Board of director's effectiveness and the stakeholder perspective of corporate governancedo effective boards promote the interests of shareholders and stakeholders?

Références bibliographiques

• Abeysekera, I., A template for integrated reporting. J. Intell. Capital 14:2 (2013), 227–245.
• Adams, R.B., Ferreira, D., Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. J. Financial Econ. 94:2 (2009), 291–309.
• Adams, R.B., Hermalin, B.E., Weisbach, M.S., The role of boards of directors in corporate governance: a conceptual framework and survey. J. Econ. Lit. 48:1 (2010), 58–107.
• Amran, A., Lee, S., Selvaraj, S., The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23:4 (2014), 217–235.
• Anderson, R.C., Mansi, S.A., Reeb, D.M., Founding family ownership and the agency cost of debt. J. Financial Econ. 68:2 (2003), 263–285.
• Ball, R., Kothari, S.P., Robin, A., The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. J. Account. Econ. 29:1 (2000), 1–51.
• Baysinger, B., Hoskisson, R.E., Texas, A., The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: effects on corporate strategy. Acad. Manage. Rev. 15:1 (1990), 72–87.
• Brammer, S., Pavelin, S., Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Bus. Strat. Environ. 17:2 (2008), 120–136.
• Brown, H.S., de Jong, M., Levy, D.L., Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting. J. Cleaner Prod. 17:6 (2009), 571–580.
• Carnevale, C., Mazzuca, M., Venturini, S., Corporate social reporting in European banks: the effects on firm's market value. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 19:3 (2012), 159–170.
• Castelo Branco, M., Lima Rodrigues, L., Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies. J. Bus. Ethics 83:4 (2008), 685–701.
• Chen, E.T., Nowland, J., Optimal board monitoring in family-owned companies: evidence from Asia. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 18:1 (2010), 3–17.
• Chin, W.W., The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. Marcoulides, G.A., (eds.) Modern Methods for Business Research, 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 295–336.
• Chin, W.W., How to write up and report PLS analyses. Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H., (eds.) Handbook of Partial Least Squares, 2010, Springer, Berlin, 655–690.
• Coles, J., McWilliams, V., Sen, N., An examination of the relationship of governance mechanisms to performance. J. Manage. 27:1 (2001), 23–55.
• Conger, J.A., Finegold, D., Lawler, E.E. III., Appraising boardroom performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76:1 (1998), 136–148.
• Dahya, J., Mcconnell, J.J., Travlos, N.G., The Cadbury Committee, corporate performance, and top management turnover. J. Finance 57:1 (2002), 461–483.
• Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., Bankruptcy and corporate governance: the impact of board composition and structure. Acad. Manage. J. 37:6 (1994), 1603–1617.
• Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., Women in the boardroom: a business imperative. J. Bus. Strat. 24:5 (2003), 8–10.
• de Andres, P., Azofra, V., Lopez, F., Corporate boards in OECD countries: size, composition, functioning and effectiveness. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 13:2 (2005), 197–210.
• De la Cuesta-González, M., Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á., Analysis of social performance in the Spanish financial industry through public data. A proposal. J. Bus. Ethics 69:3 (2006), 289–304.
• De Godos Díez, J.L., Gago, R.F., García, L.C., Propiedad y control en la puesta en práctica de la RSC. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 15:1 (2012), 1–11.
• Deegan, C., Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Account. Audit. Accountab. J. 15:3 (2002), 282–311.
• Defond, M.L., Hann, R.N., Hu, X., Does the market value financial expertise on audit committees of boards of directors?. J. Account. Res. 43:2 (2005), 153–193.
• Denis, D.K., Mcconnell, J.J., International corporate governance. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 38:1 (2014), 1–36.
• Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A., Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. Br. J. Manage. 17:4 (2006), 263–282.
• Duchin, R., Matsusaka, J.G., Ozbas, O., When are outside directors effective?. J. Financial Econ. 96:2 (2010), 195–214.
• Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., Wells, M.T., Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. J. Financial Econ. 48:1 (1998), 35–54.
• Erhardt, N.L., Werbel, J.D., Shrader, C.B., Board of directors diversity and firm financial performance. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 11:2 (2003), 102–111.
• European Commission, A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for corporate social responsibility (COM/2011/0681, 25/10/2011). 2011, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
• Fernández Sánchez, J.L., Luna Sotorrío, L., Baraibar Díez, E., The relationship between corporate governance and corporate social behavior: a structural equation model analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 18:2 (2011), 91–101.
• Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., Commitment to corporate social responsibility measured through Global Reporting Initiative reporting: factors affecting the behavior of companies. J. Cleaner Prod. 81:15 (2014), 244–254.
• Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. J. Bus. Ethics 122:1 (2014), 53–63.
• Fich, E.M., Are some outside directors better than others? Evidence from director appointments by Fortune 1000 firms. J. Bus. 78:5 (2005), 1943–1972.
• Fifka, M.S., Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective - a review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22:1 (2013), 1–35.
• Finegold, D., Benson, G.S., Hecht, D., Corporate boards and company performance: review of research in light of recent reforms. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 15:5 (2007), 865–878.
• Forbes, D.P., Milliken, F.I., Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24:3 (1999), 489–505.
• Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18:1 (1981), 39–50.
• Freeman, R.E., Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. 1984, Pitman, Boston.
• Gaa, J.C., Corporate governance and the responsibility of the board of directors for strategic financial reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 90:2 (2009), 179–197.
• Gamerschlag, R., Möller, K., Verbeeten, F., Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany. Rev. Manage. Sci. 5:2-3 (2011), 233–262.
• Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Sepulveda, C., Does media pressure moderate CSR disclosures by external directors?. Manage. Decis. 52:6 (2014), 1014–1045.
• García-Sánchez, I.M., Frías Aceituno, J.V., Rodríguez Domínguez, L., The ethical commitment of independent directors in different contexts of investor protection. Bus. Res. Quart. 18:2 (2015), 81–94.
• Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. 2006, GRI, Amsterdam.
• Godos-Díez, J.-L., Fernández-Gago, R., Cabeza-García, L., Martínez-Campillo, A., Determinants of CSR practices: analysis of the influence of ownership and the management profile mediating effect. Spanish J. Finance Account. 43:1. (2014), 47–68.
• Gray, R., Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour? Wrong question? Right time?. Account. Bus. Res. 36:1 (2006), 65–88.
• Hair, J.F. Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2014, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
• Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J. Cleaner Prod. 59 (2013), 5–21.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R., The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Market. 20 (2009), 277–319.
• Huse, M., Nielsen, S.T., Hagen, I.M., Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. J. Bus. Ethics 89:4 (2009), 581–597.
• Jamali, D., Safieddine, A.M., Rabbath, M., Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 16:5 (2008), 443–459.
• Jensen, M.C., The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. J. Finance 48:3 (1993), 831–880.
• Joecks, J., Pull, K., Vetter, K., Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: what exactly constitutes a critical mass?. J. Bus. Ethics 118:1 (2013), 61–72.
• John, K., Senbet, L.W., Corporate governance and board effectiveness. J. Bank. Finance 22:4 (1998), 371–403.
• Johnson, R.A., Hoskisson, R.E., Hitt, M.A., Board of director involvement in restructuring: the effects of board versus managerial controls and characteristics. Strat. Manag. J. 14:1 (1993), 33–50.
• Khan, A., Muttakin, M.B., Siddiqui, J., Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: evidence from an emerging economy. J. Bus. Ethics 114:2 (2013), 207–223.
• Kiel, G.C., Nicholson, G.J., Board composition and corporate performance: how the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 11:3 (2003), 189–205.
• Klein, A., Firm performance and board committee structure. J. Law Econ. 41:1 (1998), 275–304.
• Klein, A., Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. J. Account. Econ. 33:3 (2002), 375–400.
• Kramer, V.W., Konrad, A.M., Erkut, S., Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance. 2006, Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley.
• Kroll, M., Walters, B.A., Wright, P., Board vigilance, director experience, and corporate outcomes. Strat. Manag. J. 29:4 (2008), 363–382.
• Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Li, S., Schneider, A.M., CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 17:4 (2009), 426–442.
• Letza, S., Sun, X., Kirkbride, J., Shareholding versus stakeholding: a critical review of corporate governance. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 12:3 (2004), 242–263.
• Mallin, C.A., Michelon, G., Board reputation attributes and corporate social performance: an empirical investigation of the US Best Corporate Citizens. Account. Bus. Res. 41:2 (2011), 119–144.
• Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., Chin, W., Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 32:3 (2001), 86–112.
• McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, P.M., Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. J. Manag. Stud. 43:1 (2006), 1–18.
• Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Nielsen, S., Huse, M., Board task performance: an exploration of micro- and macro-level determinants of board effectiveness. J. Org. Behav. 33:2 (2012), 193–215.
• Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Zona, F., Making boards effective: an empirical examination of board task performance. Br. J. Manag. 20:1 (2009), 55–74.
• Money, K., Schepers, H., Are CSR and corporate governance converging? A view from boardroom directors and company secretaries in FTSE100 companies in UK. J. Gen. Manag. 33:2 (2007), 1–11.
• Newell, R., Wilson, G., A premium for good governance. McKinsey Quart. 3 (2002), 20–23.
• Nielsen, S., Huse, M., The contribution of women on boards of directors: going beyond the surface. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 18:2 (2010), 136–148.
• Ntim, C.G., Soobaroyen, T., Corporate governance and performance in socially responsible corporations: new empirical insights from a neo-Institutional framework. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 21:5 (2013), 468–494.
• Pfeffer, J., Organizational demography. Cummings, L.L., Staw, B.M., (eds.) Research in Organizational Behaviour, 5, 1983, JAI Press, Greenwich, 299–357.
• Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84:12 (2006), 78–92.
• Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., Gallego-Alvarez, I., Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Características del consejo de administración e información en materia de responsabilidad social corporativa. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad XXXVIII:141 (2009), 107–135.
• Rechner, P., Dalton, D., CEO duality and organizational performance: a longitudinal analysis. Strat. Manag. J. 12:2 (1991), 155–160.
• Renneboog, L., Ownership, managerial control and the governance of companies listed on the Brussels Stock Exchange. J. Bank. Finance 24:12 (2000), 1959–1995.
• Reverte, C., The impact of better corporate social responsibility disclosure on the cost of equity capital. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 19:5 (2012), 253–272.
• Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, A., SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). 2005, Hamburg, University of Hamburg.
• Roberts, N., Thatcher, J.B., Conceptualizing and testing formative constructs: tutorial and an noted example. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 40:3 (2009), 9–39.
• Roca, L.C., Searcy, C., An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 20:1 (2012), 103–118.
• Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Frías Aceituno, J.V., Rubio, R., El consejo de administración y las memorias de sostenibilidad. Spanish Account. Rev. 17:1 (2014), 5–16.
• Roldán, J.L., Sánchez-Franco, M.J., Variance-based structural equation modeling: guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. Mora, M., Gelman, O., Steenkamp, A., Raisinghani, M., (eds.) Research Methodologies in Engineering of Software Systems and Information Systems: Philosophies, Methods and Innovations, 2012, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, 193–221.
• Ruigrok, W., Peck, S.I., Keller, H., Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: evidence from Swiss companies. J. Manag. Stud. 43:5 (2006), 1201–1226.
• Schäfer, H., Beer, J., Zenker, J., Fernandes, P., Who is Who in Corporate Social Responsibility Rating? A Survey of Internationally Established Rating Systems that Measure Corporate Responsibility. 2006, Bertelsmann Foundation, Gütersloh.
• Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., Chua, W.F., Assurance on sustainability reports: an international comparison. Account. Rev. 84:3 (2009), 937–967.
• Smith, N.C., Corporate social responsibility: whether or how?. Calif. Manag. Rev. 45:4 (2003), 52–76.
• Smith, N., Smith, V., Verner, M., Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 55:7 (2006), 569–593.
• Suchard, J., Singh, M., Barr, R., The market effects of CEO turnover in Australian firms. Pacific Basin Financial J. 9:1 (2001), 1–27.
• Szabó, D.G., Sørensen, K.E., Integrating corporate social responsibility in corporate governance codes in the EU. Eur. Bus. Law Rev. 24:6 (2013), 781–828.
• Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., Singh, V., Women directors on corporate boards: a review and research agenda. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 17:3 (2009), 320–337.
• Tuggle, C.S., Sirmon, D.G., Christopher, R., Bierman, L., Commanding board of director attention: investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strat. Manag. J. 31:9 (2010), 946–968.
• Vafeas, N., Board meeting frequency and firm performance. J. Financial Econ. 53:1 (1999), 113–142.
• Van den Berghe, L.A.A., Levrau, A., Evaluating boards of directors: what constitutes a good corporate board?. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 12:4 (2004), 461–478.
• Webb, E., An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. J. Manag. Govern. 8:3 (2004), 255–277.
• Weimer, J., Pape, J., A taxonomy of systems of corporate governance. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 7:2 (1999), 152–166.
• Williams, L.J., Vandenberg, R.J., Edwards, J.R., Structural equation modeling in management research: a guide for improved analysis. Acad. Manag. Ann. 3:1 (2009), 543–604.
• Yermack, D., Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. J. Financial Econ. 40:2 (1996), 185–211.
• Young, S., Marais, M., A multi-level perspective of CSR reporting: the implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 20:5 (2012), 432–450.