Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate governance pillars and business sustainability: does stakeholder engagement matter?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study extends the existing work on corporate governance and business sustainability by exploring corporate governance pillars comprising board functions, structure, strategy, compensation and shareholder rights utilizing data from listed S&P 500 firms. Using panel fixed effects and two-step GMM, we discovered that environmental, social and financial sustainability dimensions of the business sustainability are impacted positively by board functions and board structure. Our findings further reveal that low stakeholder engagement adversely impacts companies’ bottom-line performance. The results are robust to outliers, model specifications, statistical estimations and alternative measures of performance. Most importantly, the inferences from the moderating result suggest stakeholder engagement as a strategic approach to improve performance. The study is relevant for business sustainability practitioners and policy makers in advancing principles of corporate governance to promote enhanced performance.

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

  • Al Arussi, A.S., M.H. Selamat, and M.M. Hanefah. 2009. Determinants of financial and environmental disclosures through the internet by Malaysian companies. Asian Review of Accounting.

  • Allegrini, M., and G. Greco. 2013. Corporate boards, audit committees and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Journal of Management and Governance 17(1): 187–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Tuwaijri, S.A., T.E. Christensen, and K.E. Hughes. 2004. The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society 29(5–6): 447–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amor-Esteban, V., M.P. Galindo-Villardón, and I.M. García-Sánchez. 2018. Useful information for stakeholder engagement: A multivariate proposal of an industrial corporate social responsibility practices index. Sustainable Development 26(6): 620–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., and S. Bond. 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies 58(2): 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., and O. Bover. 1995. Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics 68(1): 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arena, C., S. Bozzolan, and G. Michelon. 2015. Environmental reporting: Transparency to stakeholders or stakeholder manipulation? An analysis of disclosure tone and the role of the board of directors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22(6): 346–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B.H., P.O. Demetriades, and S.H. Law. 2009. Financial development and openness: Evidence from panel data. Journal of Development Economics 89(2): 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., and L.R. Gomez-Mejia. 2009a. Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal 52(1): 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., and L.R. Gomez-Mejia. 2009b. The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top. Human Resource Management 48(6): 959–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, M. & Balachandran, J. 2003. CEO duality, audit committee independence and voluntary disclosures in Malaysia. In: International Conference on Quality Financial Reporting and Corporate Governance-Building Public Trust, Integrity and Accountability”, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1–27.

  • Bonner, S.E., and G.B. Sprinkle. 2002. The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27(4–5): 303–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., and S. Pavelin. 2006. Voluntary environmental disclosures by large UK companies. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 33(7–8): 1168–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our Common Future: The world commission on environment and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buniamin, S., B. Alrazi, N.H. Johari, and N.R.A. Rahman. 2011. Corporate governance practices and environmental reporting of companies in Malaysia: Finding possibilities of double thumbs up. Journal Pengurusan 32(2011): 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buniamin, S., B. Alrazi, N.H. Johari, and N.R.A. Rahman. 2012. Corporate governance practices and environmental reporting of companies in Malaysia: Finding possibilities of double thumbs up. Journal Pengurusan 32 (2011): 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y., H. Jo, and C. Pan. 2011. Vice or virtue? The impact of corporate social responsibility on executive compensation. Journal of Business Ethics 104(2): 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callan, S.J., and J.M. Thomas. 2011. Executive compensation, corporate social responsibility, and corporate financial performance: A multi-equation framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18(6): 332–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D.A., B.J. Simkins, and W.G. Simpson. 2003. Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review 38(1): 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, B., I. Ioannou, and G. Serafeim. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal 35(1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chithambo, L., and V. Tauringana. 2014. Company specific determinants of greenhouse gases disclosures. Journal of Applied Accounting Research 15(3): 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chugh, L.C., J.W. Meador, and M.W. Meador. 2010. Corporate governance: Shareholder rights and firm performance. Journal of Business and Economics Research (JBER) 8(9): 13.

  • Clark, T.S., and D.A. Linzer. 2015. Should I use fixed or random effects? Political Science Research and Methods 3(2): 399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M.B.E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, J.E., and K.M. Gilley. 2005. Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 26(9): 827–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordeiro, J.J., and J. Sarkis. 2008. Does explicit contracting effectively link CEO compensation to environmental performance? Business Strategy and the Environment 17(5): 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D., M.J. Ledoux, and M. Magnan. 2011. The informational contribution of social and environmental disclosures for investors. Management Decision 49(8): 1276–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C.M., and D.R. Dalton. 2003. Women in the boardroom: A business imperative. Journal of Business strategy 24(5): 8–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dal Maso, L., G. Liberatore, and F. Mazzi. 2017. Value relevance of stakeholder engagement: The influence of national culture. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24 (1): 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, C. 2015. Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly 25(1): 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. 2000. Financial Accounting Theory. Roseville: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. 2002. Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures–a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

  • Donaldson, T., and L.E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, P., and B. Sainty. 2009. The relationship among board of director characteristics, corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. International Journal of Managerial Finance 5(4): 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durbin, J. 1954. Errors in variables. Review of the International Statistical Institute 23–32.

  • Eccles, R.G., G. Serafeim, and P. Andrews. 2011. Mandatory environmental, social, and governance disclosure in the European Union. Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Case 111–120.

  • Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of twenty-first century business. Capstone, Stoney Creek: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eng, L.L., and Y.T. Mak. 2003. Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22(4): 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertimur, Y., F. Ferri, and S.R. Stubben. 2010. Board of directors’ responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals. Journal of Corporate Finance 16(1): 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Feijoo, B., S. Romero, and S. Ruiz. 2012. Does board gender composition affect corporate social responsibility reporting? International Journal of Business and Social Science 3(1): 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodio, M.I., and V.C. Oba. 2012. Boards’ gender mix and extent of environmental responsibility information disclosure in Nigeria: An empirical study. European Journal of Business and Management 4(14): 163–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach Pitman Publishing Inc. Marshfield, MA.

  • Freeman, R.E., and W.M. Evan. 1990. Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics 19(4): 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. 2011. Are there gender-related influences on corporate sustainability? A study of women on boards of directors. Journal of Management and Organization 17(1): 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. 2012. Are boards on board? A model of corporate board influence on sustainability performance. Journal of Management and Organization 18: 445–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. 2016. When do board and management resources complement each other? A study of effects on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 136 (2): 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillan, S.L., and L.T. Starks. 2007. The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 19(1): 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gliedt, T., C.E. Hoicka, and N. Jackson. 2018. Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production 174: 1247–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P., J. Ishii, and A. Metrick. 2003. Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 107–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. 2007. Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business ethics 74(4): 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gul, F.A., and S. Leung. 2004. Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 23(5): 351–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme, M., and M. Huse. 1997. The influence of corporate governance, industry and country factors on environmental reporting. Scandinavian Journal of Management 13(2): 137–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R.M., and T.E. Cooke. 2005. The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 24(5): 391–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., I. Laksmana, and R. Lee. 2015. Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 132: 641–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J.A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 46: 1251–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzallah, A., L.J. Gutierrez-Gutierrez, and J.F.M. Rosas. 2017. Quality ambidexterity, competitive strategies, and financial performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.

  • Hill, C.W., and T.M. Jones. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies 29(2): 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, N., U. Rigoni, and R.P. Orij. 2018. Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics 149(2): 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B.W., and J.M. de Sousa-Filho. 2019. Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research 102: 220–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N.A., and J.P. Angelidis. 1994. Effect of board members’ gender on corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research 10(1): 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ienciu, I.A., I.E. Popa, and N.M. Ienciu. 2012. Environmental reporting and good practice of corporate governance: Petroleum industry case study. Procedia Economics and Finance 3: 961–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., and G. Serafeim. 2012. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies 43(9): 834–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo, R.J.S., and I.V. Grañana. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its integrated management. CIRIEC-Spain, Magazine of Public, Social and Cooperative Economy 53: 137–161.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, T., and D. Jamali. 2016. Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review 24: 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, W., and A. Anandarajan. 2009. Shareholder rights, corporate governance and earnings quality: The influence of institutional investors. Managerial Auditing Journal 24(8): 767–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, Y. 2010. Stakeholder welfare and firm value. Journal of Banking and Finance 34(10): 2549–2561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jizi, M.I., A. Salama, R. Dixon, and R. Stratling. 2014. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. Journal of business ethics 125 (4): 601–615.

  • Jo, H., and M.A. Harjoto. 2011. Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 103(3): 351–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J.K., and A. Shivdasani. 1995. Firm performance, corporate governance, and top executive turnover in Japan. Journal of financial economics 38 (1): 29–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, L., and A. Cheng. 2004. The effects of board characteristics on earnings management. Corporate Ownership & Control 1 (3): 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K.A., P. Kitsabunnarat-Chatjuthamard, and J.R. Nofsinger. 2007. Large shareholders, board independence, and minority shareholder rights: Evidence from Europe. Journal of Corporate Finance 13(5): 859–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. 2008. Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals’ reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment 17(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiken, J. 1985. The board’s role in strategic planning and resource allocation. Handbook for corporate directors. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. 2002. Investor protection and corporate valuation. The Journal of Finance 57(3): 1147–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laksmana, I. 2008. Corporate board governance and voluntary disclosure of executive compensation practices. Contemporary Accounting Research 25(4): 1147–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lhuillery, S. 2011. The impact of corporate governance practices on R&D efforts: A look at shareholders’ rights, cross-listing, and control pyramid. Industrial and Corporate Change 20(5): 1475–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, L., L. Luo, and Q. Tang. 2015. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review 47(4): 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, M.K., M.L. Tseng, K.H. Tan, and T.D. Bui. 2017. Knowledge management in sustainable supply chain management: Improving performance through an interpretive structural modelling approach. Journal of cleaner production 162: 806–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, M., and J.W. Lorsch. 1992. A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. The Business Lawyer 48: 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lux, S., T.R. Crook, and D.J. Woehr. 2011. Mixing business with politics: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. Journal of Management 37(1): 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, L.S., and L. Thorne. 2005. Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics 57(3): 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makri, M., P.J. Lane, and L.R. Gomez-Mejia. 2006. CEO incentives, innovation, and performance in technology-intensive firms: A reconciliation of outcome and behavior-based incentive schemes. Strategic Management Journal 27(11): 1057–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallin, C., and A. Melis. 2012. Shareholder rights, shareholder voting, and corporate performance. Journal of Management and Governance 16(2): 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallin, C., G. Michelon, and D. Raggi. 2013. Monitoring intensity and stakeholders’ orientation: How does governance affect social and environmental disclosure? Journal of Business Ethics 114(1): 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markovic, S., and M. Bagherzadeh. 2018. How does breadth of external stakeholder co-creation influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and product innovation. Journal of Business Research 88: 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Ferrero, J., and J.V. Frias-Aceituno. 2015. Relationship between sustainable development and financial performance: International empirical research. Business Strategy and the Environment 24(1): 20–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKendall, M., C. Sánchez, and P. Sicilian. 1999. Corporate governance and corporate illegality: The effects of board structure on environmental violations. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 7(3): 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R.E., C.C. Snow, A.D. Meyer, and H.J. Coleman Jr. 1978. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review 3(3): 546–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K.J. 1999. Executive compensation. Handbook of labour economics 3, 2485–2563. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naciti, V. 2019. Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 237: 117727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noland, J., and R. Phillips. 2010. Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1): 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ntim, C.G., and T. Soobaroyen. 2013. Corporate governance and performance in socially responsible corporations: New empirical insights from a Neo-Institutional framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review 21(5): 468–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong, C.H., and S.H. Lee. 2000. Board functions and firm performance: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Comparative International Management 3(1): 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orij, R. 2010. Corporate social disclosures in the context of national cultures and stakeholder theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 23(7): 868–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pathan, S., and R. Faff. 2013. Does board structure in banks really affect their performance? Journal of Banking and Finance 37(5): 1573–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R.A. 1997. Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1): 51–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. 1991. America’s Green Strategy. Reader in Business and the Environment 68: 168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., N. Rahman, and C. McQuillen. 2015. From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. Journal of Business Ethics 130(2): 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, Y., A. Shaukat, and R. Tharyan. 2016. Environmental and social disclosures: Link with corporate financial performance. The British Accounting Review 48(1): 102–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raheja, C.G. 2005. Determinants of board size and composition: A theory of corporate boards. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 40(2): 283–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rechner, P.L., and D.R. Dalton. 1991. CEO duality and organizational performance: A longitudinal analysis. Strategic Management Journal 12(2): 155–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricart, J.E., M.Á. Rodríguez, and P. Sanchez. 2005. Sustainability in the boardroom: An empirical examination of Dow Jones Sustainability World Index leaders.

  • Robinson, G., and K. Dechant. 1997. Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives 11(3): 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, M., M. Magnan, and C.H. Cho. 2013. Is environmental governance suBSTantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics 114(1): 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, D.S., A.K. Duraiappah, D.C. Antons, P. Munoz, X. Bai, M. Fragkias, and H. Gutscher. 2012. A vision for human well-being: Transition to social sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(1): 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M.V., and N.S. Harrison. 2005. Organizational design and environmental performance: Clues from the electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal 48(4): 582–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Said, R., Y. Hj Zainuddin, and H. Haron. 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies. Social Responsibility Journal 5(2): 212–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salhofer, S., G. Obersteiner, F. Schneider, and S. Lebersorger. 2008. Potentials for the prevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Management 28(2): 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkis, J., and Q. Zhu. 2018. Environmental sustainability and production: Taking the road less travelled. International Journal of Production Research 56(1–2): 743–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, E.L., D.T. Tan, and K.D. Walsh. 2010. Endogeneity and the corporate governance-performance relation. Australian Journal of Management 35(2): 145–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., and J. Cowley. 2013. The relevance of stakeholder theory and social capital theory in the context of CSR in SMEs: An Australian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 118(2): 413–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seow, C., R. Hillary, S.S. Gao, and J.J. Zhang. 2006. Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate sustainability. Business Process Management Journal 12(6): 722–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaukat, A., Y. Qiu, and G. Trojanowski. 2016. Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics 135(3): 569–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., and R.W. Vishny. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance 52(2): 737–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzeck, H. 2009. The development of governance structures for corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 9(4): 495–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, W., and S. Sauerwald. 2018. Does corporate philanthropy increase firm value? The moderating role of corporate governance. Business and Society 57(4): 599–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R.S., and J.F. Cotter. 2007. Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction. Journal of Corporate Finance 13(2–3): 368–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, S., P. Akhtar, and G. Zaefarian. 2018. Dealing with endogeneity bias: The generalized method of moments(GMM) for panel data. Industrial Marketing Management 71: 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J.L., P. Berrone, and P.H. Phan. 2012. Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal 33(8): 885–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R.J. 2003. Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics 42(1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D.M. 1973. Alternative tests of independence between stochastic regressors and disturbances. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 733–750.

  • Zagorchev, A., and L. Gao. 2015. Corporate governance and performance of financial institutions. Journal of Economics and Business 82: 17–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leicester Castle Business School, De Montfort University, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK

    Renata Konadu & Samuel Owusu-Agyei

  2. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

    Gabriel Sam Ahinful

Authors
  1. Renata Konadu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriel Sam Ahinful
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samuel Owusu-Agyei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renata Konadu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Konadu, R., Ahinful, G.S. & Owusu-Agyei, S. Corporate governance pillars and business sustainability: does stakeholder engagement matter?. Int J Discl Gov 18, 269–289 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00115-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-021-00115-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation