Examination of the interplay between corporate governance theories and sustainable practices in companies: A review study
Abstract
The objective of this review study is to comprehensively investigate and integrate existing corporate governance theory and its influence on sustainability performance. In light of the growing importance placed on sustainable development goals and ethical business practices, scholars and practitioners must comprehend the impact of corporate governance systems on sustainability results. This study aims to analyze academic publications in order to find patterns and trends in the literature. By doing so, it aims to get insights into how corporate governance theory may promote sustainability actions. This review aims to provide a detailed understanding of the intricate relationship between corporate governance structures and sustainable business practices by analyzing different aspects of corporate governance theories, such as agency theory, stakeholder theory, institutional theory, and legitimacy theory. The results of this study can provide helpful advice to governments, business executives, and investors that aim to improve sustainable performance through the implementation of efficient governance structures. Moreover, this review offers valuable knowledge for scholars and researchers regarding the specific corporate governance theories that are strongly linked to sustainable practices.
References
1. Awalluddin MA, Ramlan I, Maznorbalia AS. Assessment on Level of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Among Public Listed Companies (PLCs) in Malaysia: A Study from Company Secretaries. Journal of International Management, Educational and Economics Perspectives. 2019; 7(1): 22-30.
2. Clarkson PM, Li Y, Richardson GD, et al. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2008; 33(4-5): 303-327. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003
3. Awalluddin MA, Maznorbalia AS, Yiam MS. A review study on corporate fraud’s negative effects on corporations. Journal of Contemporary Social Science Research. 2022; 7(1): 1-10.
4. Eccles RG, Ioannou I, Serafeim G. The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Management Science. 2014; 60(11): 2835-2857. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
5. Aguilera RV, Rupp DE, Williams CA, et al. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 2007; 32(3): 836-863. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275678
6. Aguilera RV, Jackson G. The Cross-National Diversity of Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants. The Academy of Management Review. 2003; 28(3): 447. doi: 10.2307/30040732
7. Flammer C. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Superior Financial Performance? A Regression Discontinuity Approach. Management Science. 2015; 61(11): 2549-2568. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2038
8. Awalluddin MA. Shareholder activism and corporate social responsibility in malaysia - activism and corporate social responsibility in Malaysia (Turkish). Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020; 7(1): 1-19. doi: 10.30798/makuiibf.532662
9. Gaio C, Gonçalves TC. Gender Diversity on the Board and Firms’ Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Financial Studies. 2022; 10(1): 15. doi: 10.3390/ijfs10010015
10. Issa A, Bensalem N. Are gender‐diverse boards eco‐innovative? The mediating role of corporate social responsibility strategy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2022; 30(2): 742-754. doi: 10.1002/csr.2385
11. Dodd O, Frijns B, Garel A. Cultural diversity among directors and corporate social responsibility. International Review of Financial Analysis. 2022; 83: 102337. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102337
12. Chong LL, Ong HB, Tan SH. Corporate risk-taking and performance in Malaysia: the effect of board composition, political connections and sustainability practices. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. 2018; 18(4): 635-654. doi: 10.1108/cg-05-2017-0095
13. Roberts JJ, Van den Steen E. Shareholder Interests, Human Capital Investment and Corporate Governance. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2000. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.230019
14. Naciti V, Cesaroni F, Pulejo L. Corporate governance and sustainability: a review of the existing literature. Journal of Management and Governance. 2021; 26(1): 55-74. doi: 10.1007/s10997-020-09554-6
15. Kamaruddin MIH, Hanefah MM, Masruki R. Challenges and prospects in waqf reporting practices in Malaysia. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. 2022. doi: 10.1108/jfra-01-2022-0018
16. Iansiti M, Levien R. Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review. 2004; 82(3): 68-78,126.
17. Tjahjadi B, Soewarno N, Mustikaningtiyas F. Good corporate governance and corporate sustainability performance in Indonesia: A triple bottom line approach. Heliyon. 2021; 7(3): e06453. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06453
18. Poddar A, Narula SA, Zutshi A. A study of corporate social responsibility practices of the top Bombay Stock Exchange 500 companies in India and their alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2019; 26(6): 1184-1205. doi: 10.1002/csr.1741
19. Fernando Y, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Wah WX. Pursuing green growth in technology firms through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business performance: Does service capability matter? Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2019; 141: 8-20. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.031
20. Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 1976; 3(4): 305-360. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
21. Barnea A, Rubin A. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Conflict Between Shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics. 2010; 97(1): 71-86. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0496-z
22. Brown WO, Helland E, Smith JK. Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2006; 12(5): 855-877. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2006.02.001
23. Kao EH, Yeh CC, Wang LH, et al. The relationship between CSR and performance: Evidence in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 2018; 51: 155-170. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2018.04.006
24. Maznorbalia AS, Awalluddin MA, Ayob AHY. Exploring the role of institutional investors in voting, monitoring and dialogue engagement in mitigating agency conflict in Malaysia’s public listed companies. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2023; 10(1). doi: 10.1057/s41599-023-01631-z
25. Schuler DA, Cording M. A Corporate Social Performance–Corporate Financial Performance Behavioral Model for Consumers. Academy of Management Review. 2006; 31(3): 540-558. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.21318916
26. Allouche J, Laroche P. A Meta-Analytical Investigation of the Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. In: Human Resources Management Review (French). ESKA; 2005. pp. 18-41.
27. Mohammed NF, Ahmed K, Ji XD. Accounting conservatism, corporate governance and political connections. Asian Review of Accounting. 2017; 25(2): 288-318. doi: 10.1108/ara-04-2016-0041
28. Kılıç M, Kuzey C. Determinants of climate change disclosures in the Turkish banking industry. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2019; 37(3): 901-926. doi: 10.1108/ijbm-08-2018-0206
29. Liao L, Luo L, Tang Q. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review. 2015; 47(4): 409-424. doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002
30. Cordeiro JJ, Profumo G, Tutore I. Board gender diversity and corporate environmental performance: The moderating role of family and dual‐class majority ownership structures. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2020; 29(3): 1127-1144. doi: 10.1002/bse.2421
31. Berry MA, Rondinelli DA. Proactive corporate environmental management: A new industrial revolution. Academy of Management Perspectives. 1998; 12(2): 38-50. doi: 10.5465/ame.1998.650515
32. Freeman RE. The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions. Business Ethics Quarterly. 1994; 4(4): 409-421. doi: 10.2307/3857340
33. Jo H, Harjoto MA. The Causal Effect of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011; 106(1): 53-72. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1052-1
34. Ghoul SE, Guedhami O, Kim Y. Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of International Business Studies. 2017; 48(3): 360-385. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2016.4
35. Tian H, Tian J. The Mediating Role of Responsible Innovation in the Relationship between Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate Sustainability Performance in Times of Crisis: Evidence from Selected Regions in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(14): 7277. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147277
36. Ruf BM, Muralidhar K, Brown RM, et al. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Change in Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 2001; 32(2): 143-156. doi: 10.1023/A:1010786912118
37. Campbell JL. Institutional Analysis and the Paradox of Corporate Social Responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist. 2006; 49(7): 925-938. doi: 10.1177/0002764205285172
38. Matten D, Moon J. “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review. 2008; 33(2): 404-424. doi: 10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
39. Crouch C. Privatised Keynesianism: An Unacknowledged Policy Regime. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 2009; 11(3): 382-399. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856x.2009.00377.x
40. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In: Baum JAC, Dobbin F (editors). Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2000. pp. 143-166. doi: 10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1
41. Bansal P. Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal. 2005; 26(3): 197-218. doi: 10.1002/smj.441
42. Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S. On addressing the dual and embedded nature of business and the route towards corporate sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; 112: 2822-2832. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.132
43. Meyer JW, Rowan B. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology. 1977; 83(2): 340-363. doi: 10.1086/226550
44. Zucker LG. The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. American Sociological Review. 1977; 42(5): 726. doi: 10.2307/2094862
45. Tolbert P, Zucker L. Handbook of Organization Studies. In: Articles and Chapters. Sage; 1996.
46. Kilbourne WE. Sustainable Communication and the Dominant Social Paradigm: Can They Be Integrated? Marketing Theory. 2004; 4(3): 187-208. doi: 10.1177/1470593104045536
47. Jaegler A, Sarkis J. The Theory and Practice of Sustainable Supply Chains. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal. 2014; 15(1): 2-5. doi: 10.1080/16258312.2014.11517329
48. Ball A, Craig R. Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and environmental accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 2010; 21(4): 283-293. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2009.11.006
49. Masud Md, Hossain M, Kim J. Is Green Regulation Effective or a Failure: Comparative Analysis between Bangladesh Bank (BB) Green Guidelines and Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines. Sustainability. 2018; 10(4): 1267. doi: 10.3390/su10041267
50. Shabana KM, Buchholtz AK, Carroll AB. The Institutionalization of Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Business & Society. 2016; 56(8): 1107-1135. doi: 10.1177/0007650316628177
51. Guthrie J, Parker LD. Corporate Social Reporting: A Rebuttal of Legitimacy Theory. Accounting and Business Research. 1989; 19(76): 343-352. doi: 10.1080/00014788.1989.9728863
52. Deegan C, Rankin M, Voght P. Firms’ Disclosure Reactions to Major Social Incidents: Australian Evidence. Accounting Forum. 2000; 24(1): 101-130. doi: 10.1111/1467-6303.00031
53. Gray R, Kouhy R, Lavers S. Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 1995; 8(2): 78-101. doi: 10.1108/09513579510086812
54. Martínez-Ferrero J, Banerjee S, García-Sánchez IM. Corporate Social Responsibility as a Strategic Shield Against Costs of Earnings Management Practices. Journal of Business Ethics. 2014; 133(2): 305-324. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2399-x
55. Monica-Violeta A, Sorin B. Developing of ESG Score to Assess the Non-financial Performances in Romanian Companies. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2015; 32: 1209-1224. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01499-9
56. Patten DM. Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 1991; 10(4): 297-308. doi: 10.1016/0278-4254(91)90003-3
57. Adam CA, Hill WY, Roberts CB. Corporate social reporting practices in western europe: legitimating corporate behaviour? The British Accounting Review. 1998; 30(1): 1-21. doi: 10.1006/bare.1997.0060
58. Cowen SS, Ferreri LB, Parker LD. The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1987; 12(2): 111-122. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(87)90001-8
59. Williams SM. Voluntary environmental and social accounting disclosure practices in the Asia-Pacific region: An international empirical test of political economy theory. The International Journal of Accounting. 1999; 34(2): 209-238. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7063(99)00006-0
60. Reverte C. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Ratings by Spanish Listed Firms. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008; 88(2): 351-366. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9968-9
61. Roberts RW. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1992; 17(6): 595-612. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(92)90015-K
62. Hackston D, Milne MJ. Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 1996; 9(1): 77-108. doi: 10.1108/09513579610109987
63. Al-Shaer H, Salama A, Toms S. Audit committees and financial reporting quality. Journal of Applied Accounting Research. 2017; 18(1): 2-21. doi: 10.1108/jaar-10-2014-0114
64. Dawkins C, Fraas JW. Coming Clean: The Impact of Environmental Performance and Visibility on Corporate Climate Change Disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics. 2010; 100(2): 303-322. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0681-0
Copyright (c) 2024 Muhammad Aiman Awalluddin, Anisa Safiah Maznorbalia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submit a Paper
