by Swiss listed companies. European Accounting Review, 4(2), 261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board diversity and CSR reporting: an Australian study. Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(2), 182–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roohani, S., & Attaran, S. (2014). Social media: New challenges and opportunities for corporate governance. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 11(4), 366–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, S., Ruiz, S., & Fernandez-Feijoo, B. (2019). Sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement in Spain: Different instruments, different quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 221–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupley, K. H., Brown, D., & Marshall, R. S. (2012). Governance, media and the quality of environmental disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(6), 610–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sajadi, M. M., Habibzadeh, P., Vintzileos, A., Shokouhi, S., Miralles-Wilhelm, F., & Amoroso, A. (2020). Temperature and latitude analysis to predict potential spread and seasonality for COVID-19. Available at SSRN 3550308.

  • Schultz, F., Castelló, I., & Morsing, M. (2013). The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: A communication view. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 681–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEC. (2020). Recommendation from the Investor-as-Owner Subcommittee of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee Relating to ESG Disclosure (As of May 14, 2020), www.sec.gov

  • Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), 1491–1510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, B., & Wen, J. (2020). Online corporate social responsibility communication strategies and stakeholder engagements: A comparison of controversial versus noncontroversial industries. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 881–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, F., de Arruda, M. P., de Mascena, K. M., & Boaventura, J. M. (2020). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: A classification model. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(5), 2071–2080.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tejedo-Romero, F., Rodrigues, L. L., & Craig, R. (2017). Women directors and disclosure of intellectual capital information. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 23(3), 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thogersen, J. (2006). Media attention and the market for ‘green’ consumer products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(3), 145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, C. R., Lehnert, K., & Zhao, H. (2020). Formal and informal institutional pressures on corporate social responsibility: A cross-country analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 786–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: Towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(7), 685–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1146–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan-Hussin, W. N. (2009). The impact of family-firm structure and board composition on corporate transparency: Evidence based on segment disclosures in Malaysia. The International Journal of Accounting, 44(4), 313–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (2020). Risk communication and community engagement readiness and response to coronavirus disease (COVID-19): interim guidance, 19 March 2020 (No. WHO/2019-nCoV/RCCE/2020.2). World Health Organization.

  • Wilmshurst, T., & Frost, G. (2000). Corporate Environmental Reporting: A Test of Legitimacy Theory. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(1), 10–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., & Managi, S. (2019). Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 286–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, Y. H., & Woidtke, T. (2005). Commitment or entrenchment? Controlling shareholders and board composition. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(7), 1857–1885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, S., Elijido-Ten, E., & Abhayawansa, S. (2016). Determinants of carbon management strategy adoption: Evidence from Australia’s top 200 publicly listed firms. Managerial Auditing Journal, 31(2), 156–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Stanton, W. W. (1988). The implications of board of directors composition for corporate strategy and performance. International Journal of Management, 5(2), 229–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zattoni, A., & Cuomo, F. (2010). How independent, competent and incentivized should non-executive directors be? An empirical investigation of good governance codes. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zattoni, A., Witt, M., Judge, W. Q., Talaulicar, T., Chen, J., Lewellyn, K., & Van Ees, H. (2017). Does board independence influence financial performance in IPO firms? The moderating role of the national business system. Journal of World Business, 52, 628–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zona, F., & Zattoni, A. (2007). Beyond the black box of demography: Board process and task effectiveness within Italian firms. Corporate Governance, 15(5), 852–864.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Parthenope University of Naples, Naples, Italy

    Luigi Lepore, Sabrina Pisano & Gabriella D’Amore

  2. Department of Business and Economics, Parthenope University of Naples, Naples, Italy

    Loris Landriani & Stefano Pozzoli

Authors
  1. Luigi Lepore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Loris Landriani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sabrina Pisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriella D’Amore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefano Pozzoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigi Lepore.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lepore, L., Landriani, L., Pisano, S. et al. Corporate governance in the digital age: the role of social media and board independence in CSR disclosure. Evidence from Italian listed companies. J Manag Gov 27, 749–785 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09617-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09617-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation