Is Corporate Reputation Associated with Quality of CSR Reporting? Evidence from Spain

157

112

This paper extends research on how the background of independent directors may affect the way in which their companies disclose information about corporate social responsibility (CSR). Using a sample of 83 Spanish-listed firms over the period 2009-2014, the findings of a random effects probit model suggest that, in addition to board independence, having independent directors with political backgrounds and diverse education has a positive impact on their firm's probability of issuing a CSR report following the standards of the Global Reporting Initiative.

Section: Educational Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Independent directors' background and CSR disclosure

Gago

García

Antolín

2018

157

112

“…To deflect attention from bad sustainability performance, in particular in companies with an inferior CSP, the management may self-servingly prefer to selectively disclose mostly good CSP in sustainability reports, rather than reveal the company's good and bad CSP in a balanced report (Cho et al, 2012;Boiral, 2013). In this case, the company's management may utilize SA as a tool to proactively manage investors' and other stakeholders' perceptions of the credibility of the CSP information revealed in the company's sustainability reports, rather than employ a third party to assure that the CSP information is not materially misstated (Cho & Patten, 2007;Cho et al, 2012;Luo et al, 2012;Perego & Kolk, 2012;Hahn & Lülfs, 2014;Gürtürk & Hahn, 2016;Odriozola & Baraibar-Diez, 2017). In addition, they may also selectively choose the assurance provider, as well as the scope and level of assurance to enhance perceived legitimacy and corporate reputation.…”

Section: N This Study We Investigate the Relationship Between Corpmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Selective assurance may signal that the CSP information released in sustainability reports is credible and reliable. Proactively signaling the credibility of the CSP information disclosed assists company management in influencing stakeholders' perceptions and may generate greater stakeholders' confidence in the level of responsibility taken in relation to sustainable development, thus enhancing corporate reputation and perceived legitimacy (Cho & Patten, 2007;Perego & Kolk, 2012;Luo et al, 2012;Cho et al, 2012;Hahn & Lülfs, 2014;Odriozola & Baraibar-Diez, 2017). For these reasons, inferior sustainability performers self-servingly use third-party assurance as a risk management tool to deflect attention from poor CSP and reduce its negative effects on corporate legitimacy (Gürtürk & Hahn, 2016).…”

Section: Sustainability Performance and Assurance On Sustainability Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Sustainability Performance and Assurance on Sustainability Reports: Diffusion of Accounting Practices in the Realm of Sustainable Development

Braam

Peeters

2017

136

111

In response to investors and other stakeholders questioning the credibility of the performance information displayed in sustainability reports, companies increasingly have their sustainability reports voluntarily assured by an independent third party. However, voluntary third-party assurance on sustainability reports (SA) may vary considerably in terms of the choice of the assurance provider as well as the scope and level of assurance. In this study, the relationship between corporate sustainability performance (CSP) and choices related to SA is explored.Using a panel data set of 4686 listed companies (from 21 European and North American countries) during the period 2009-2014, the results indicate that companies with a superior CSP are more likely to employ third parties to provide assurance on their sustainability reports than companies with an inferior sustainability performance. For companies that employ third parties to provide assurance, we also find that, among the companies headquartered in the more shareholder-oriented countries, CSP plays a significant role in explaining variation in the choice of the assurance provider, while predominantly in the more stakeholder-oriented countries, companies with a good CSP are more likely to choose a broader assurance scope than companies with a poor CSP. The results support the notion that companies with a superior CSP make different choices related to SA than companies with an inferior CSP. The results also indicate that country-specific characteristics are important for understanding the variation in choices related to SA. We discuss the findings and their implications.

“…At the same time, it is necessary to encourage CSR disclosure, as such communication processes are crucial to obtaining stakeholder trust and to in turn increase reputational capital (Odriozola & Baraibar-Diez, 2017). It is thus necessary for bank personnel to give this issue attention and to improve performance in all CSR dimensions by periodically verifying relationships between reputation levels, stakeholder engagement, corporate governance, and environmental issues.…”

Section: Implications Limitations and Avenues For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement as a Determinant of Bank Reputation: An Empirical Analysis

Dell’Atti

Trotta

Iannuzzi

et al. 2017

106

The relationships between sustainable behavior, firm reputation, and economic performance are significant issues that continue to become more important. Corporate reputation has important implications for economic performance while corporate social responsibility engagement is considered a key determinant of reputation. The aim of this study is to empirically test such relationships regarding the banking sector and for the sub-prime crisis period (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012). We apply our hypothesis to 75 large international banks using Reputation Institute and ASSET4 data and adopting a multiple econometric approach. Our initial results are encouraging and consistent with the existing literature: bank reputation is positively related to accounting performance and is negatively related to leverage and riskiness profiles. However, while a positive relationship between reputation and social performance exists, relationships between reputation, corporate governance, and environmental performance are always negative. We discuss these results by identifying related causes and by presenting avenues for future research.