Corporate governance and corporate social disclosures: a meta-analytical review

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to investigate the association between corporate governance and corporate social disclosures (CSD). Design/methodology/approach Data analysis has been conducted on 29 prior studies published between 2004 and 2016 for the purpose of integrating the findings across studies. The study uses the meta-analysis instrument developed by Hunter et al. (1982). Findings The investigation finds a significant positive association between board size, the frequency of board meetings and auditors’ credibility with CSD. Both the managerial and concentrated ownership have a significant but negative association with CSD. In contrast, board independence, board gender diversity, the composition of non-executive directors, government ownership, foreign ownership and institutional ownership are insignificantly and positively associated with CSD. CEO duality is also insignificant with CSD but indicates a negative association. The study further investigates that the association between board gender diversity and CSD affected by the differences of the country of study. Originality/value This paper adds significance to the extant academic literature as well as assists the appropriate policy maker in assessing the determinants of CSD from the viewpoints of corporate governance. It further aims to reconcile the findings of the previous studies around the world, and also for the developed and developing countries separately.

Corporate governance and environmental social governance disclosure: A meta‐analytical review

“…This result synthetizes 1,754.This is consistent with previous academic findings byMajumder et al (2017),Rashid andLodh (2008), andMohd Ghazali (2007). This is suggested by the confidence interval that is in the negative side of the x-axis of the forest plot (Figure 2), with lower and upper limits at [−0.31, −0.06].…”

“…Previous literature on the association between CEO duality and voluntary disclosure is inconclusive (and mostly insignificant) too Sundarasen, Je-Yen, and Rajangam (2016). This is in line with the meta-analysis on corporate social disclosure byMajumder et al (2017). find an insignificant negative relationship Giannarakis (2014).…”

“…In addition, many corporate governance characteristics have been believed to be explanatory variables for the level of disclosure. Majumder, Akter, and Li (2017), analyzing 29 studies published from 2004 to 2016 found that board size, the frequency of board meetings, and auditors' credibility are significantly and positively associated with corporate social disclosure. This result is confirmed by many empirical papers but also by meta-analysis paper.…”

“…Some brief reviews of empirical paper is shown by Hussain, Rigoni, and Orij (2018), Rao and Tilt (2016), and Cucari et al (2018); therefore, in this section, we focus only on a brief review of meta-analysis. Majumder, Akter, and Li (2017), analyzing 29 studies published from 2004 to 2016 found that board size, the frequency of board meetings, and auditors' credibility are significantly and positively associated with corporate social disclosure. Both the managerial and concentrated ownership are also a significant but negative association with corporate social disclosure.…”

“…In terms of policy implication, it means that the increase in one of the independent variables included in our analysis may enhance the voluntary disclosure of the company.4.1 | Subgroup analysisA second method for investigating possible explanations of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis is to perform a subgroup analysis(Donegan, Williams, Dias, Tudur-Smith, & Welton, 2015;Esteves, Majzoub, & Agarwal, 2017;Majumder et al, 2017). Thus, we can reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that there is an effect.…”