The impact of gender diversity on
corporate social responsibility knowledge:
empirical analysis in European context
Paola Paoloni, Rosa Lombardi and Salvatore Principale
Abstract
Purpose–The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated social risks around the world, highlighting inequalities and eroding social cohesion in and between nations. The challenges posed by this global crisis to world governments can be overcome with cooperation between the public and private sectors. Several studies support the importance of external corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in sharing knowledge with citizens and external stakeholders, with benefits for the company and for society. Few studies have investigated the relationship between knowledge management (KM) and sustainability. This work aims to investigate the influence of the gender variable in the sharing of CSR knowledge, focusing on the area of human rights.
Design/methodology/approach–The panel regression analysis was performed on a sample of 660 European companies listed over the years 2017–2020. The hypotheses tested in panel regression were then corroborated by a further test.
Findings–The results show a positive influence of women directors in the external disclosure of human rights. Evidence would assign a positive role to gender in sharing knowledge.
Practical implications–The findings offer new insights into the role of gender on KM and sharing. The results show that gender can be a factor that stimulates CSR knowledge. The presence of women directors can be a useful tool to increase the relational capital of the companies and to share knowledge outside the company.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the poor literature between knowledge sharing and sustainability. Evidence would assign a positive role to gender in sharing knowledge.
Keywords Governance, Knowledge management, Gender diversity, CSR knowledge, Gender disclosure, Human rights
Paper typeResearch paper
1. Introduction
The role of sustainable practices and business ethics in business strategy has grown in importance over the past decade (Abhayawansaet al., 2021;Cammaranoet al., 2022;Caputo et al., 2021;Luca Casali and Perano, 2021). Policymakers’ progressive attention to sustainable development issues characterised the international scenario (Carayanniset al., 2017). Recent events such as climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic have highlighted even more the existing criticalities and the need to guide the economy towards sustainable attitudes (Cosma et al., 2022). The policymakers, therefore, have listened to the needs of the various categories of stakeholders, who are increasingly interested in and sensitive for organisations to adopt behaviours in line with the sustainable development paradigm (Leopizziet al., 2020).
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) themes fit within the corporate value creation models (Adams, 2017). Recent studies have highlighted both the benefits for those who adopt sustainable practices and the negative externalities in terms of reputation for those who do not adopt them (Sadiqet al., 2020). For several companies, therefore, sustainability Paola Paoloni, Rosa
Lombardi and Salvatore Principale are all based at the Department of Law and Economics of Production Activities, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Received 3 July 2022 Revised 17 October 2022 28 December 2022 Accepted 20 January 2023 The investigation conducted in this paper is connected to the wide research path actived by the project financed by Sapienza University of Rome
“Tornado or Sunshine? Mixing Accounting Regulation and Corporate Accountability in the Era of Non-Financial Information, Intangibles and Digitalization”.
has become a tool for improving their performance (Russo et al., 2022). For sustainable practices to be transformed into medium- to long-term benefits, it is necessary, on the one hand, for the company to integrate sustainability into corporate strategies. On the other, stakeholders must be aware of company practices (Cammaranoet al., 2022). Hence, there is a need for companies to communicate externally what they did during the year and conduct stakeholder engagement practices (Gomez-Carrascoet al., 2021). Over the years, companies have voluntarily initiated information relating to ESG areas to seek the approval of stakeholders to obtain competitive advantages over their competitors (Leopizziet al., 2020).
Some scholars have analysed the relationship between sustainability and KM. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a process of accumulating knowledge that companies can manage (Tanget al., 2012). KM is a strategic resource for companies of all types to obtain or maintain a competitive advantage (Rossi et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing plays a facilitating role in achieving company objectives. However, scholars have shown that in spite of the multidisciplinary of both elements, there are still unexplored areas (Martinset al., 2019). Scholars refer above all to knowledge sharing and the factors that can facilitate information sharing (Martinset al., 2019).
In this work, we focus on the S dimension of ESG issues, referring to human rights. Companies have often shown that they do not give equal weight to ESG issues. Thus, there is empirical evidence of how often companies pay attention to environmental rather than social issues (Leopizziet al., 2020). Businesses and multinational companies play a fundamental social role because they are in close contact with the environment in which they operate (Kim, 2019). The close link with the territory, employees and suppliers makes human rights issues material for companies belonging to any sector (Ullah et al., 2021). Therefore, to protect their image, companies should consider these issues in their policies and practices and formulate strategies aimed at protecting the rights of all (Baudotet al., 2021). While ESG practices and communication legitimise the company in the stakeholders’ eyes, they are also useful for sharing CSR knowledge (Gangi et al., 2019). In a social context aggravated by the pandemic’s effects, private companies’ social communication can be an important tool for raising stakeholders’ awareness about human rights (Casadei and Amadei, 2010).
This work aims to evaluate the relationship between gender and CSR knowledge. Specifically, because the gender literature emphasises some specific characteristics of women compared with men, this work investigates women directors’ influence on external information sharing relating to human rights. The results of this work suggest that companies with a greater presence of women at decision-making levels conduct better human rights communication. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work is among the first to investigate the effect of board diversity on sharing CSR knowledge. The board’s role is increasingly crucial so that it can guide and promote a corporate culture that integrates sustainability values (Cilloet al., 2022). This contribution’s motivation derives from a gap in the research on the relation between CSR and knowledge sharing. This work mainly contributes to the literature on gender diversity and to CSR knowledge. We used human rights communication as a proxy for external CSR. Nevertheless, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous studies that have investigated this phenomenon have interpreted the results from a knowledge perspective. The results are directed to academics, policymakers and companies, suggesting greater diversification of governance.
The next section reviews and discusses the literature. Section 3 describes the sample and method, while the results are presented in Section 4. Section 5 shows findings, contributions and implications.
2. Background and hypotheses development
Scholars have analysed CSR knowledge based on internal and external perspectives (Gangi et al., 2019). The first refers to the company’s social responsibility towards employees (Jamaliet al., 2019;Kimet al., 2010). External CSR refers to the relationship
between the company and the stakeholders.Kim (2019)defined CSR knowledge as “awareness and understanding of a corporation’s CSR activities that are obtained through both direct and indirect experience with the corporation”.Matten and Moon (2008)argue that explicit CSR refers to communication of sustainable practices to stakeholders. Scholars who have studied CSR communication support the motivations of moral legitimacy linked to companies’ choices to publish CSR information (Gomez-Carrascoet al., 2021;Sorouret al., 2021). CSR communication would represent a useful tool to strengthen the link with the different categories of stakeholders.
Thus, the importance of sharing CSR knowledge increased. The knowledge-sharing concept refers to the exchange or transfer process that makes knowledge available to other subjects (Leeet al., 2020). To obtain competitive advantages, knowledge must not only be used but also be shared (Shahzadet al., 2020). Sharing knowledge allows us to trigger virtuous circles that foster growth and innovation processes (Shahzadet al., 2020;Yasin, 2020). Companies have started sharing CSR knowledge to preserve or improve their image in users’ eyes. This is aimed at acting on the company’s relational capital because it is not a closed system but interacts with environmental actors (Melloni, 2015). To preserve the corporate image and reputation, the company needs to obtain the stakeholders’ trust. Corporate reputation is increasingly a necessary element to preserve corporate value in the long term (Adams, 2017).
The adoption of sustainable behaviour represents a business strategy to maintain or increase a company’s reputation (Zhanget al., 2020). However, stakeholders’ lack of knowledge of these practices could compromise the benefits expected by companies that adopt sustainable behaviours (Cilloet al., 2019;Luo and Du, 2015). This shows the binding link between CSR and knowledge management (KM;Gangiet al., 2019) as well as the latter’s importance in extracting value from the organisation’s external environment (Del Giudice and Maggioni, 2014). Good practices and CSR strategies can influence consumer behaviour and contribute to a virtuous circle in favour of socially responsible behaviour (Stellaet al., 2022). Sharing CSR information could help raise awareness and educate users about sustainable practices. A recent study highlighted how the disclosure of CSR information facilitates the sharing of CSR knowledge (Liu and He, 2022). On the other hand, increasing stakeholders’ CSR knowledge can represent a fundamental element to guarantee the reputational benefits deriving from companies’
sustainable behaviour (Gangi et al., 2019). Furthermore, sharing CSR knowledge could represent a stimulus to other organisations to improve CSR performance. Businesses can use different channels and exploit the potential of the internet and social media. A company that shares its sustainable attitudes externally encourages users to align themselves with corporate values and to act in a socially responsible manner (Rao Jadaet al., 2019).
Scholars have also highlighted management’s crucial role in the implementation of CSR practices (Kimet al., 2012; Stellaet al., 2022). Management decides whether to plan and invest resources in CSR strategies or whether to conduct symbolic practices to encourage good investors’ opinion (Stellaet al., 2022). Virtuous companies that effectively communicate CSR information are those that establish direct relationships with their stakeholders (Carroll and Olegario, 2020; Rossi et al., 2021). Thanks to stakeholder engagement, companies establish direct communication with stakeholders with positive effects on CSR disclosure and CSR knowledge sharing (Kim, 2019). In addition, international organisations have intervened to support companies and have produced reporting standards in the CSR field. These standards (e.g. GRI, IR, SASB) provide guidelines for effectively and transparently communicating CSR information in line with stakeholders needs. Standards have also been published that guide companies in dealing with specific topics, such as in the case of information relating to climate (TCFD) or human rights (UN Guidelines). Specific reference is made to the communication of human rights, one of the CSR macro-themes (Kim, 2019).
2.1 Gender and knowledge sharing
Scholars widely debate knowledge sharing (Nguyenet al., 2019). They argue the relevance of such elements of business success (Ferreiraet al., 2020;Del Giudice and Maggioni, 2014).
The literature on the topic has emphasised the relevance of knowledge sharing for business development. Especially in times of crisis, such as the recent Covid-19 pandemic, knowledge- sharing processes favour better adaptation to the environmental context (Leeet al., 2020) as well as obtaining a competitive and sustainable advantage (Cilloet al., 2022). A recent report by Deloitte (2021) has also embraced this thesis, defining knowledge sharing as a critical success factor.
Some scholars have classified the sharing of knowledge into explicit and tacit (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Unlike explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge is characterised by its being
“inarticulable” (Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011). It is not easily transferable and is based on experience and action (Denise and Byosiere, 2007) and is closely related to social capital (Sharifet al., 2021). The value of this knowledge makes it necessary for organisations to share it (Nikas et al., 2017). Having this knowledge aims to transform individual knowledge into collective knowledge (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
Studies have recently investigated the implications of gender diversity in several fields, from management to organisation. Gender studies argue that the gender variable must be considered in knowledge-sharing processes, as gender can influence organisational structures and corporate behaviours (Paoloni and Lombardi, 2018;Scuottoet al., 2022). However, concerning the KM, the gender issue has not been extensively investigated. Scholars noted the lack of studies on the relationship between KM and gender (Heisig and Kannan, 2020). Most of the studies investigated gender diversity’s impact on a dimension of knowledge and sharing. Several scholars have found that gender diversity has positive influence on knowledge sharing. Gender can be a moderating factor in KM culture (Jayasingamet al., 2016). Similarly, under certain conditions, women are more likely to share knowledge than men (Nguyen et al., 2019). Furthermore, diversity emphasises more transparent internal communication processes (Leeet al., 2020).
Even fewer contributions have investigated the relationship between gender and tacit knowledge sharing (Heisig and Kannan, 2020). Scholars have highlighted how women spend more time on tacitly known socialisation variables than men (Denise and Byosiere, 2007). Others have shown evidence of the strong motivational component that would lead women managers to share knowledge with individuals within and outside the organisation (Sheerin et al., 2020). Recent research has revealed that in the post-pandemic period, women have engaged more in sharing external digital knowledge than men, due their propensity to create stronger social connections than men do (Tønnessenet al., 2021). Our study aims to contribute to this topic by investigating the effects of diversity on the board of directors. We believe that the board is a governance mechanism which, because of the centrality of the role held in the company, can promote a knowledge-sharing system.
2.2 Female directors and corporate social responsibility communication
The board of directors has control over the company’s published information as well as the company’s relationship capital (Ltifi and Hichri, 2022). Scholars have studied the relationship between corporate governance and ESG communication (Sadiqet al., 2020).
The major studies underline the board of directors’ impact on the level of CSR disclosure (Khanet al., 2019).
These scholars have conducted their research based on different theoretical frameworks.
The most used include the stakeholder theory and the legitimacy theory. The first is based on the dependent relationship between value creation and stakeholders with whom the company has direct or indirect links (Freeman, 1984). According to this approach, to continue to operate and survive within the competitive environment, companies try to satisfy the various stakeholders’ needs. Because ESG issues are now included in the category of relevant information for stakeholders, governance is increasingly committed to addressing these issues. Diversified governance is one of the levers to ensure that ESG issues are dealt with (Tingbani et al., 2020). On the other hand, the legitimacy theory starts from the
postulate of a social contract existing between organisations and society. Firms tend to communicate ESG information to legitimise their existence in the stakeholders’ eyes (Deeganet al., 2002). Mixed governance can be a governance mechanism to legitimise businesses and enable businesses to be sustainable (Tremblay et al., 2016). There are several points of contact between the approaches.
Among the governance studies, recent literature shows a strong interest in mixed governance (Paoloni and Lombardi, 2022;Tingbaniet al., 2020). Scholars who have approached the topic have highlighted female directors’ distinctive characteristics compared with male directors and strongly suggest companies have a board with broad respect for gender diversity if oriented towards socially responsible strategies (Ben-Amaret al., 2017). These studies would suggest that women’s greater presence in corporate governance may favour the external sharing of CSR knowledge. Furthermore, the increased number of women at the company’s top levels would bring about diversification of visions and opinions (Daily and Dalton, 2003).
Numerous studies have shown positive impacts on ESG performance and disclosure (Paoloni and Lombardi, 2018;Tingbaniet al., 2020).
An adequate presence of women on the board could sensitise the board to ESG initiatives (Bearet al., 2010). Women are more oriented towards CSR issues (Ben-Amaret al., 2021).
Women are more altruistic than men and more inclined to form relationships (Glasset al., 2016). Women directors increase corporate disclosure transparency. From an analysis conducted from 2002 to 2016 on a sample of European companies, scholars found that the percentage of women board members is a variable that positively influences the substantial disclosure of ESG information (Haque and Jones, 2020).
Some studies have highlighted women’s social orientation. In a sample of Asian companies, women directors are more sensitive to the social component than to ESG issues (Alazzani et al., 2017). For example, a study suggests that the companies named the most ethical in the world are also those with the highest number of female directors (Bernardiet al., 2009).
Even if the promotion of initiatives and policies aimed at respecting social values and human rights make organisational changes in company management, the presence of women at decision-making levels could promote and facilitate these changes (Martinez- Leonet al., 2020).
Based on previous literature, we hypothesise that women on the board can increase the entire board’s awareness towards human rights issues. Because women are more oriented towards stakeholder engagement and relationship capital, a greater board presence could represent an incentive to share CSR knowledge on the subject of human rights. Therefore, we assume:
H1. Women directors positively influence the communication of human rights information.
3. Method
We adopted a quantitative methodology to test H1. Particularly, we applied the statistics analysis through Stata. Our sample consists of 660 large European listed companies. Europe represents an interesting context for study as it has proven to be at the forefront of ESG issues by introducing a series of reforms all geared towards achieving sustainable development goals (Lombardiet al., 2021). Furthermore, the organisations included in the sample are all companies falling within the scope of Directive 95/2014/EU. Therefore, they are required to publish information relating to human rights issues. To ensure a high degree of homogeneity within the sample, we have chosen not to include banking companies (Pizziet al., 2022). We used the Thompson Reuters EIKON database to select the sample and for data extraction.
Asset 4 is a database widely used by academics and non-academics and provides several CSR performance indicators commonly regarded as reliable (Gangiet al., 2019).
The sample is made up of large European companies, chosen for several reasons. First, Europe is trying to raise awareness of social issues in society and private companies
(Matuszak and Roza_ nska, 2021). In compliance with the commitment it made to achieve the sustainable development goals, Europe has declared that it strives to achieve Goal 5 – gender equality–and Goal 3–good health and well-being, among others. Being aware that the achievement of these ambitious goals involves a strong commitment from private companies, the European Commission has introduced some reforms aimed at improving companies’ accountability regarding these issues (Lombardiet al., 2021). Second, it was decided to analyse the public interest entities because they are the companies that fall within the scope of Directive 95/2014/EU. The Directive on non-financial reporting requires public interest entities to inform stakeholders about issues related to respect for human rights (Leopizzi et al., 2020). The law demands communication of this information, as the various stakeholders must be informed and made aware of the sustainable practices conducted during the year. Third, large enterprises have more experience than small and medium-sized enterprises in disclosing ESG information.
We used the Thompson Reuters EIKON database to select the sample and for data extraction.
Asset 4 is a database widely used by academics and non-academics as it provides several CSR performance indicators commonly regarded as reliable (Gangi et al., 2019). All the European listed companies larger than those indicated by Directive 95/2014/EU have been selected. The search returned 1,065 businesses. Banks and insurance companies were excluded from these selected companies. To ensure a high degree of homogeneity within the sample, we have chosen not to include banking companies (Pizziet al., 2022). Companies for which all data were not available were also excluded from the sample. The final sample is made up of 660 companies. To analyse the data, a panel data analysis was performed, one of the quantitative methodologies most used by management, accounting and organisational scholars (Ben-Amaret al., 2021). We used the Stata 14 software to conduct the analyses.
Stata is one of the most widely used software by management and accounting scholars.
Through the Hausman test, it was possible to select the most suitable approach to avoid heteroskedasticity events during the analysis (Hausmanet al., 1984). The test identified the fixed-effects method as the most fitting for the analysis. We adopted a panel regression analysis on data relating to 2017–2020, to evaluate the relationship between the corporate governance characteristic and human rights information. This period was chosen because 2017 was the first year in which the Directive on non-financial reporting came into force. In addition, a further test was performed to corroborate the results.
An indicator extracted from Asset 4 was used to measure human rights communication. It measures the disclosure’s adherence to UN or ILO reporting standards. This variable can take values from 1 to 100. Following the literature, in addition to the independent variable, which measures the percentage of women on the board (Wom), other governance characteristics were considered within the model as control variables (Orazalin, 2019). In the model, the variables Board of directors (Bod) (Cosmaet al., 2022;Orazalin, 2019), independent directors (Ind) (Cosmaet al., 2022) and CSR committee (CsrC) (Cosmaet al., 2022) were considered.
Sustainability compensation incentives (SC) (Derchi et al., 2020) were also considered as proxies of the board’s functions. Finally, other control variables frequently used by previous studies were considered (Orazalin, 2019; Venturelli et al., 2020). Several studies have highlighted how CSR size and performance can influence ESG communication (Cosmaet al., 2022;Derchiet al., 2020). Therefore, to control these dimensions’ effects, we have included the following control variables in the model: the logarithm of total assets (Size), market value (MCV), profitability indicator (Roe) (Cosmaet al., 2022) and an indicator that measures ESG performance (ESGscore) (Minutolo et al., 2019). Table 1 summarises the dependent, independent and control variables used in the regression model.
4. Results
This section is directed to show our results achieving research aims and demonstratingH1. In this direction, Table 2 summarises the analysed sample’s descriptive statistics. First, no
company examined obtained the maximum score in the treatment of social issues. The dependent variable also has an average of about 97 and a standard deviation of about 42.24.
Regarding the independent variable, on average, the company boards are made up of about one-fourth of female directors. On the other hand, 74% of companies have a CSR committee to which they delegate ESG matters.
A correlation analysis was performed before the regression analysis (Cohenet al., 2014) to check for the presence of multicollinearity. Table 3 excludes the presence of strong relationships among the variables. It was therefore possible to continue with the subsequent analyses.
Table 4 shows the results of the panel regression. The independent variable positively influences the dependent variable (b= 0.137,p<0.01). The result confirmsH1and agrees with previous studies that emphasised women directors’ orientation to social issues in comparison with male directors (Orazalin and Mahmood, 2021). Among the other governance variables, the presence of a CSR committee (b= 5.378, p < 0.01) and the board size (b= 4.854,p<0.01) also positively influence the dependent variable. The CSR committee data is consistent with the literature, which emphasises this internal and voluntary body’s role in increasing company transparency (Tingbaniet al., 2020). Control variables MVC and ESGscore also positively affect the dependent variable.
4.1 Robustness test
A logit panel regression was performed to corroborate the result. The dependent variable is therefore a binary variable that acquires a value of 0 if the HRscore score is less than 0.6
Table 1 Dependent, independent and control variables
Code Variable Measure
HRindex Human right index 0–100 (Asset 4)
HRdummy Human right dummy 0–1
Bod Board of directors Number of directors
Wom Board gender diversity Percentage of women directors
Ind Independent directors Percentage of independent directors
CsrC CSR committee 0–1
SC Sustainability compensation policy 0–1
Roe Return of equity Net income/shareholder’s equity
MVC Market value Current market price (per share)
Size Company size Log of total asset
ESGscore ESG score 0–100
Table 2 Descriptive statistics
Variable Obs Mean SD Min Max
HRindex 3,930 54.673 42.24 0 97.107
HRdummy 3,930 0.628 0.483 0 1
BoD 3,955 10.55 3.762 1 26
Gen 3,954 27.34 12.877 0 71.429
Ind 3,948 57.991 22.743 0 100
CsrC 3,960 0.744 0.436 0 1
SC 3,960 0.264 0.441 0 1
ROE 3,817 0.116 0.84 28.311 24.099
Size 3,952 22.483 1.515 15.98 27.132
MVC 3,955 1.696eþ10 3.423eþ10 1328604 4.035eþ11
ESGscore 3,960 56.462 17.591 0.627 93.511
while 1 in the other cases. TheTable 5 results confirm and reinforce those identified in the previous table. The gender variable (b= 0.29,p<0.01) positively influences the dichotomous dependent variable. As previously highlighted, the relationships between the variables CSR committee, size, MVC, ESCscore and the dependent variable also remain unchanged.
5. Discussion
Our research aims to evaluate whether gender can influence CSR knowledge. This paper focuses on human rights, a dimension of CSR knowledge, identifying, in line with previous studies (Brennan et al., 2016), a relevant role in governance as a guide and bearer of corporate values and knowledge. The results confirm H1 and highlight how women directors’ actions influence external communication on human rights issues.
On the one hand, the findings provide further contributions to the relationship between women and CSR knowledge (Heisig and Kannan, 2020). Women’s presence is an element that positively contributes to the conviction of CSR knowledge. Women’s greater presence can represent a useful help in spreading good CSR practices with the economic system’s various actors. By sharing CSR externally, women directors contribute to improving the corporate image. The latter is an expression of the organisation’s feelings, experiences and
Table 3 Matrix of correlations
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(1) HRindex 1.000
(2) HRdummy 0.997 1.000
(3) BoD 0.253 0.258 1.000
(4) Gen 0.230 0.232 0.115 1.000
(5) Ind 0.125 0.129 0.221 0.164 1.000
(6) CsrC 0.342 0.345 0.191 0.167 0.102 1.000
(7) CS 0.109 0.119 0.054 0.131 0.111 0.144 1.000
(8) ROE 0.025 0.026 0.009 0.020 0.004 0.014 0.013 1.000
(9) Size 0.356 0.364 0.537 0.248 0.132 0.316 0.173 0.048 1.000
(10) MCV 0.233 0.242 0.260 0.175 0.141 0.185 0.117 0.035 0.544 1.000
(11) ESGscore 0.473 0.474 0.245 0.327 0.268 0.453 0.201 0.012 0.403 0.201 1.000
Table 4 Regression results
HRindex Coef. St. err. t-Value p-Value
[95% Conf.
interval] Sig
Bod 0.189 0.241 0.79 0.432 0.283 0.661
Gen 0.137 0.043 3.17 0.002 0.052 0.221
Ind 0.027 0.033 0.81 0.42 0.038 0.092
CsrC 5.378 1.415 3.80 0 2.605 8.15
SC 0.881 0.896 0.98 0.325 2.637 0.874
ROE 0.717 0.495 1.45 0.148 0.253 1.687
Size 4.854 0.847 5.73 0 3.194 6.514
MVC 0 0 1.88 0.06 0 0
ESGscore 0.618 0.037 16.57 0 0.545 0.692
Constant 102.021 17.827 5.72 0 136.962 67.081
Mean dependent var 55.178 SD dependent var 42.102
OverallR-squared 0.268 Number of obs 3,777
R-squared within 0.097 R-squared between 0.306
Notes:p<0.01;p<0.1
knowledge (Yasin, 2020). By focusing on social issues, the results are in agreement with that part of the literature that suggested women’s orientation towards social and ethical issues (Glasset al., 2016;Tingbaniet al., 2020). According to previous studies, women can be more attentive to stakeholders (Glass et al., 2016). Therefore, they are more able than men to combine the various parties’ interests with those interested in the business practices and performance. Gender diversity would therefore have repercussions on relational capital (Ferreiraet al., 2020), bringing reputational benefits.
Furthermore, communication aligned with CSR guidelines is a proxy of internal knowledge of these issues. To provide transparent information consistent with the stakeholders’ expectations, there must be internal knowledge within the organisation.
Thus, the presence of women directors represents an external guarantee for more transparent information (Ben-Amaret al., 2017).
On the other hand, the results are in line with the governance literature. The results confirm the evidence highlighting that good governance is crucial for corporate success. Governance directs relations with different groups of stakeholders (Ltifi and Hichri, 2022). Therefore, the company could reduce reputational risks through good governance, paying attention to issues deemed relevant by internal employees as well as by groups of external stakeholders (Alazzaniet al., 2017). This is also reflected in the CSR committee result which, in line with previous studies, is a stakeholder-oriented body (Cosmaet al., 2022).
Furthermore, the work provides further evidence of social information disclosure. The results provide further contributions to the relationship between company size and performance and CSR communication. The companies with the largest size and resources invest the most in CSR practices and communications. The data reported in the European context are not to be considered positive. In spite of the European Commission’s various proposed actions to raise awareness of corporate disclosure, the data show that several companies still tend to neglect these issues. This data is to be considered more negative if we consider the latest risk report from the World Economic Forum. It is clear that social risks have undergone the greatest exacerbation because of the Covid-19 pandemic (World Economic Forum, 2022). Therefore, they are to be considered increasingly important and placed under careful attention by governments and by companies to protect their reputation.
Table 5 Logit regression
HRdummy Coef. St. err. t-Value p-Value
[95% Conf.
interval] Sig
Bod 0.017 0.043 0.39 0.698 0.1 0.067
Gen 0.029 0.008 3.62 0 0.013 0.045
Ind 0.005 0.005 0.88 0.376 0.006 0.016
CsrC 0.896 0.293 3.05 0.002 0.321 1.471
SC 0.025 0.183 0.14 0.89 0.384 0.333
ROE 0.028 0.112 0.25 0.803 0.192 0.248
Size 1.12 0.18 6.21 0 0.766 1.473
MVC 0 0 2.38 0.017 0 0
ESGscore 0.104 0.008 12.81 0 0.088 0.12
Constant 30.903 3.844 8.04 0 38.436 23.37
Constant 3.31 0.143 b b 3.029 3.591
Mean dependent var 0.634 SD dependent var 0.482
Number of obs 3,777 Chi-square 0.354
Prob>Chi2 0.00 Akaike crit. (AIC) 1,810.628
Notes:p<0.01;p<0.05
5.1 Theoretical and practical implications
This paper extends the literature on knowledge sharing. Our findings offer new insights into the role of gender in KM and knowledge sharing, providing theoretical and practical implications. This study fits into an area little explored by KM scholars (Martinset al., 2019).
We provide new contributions to the relationship between sustainability and KM. The study indicates that gender can be a governance tool that can be functional in the sharing of CSR knowledge. The presence of mixed governance can be a useful tool to increase the companies’ relational capital and to share knowledge outside the company. Extending the scant literature on the relationship between tacit knowledge sharing and gender, we suggest that gender affects this dimension. The importance that women attach to sociability and the society could lead them to devote greater efforts to sharing knowledge (Denise and Byosiere, 2007). With the attention to stakeholders, this could increase the company’s CSR knowledge and create conditions for knowledge to increase also among external subjects.
The general increase in CSR knowledge would benefit the company, which, in reputational terms, would have a return on all the efforts and investments made for sustainable practices and communication.
Additionally, this study provides practical contributions for businesses and policymakers as it shows the fragility of social topic disclosure. It could also stimulate gender balance within the board. Although governance is an internal variable within the firm, it has profound external implications for the firm. These external effects could influence the company’s economic, patrimonial and financial equilibrium and also its relational capital. Thus, CSR represents an element, no longer secondary, on which to invest resources and attention.
Companies that want to follow paths oriented towards sustainable development goals and who believe in stakeholder engagement could consider the female representation at decision-making levels. Governance diversified by gender would imply better sharing of CSR knowledge and protection against reputational risks.
It may also be useful for policymakers. Considering recent initiatives, which include sustainable corporate governance and updating of the non-financial reporting directive, this study provides connected evidence. The low level of human rights disclosure in a mandatory disclosure context could be reversed in the coming years. Furthermore, by showing women directors’ new contributions to the positive influence on corporate transparency, policymakers could consider implementing further policies.
6. Conclusions
Sustainability is becoming increasingly important for organisations around the world. The 2030 agenda has set goals to which companies must actively contribute: reduction of emissions, gender equality, etc. Respect for human rights is a relevant element within a society that wants to define itself as civil (Ullahet al., 2021). All businesses produce social impacts (Baudot et al., 2021). Private companies play a fundamental role in the social context in value creation and sharing (Schultzet al., 2013). Therefore, importance must be given both to practical actions and reporting of these issues to provide comprehensive information for stakeholders.
As for sustainability, KM is now considered a key resource for obtaining company results. KM can represent the basis for sustainable development practices to align the company with the guidelines (Martinset al., 2019). Furthermore, the exchange of knowledge between companies and between stakeholders is crucial to ensure sustainable development (Yasin, 2020). To pursue the long-term value creation goal, companies should also increase their information transparency and responsibility. In addition to strengthening the relationship with the different categories of stakeholders, transparent CSR communication has the effect of sharing knowledge and good practices in terms of human rights and increasing CSR knowledge (Gangi et al., 2019).
Furthermore, CSR communication produces positive reputational effects even when companies
do not have loyal customers (Kim, 2019). A greater presence of women on the board could represent an external guarantee of attention to issues relating to human rights and stakeholders’
needs. Ensuring representation of women could support knowledge sharing with all those who interact with the organisation.
6.1 Limitations and future lines of research
This work has some limitations. The study focuses on the issue of human rights. Future studies could analyse the contribution of governance to other aspects of CSR knowledge.
Furthermore, the sample analysed is made up of European listed companies. Future studies could conduct further analyses on SMEs that have fewer constraints than large firms.
Additionally, we did not consider potential endogeneity issues as well as we considered sustainability reports as an external sharing tool. Future studies could consider also analysing the communication conducted for other channels, such as that of social media. These tools allow easier and faster iteration between the company and the various stakeholders. Some governance characteristics most used in the literature have been considered in the present study. Future studies are directed to investigate other types of variables such as ability and background or consider the gender balance within other internal board bodies.
References
Abhayawansa, S., Adams, C.A. and Neesham, C. (2021), “Accountability and governance in pursuit of sustainable development goals: conceptualising how governments create value”,Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 923-945.
Adams, C.A. (2017), “Conceptualising the contemporary corporate value creation process”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 906-931.
Alazzani, A., Hassanein, A. and Aljanadi, Y. (2017), “Impact of gender diversity on social and environmental performance: evidence from Malaysia”,Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 266-283.
Baudot, L., Huang, Z. and Wallace, ·D. (2021), “Stakeholder perceptions of risk in mandatory corporate responsibility disclosure”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 172 No. 1, pp. 151-174.
Bear, S., Rahman, N. and Post, C. (2010), “The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 207-221.
Ben-Amar, W., Bujaki, M., McConomy, B. and McIlkenny, P. (2021), “Gendering merit: how the discourse of merit in diversity disclosures supports the gendered status quo on Canadian corporate boards”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 75, doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102170.
Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M. and McIlkenny, P. (2017), “Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: evidence from the carbon disclosure project”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 369-383.
Bernardi, R.A., Bosco, S.M. and Columb, V.L. (2009), “Does female representation on boards of directors associate with the most ethical companies list”,Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 270-280.
Brennan, N.M., Kirwan, C.E. and Redmond, J. (2016), “Accountability processes in boardrooms a conceptual model of manager-non-executive director information asymmetry”,Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 135-164.
Cammarano, A., Perano, M., Michelino, F., Del Regno, C. and Caputo, M. (2022), “SDG-oriented supply chains: business practices for procurement and distribution”,Sustainability 2022, Vol. 14 No. 3, p. 1325.
Caputo, F., Scuotto, V., Papa, A. and Del Giudice, M. (2021), “From sustainability coercion to social engagement: the turning role of corporate social responsibility”,Corporate Governance and Research &
Development Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 15-31.
Carayannis, E.G., Grigoroudis, E., Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M.R. and Sindakis, S. (2017), “An exploration of contemporary organizational artifacts and routines in a sustainable excellence context”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Carroll, C.E. and Olegario, R. (2020), “Pathways to corporate accountability: corporate reputation and its alternatives”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 163 No. 2, pp. 173-181.
Casadei, A. and Amadei, F. (2010), “The competitive influence of corporate social responsibility and corporate social disclosure in Italian small and medium sized companies: focus on disclosure and competitive drivers”,Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Cillo, V., Gregori, G.L., Daniele, L.M., Caputo, F. and Bitbol-Saba, N. (2022), “Rethinking companies’
culture through knowledge management lens during industry 5.0 transition”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 2485-2498.
Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A.M., Ardito, L. and Del Giudice, M. (2019), “Understanding sustainable innovation: a systematic literature review”,Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1012-1025.
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2014),Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral SciencesPsychology Press, doi:10.4324/9781410606266.
Cosma, S., Principale, S. and Venturelli, A. (2022), “Sustainable governance and climate-change disclosure in European banking: the role of the corporate social responsibility committee”,Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1345-1369.
Daily, C.M. and Dalton, D.R. (2003), “Women in the boardroom: a business imperative”,Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 205-209.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Tobin, J. (2002), “An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 312-343.
Del Giudice, M. and Maggioni, V. (2014), “Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge management within inter-firm networks: a global view”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 841-846.
Denise, J.L. and Byosiere, P. (2007), “Japanese corporations: gender differences in re-defining tacit knowledge”,Women in Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
Derchi, G.-B., Zoni, L. and Dossi, A. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility performance, incentives, and learning effects”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 173 No. 3, pp. 617-641.
Ferreira, J., Mueller, J. and Papa, A. (2020), “Strategic knowledge management: theory, practice and future challenges”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 121-126.
Freeman, R.E. (1984),Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
Gangi, F., Mustilli, M. and Varrone, N. (2019), “The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) knowledge on corporate financial performance: evidence from the European banking industry”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 110-134.
Glass, C., Cook, A. and Ingersoll, A.R. (2016), “Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 495-511.
Gomez-Carrasco, P., Guillamon-Saorin, E. and Garcia Osma, B. (2021), “Stakeholders versus firm communication in social media: the case of twitter and corporate social responsibility information”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 31-62.
Haque, F. and Jones, M.J. (2020), “European firms’ corporate biodiversity disclosures and board gender diversity from 2002 to 2016”,The British Accounting Review, Vol. 52 No. 2, doi:10.1016/j.bar.2020.100893.
Hausman, J., Hall, B. and Griliches, Z. (1984), “Econometric models for count data with an application to the Patents-R&D relationship”,National Bureau of Economic Research, doi:10.3386/t0017.
Heisig, P. and Kannan, S. (2020), “Knowledge management: does gender matter? A systematic review of literature”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1315-1342.
Jamali, D., Samara, G., Zollo, L. and Ciappei, C. (2019), “Is internal CSR really less impactful in individualist and masculine cultures? A multilevel approach”,Management Decision, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 362-375.
Jayasingam, S., Govindasamy, M. and Garib Singh, S.K. (2016), “Instilling affective commitment: insights on what makes knowledge workers want to stay”,Management Research Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 266-288.
Khan, I., Khan, I. and Senturk, I. (2019), “Board diversity and quality of CSR disclosure: evidence from Pakistan”,Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 1187-1203.
Kim, S. (2019), “The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 154 No. 4, pp. 1143-1159.
Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T. and Kim, N.M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility and employee- company identification”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 557-569.
Kim, Y., Park, M.S. and Wier, B. (2012), “Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility?”,The Accounting Review, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 761-796.
Lee, Y., Tao, W., Li, J.Y.Q. and Sun, R. (2020), “Enhancing employees’ knowledge sharing through diversity-oriented leadership and strategic internal communication during the COVID-19 outbreak”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1526-1549.
Leopizzi, R., Iazzi, A., Venturelli, A. and Principale, S. (2020), “Nonfinancial risk disclosure: the ‘state of the art’ of Italian companies”,Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 358-368.
Liu, X. and He, H. (2022), “How do CSR disclosures facilitate knowledge-sharing behaviors?”,Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 328-343.
Lombardi, R., Cosentino, A., Sura, A. and Galeotti, M. (2021), “The impact of the EU directive on non- financial information: novel features of the Italian case”,Meditari Accountancy Research, doi:10.1108/
MEDAR-06-2019-0507.
Lombardi, R., Schimperna, F., Paoloni, P. and Galeotti, M. (2021), “The climate-related information in the changing EU directive on non-financial reporting and disclosure: first evidence by Italian large companies”,Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, doi:10.1108/jaar-04-2021-0117.
Ltifi, M. and Hichri, A. (2022), “The effects of corporate governance on the customer’s recommendations:
a study of the banking sector at the time of COVID-19”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 165-191.
Luca Casali, G. and Perano, M. (2021), “Forty years of research on factors influencing ethical decision making: establishing a future research agenda”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 132, pp. 614-630.
Luo, X. and Du, S. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm innovation”,Marketing Letters, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 703-714.
Martinez-Leon, I.M., Olmedo-Cifuentes, I., Martı´nez-Victoria, M. and Arcas-Lario, N. (2020), “Leadership style and gender: a study of Spanish cooperatives”,Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12-5107.
Martins, V.W.B., Rampasso, I.S., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O.L.G. and Leal Filho, W. (2019), “Knowledge management in the context of sustainability: literature review and opportunities for future research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 229, pp. 489-500.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008), “Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 404-424.
Matuszak, Ł. and Ro_zanska, E. (2021), “Towards 2014/95/EU directive compliance: the case of Poland”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 1052-1076.
Melloni, G. (2015), “Intellectual capital disclosure in integrated reporting: an impression management analysis”,Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 661-680.
Minutolo, M.C., Kristjanpoller, W.D. and Stakeley, J. (2019), “Exploring environmental, social, and governance disclosure effects on the S&P 500 financial performance”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 1083-1095.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage”,The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nguyen, T.M., Nham, T.P., Froese, F.J. and Malik, A. (2019), “Motivation and knowledge sharing: a meta- analysis of main and moderating effects”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 998-1016.
Nikas, A., Doukas, H., Lieu, J., Alvarez Tinoco, R., Charisopoulos, V. and van der Gaast, W. (2017),
“Managing stakeholder knowledge for the evaluation of innovation systems in the face of climate change”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1013-1034.
Orazalin, N. (2019), “Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in an emerging economy: evidence from commercial banks of Kazakhstan”, “Corporate”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 490-507.
Orazalin, N. and Mahmood, M. (2021), “Toward sustainable development: board characteristics, country governance quality, and environmental performance”,Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 3569-3588, doi:10.1002/BSE.2820.
Paoloni, P. and Lombardi, R. (2018), “Advances in gender and cultural research in business and economics (4th ipazia workshop)”, Springer, available at:www.springer.com/series/11960(accessed 24 January 2022).
Paoloni, P. and Lombardi, R. (2022), “Organizational resilience and female entrepreneurship during crises j SpringerLink”, 1st ed., Vol. Sidrea, Springer, available at: https://link.springer.com/book/
9783030894115(accessed 19 January 2022).
Pizzi, S., Del Baldo, M., Caputo, F. and Venturelli, A. (2022), “Voluntary disclosure of sustainable development goals in mandatory non-financial reports: the moderating role of cultural dimension”, Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 83-106.
Rao Jada, U., Mukhopadhyay, S. and Titiyal, R. (2019), “Empowering leadership and innovative work behavior:
a moderated mediation examination”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol23 No. 5, pp. 915-930.
Rossi, M., Festa, G., Chouaibi, S., Fait, M. and Papa, A. (2021), “The effects of business ethics and corporate social responsibility on intellectual capital voluntary disclosure”,Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1-23.
Rossi, M., Festa, G., Papa, A., Kolte, A. and Piccolo, R. (2020), “Knowledge management behaviors in venture capital crossroads: a comparison between IVC and CVC ambidexterity”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 2431-2454.
Russo, S., Schimperna, F., Lombardi, R. and Ruggiero, P. (2022), “Sustainability performance and social media: an explorative analysis”,Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1118-1140.
Sadiq, M., Singh, J., Raza, M. and Mohamad, S. (2020), “The impact of environmental, social and governance index on firm value: evidence from Malaysia”,International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 555-562.
Schultz, F., Castello, I. and Morsing, M. (2013), “The construction of corporate social responsibility in network societies: a communication view”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115 No. 4, pp. 681-692.
Scuotto, V., Le Loarne Lemaire, S., Magni, D. and Maalaoui, A. (2022), “Extending knowledge-based view: future trends of corporate social entrepreneurship to fight the gig economy challenges”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 139, pp. 1111-1122.
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Zafar, A.U., Rehman, S.U. and Islam, T. (2020), “Exploring the influence of knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 2079-2106.
Sharif, S., Lodhi, R.N., Iqbal, K. and Saddique, F. (2021), “Gender disparity in leadership boosts affective commitment and tacit knowledge sharing about libraries”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, doi:10.1108/IJOA-12-2020-2549.
Sheerin, C., Hughes, C. and Garavan, T. (2020), “Gendered practices and tacit knowledge sharing in organizations: a structuration perspective”, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 542-568, doi:10.1080/
13678868.2020.1769402.
Sorour, M.K., Shrives, P.J., El-Sakhawy, A.A. and Soobaroyen, T. (2021), “Exploring the evolving motives underlying corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures in developing countries: the case of ‘political CSR’ reporting”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 1051-1079.
Stella, G.P., Cervellati, E.M., Magni, D., Cillo, V. and Papa, A. (2022), “Shedding light on the impact of financial literacy for corporate social responsibility during the COVID-19 crisis: managerial and financial perspectives”,Management Decision, Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 2801-2823.
Suppiah, V. and Sandhu, M.S. (2011), “Organisational culture’s influence on tacit knowledge-sharing behaviour”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 462-477.
Tang, Z., Hull, C.E. and Rothenberg, S. (2012), “How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 1274-1303.
Tingbani, I., Chithambo, L., Tauringana, V. and Papanikolaou, N. (2020), “Board gender diversity, environmental committee and greenhouse gas voluntary disclosures”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 6, doi:10.1002/bse.2495.
Tønnessen, Ø., Dhir, A. and Fla˚ten, B.T. (2021), “Digital knowledge sharing and creative performance:
work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 170, p. 120866.
Tremblay, M.-S., Gendron, Y. and Malsch, B. (2016), “Gender on board: deconstructing the ‘legitimate’
female director”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol29 No. 1, pp. 165-190.
Ullah, S., Adams, K., Adams, D. and Attah-Boakye, R. (2021), “Multinational corporations and human right violations in emerging economies: do commitment to social and environmental responsibility matter?”,Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 280, doi:10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2020.111689.
Venturelli, A., Principale, S., Ligorio, L. and Cosma, S. (2020), “Walking the talk in family firms. An empirical investigation of CSR communication and practices”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, p. 2064.
World Economic Forum (2022),The Global Risks Report 2022, 17th ed.
Yasin, R. (2020), “Responsible leadership and employees’ turnover intention. explore the mediating roles of ethical climate and corporate image”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Emerald Group Holdings Ltd, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1760-1781.
Zhang, L., Yuan, ·, Shan, G. and Chang, M. (2020), “Can CSR disclosure protect firm reputation during financial restatements?”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 173 No. 1, p. 3.
Corresponding author
Salvatore Principale can be contacted at:[email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details:[email protected]
