European Business & Management

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Research Article |

The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France

The main aim of the current study is to analyze how the corporate social responsibility committee (CSRC) could influence corporate social performance. We focus on specific areas of corporate social responsibility (hereafter CSR), especially protection of human rights, environment and enhancing business ethics, community involvement, corporate governance, and workplace conditions. It is drawn on firms listed on the SBF120 (Société des Bourses Françaises) index consisting of the 120 largest capitalizations listed on the French Stock Exchange market between 2003 and 2018. Using propensity score matching and System Generalized Method of Moments, we run several tests and provide the following findings. First, establishing CSR committees enhances social performance through particular vehicles, such as increasing business involvement in ecological and social projects protecting human rights. Second, several CSRC characteristics have more pronounced effects on CSR performances, while others have marginal effects. For instance, all CSR dimensions are positively associated with directors’ assiduity and negatively related to the CEO involvement in CSRC, although the chair membership enhances CSR performance by improving the employees’ well-being, ethics in businesses, and governance. Women CSRC directors are more concerned about the environment, human rights, and corporate governance. Regarding CSRC functioning, meeting frequency increases human resources and business ethics. Also, CSRC meeting frequency is positively associated with CSR performance, specifically human resources and business ethics issues. Besides, a positive association between board chair membership and human resources, business ethics, and corporate governance is also identified. These results are robust in high CSR-sensitive industries. These findings shed light on the timely role of CSRC in improving CSR strategies and provide support for companies to consider specialized committees that are responsible for CSR-related issues as a mechanism to improve firm performance. Furthermore, it provides managerial recommendations on the profile of CSRC members: the cognitive and individual characteristics are key determinants in CSR involvement and performance. Specifically, more diverse committees help to achieve and enhance different areas of CSR.

Board Composition, Committee Diversity, Governance Quality, Committee Meeting, Committee Membership

APA Style

Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Omri, A. (2023). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France. European Business & Management, 9(6), 136-154. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ebm.20230906.11

ACS Style

Beji, R.; Yousfi, O.; Omri, A. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France. Eur. Bus. Manag. 2023, 9(6), 136-154. doi: 10.11648/j.ebm.20230906.11

AMA Style

Beji R, Yousfi O, Omri A. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France. Eur Bus Manag. 2023;9(6):136-154. doi: 10.11648/j.ebm.20230906.11

Copyright © 2023 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Aboody, D., and Lev, B. (2000). Information asymmetry, R&D, and insider gains. Journal of Finance, 55 (6), 2747-2766.
2. Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorizing. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15, 223-250.
3. Adams, C. A., and McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organizational change. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20, 382-402.
4. Adams, R., and Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of financial economics, 94 (2), 291-309.
5. Adams, R., and Ferreira, D. (2007). A theory of friendly boards. Journal of Finance, 62 (1), 217-250.
6. Adams, R., Hermalin, B., and Weisbach, M. (2010). The Role of Boards of Directors in Corporate Governance: A Conceptual Framework and Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 48 (1), 58-107.
7. Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C. A., Conley, J. M., and Rupp, D. E. (2006). Corporate governance and social responsibility: A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance: an international review, 14 (3), 147-158.
8. Apesteguia, J., Azmat, G., and Iriberri, N., (2012), The impact of gender composition on team performance and decision making: evidence from the field. Management Science, 58 (1), 87-93.
9. Bagh, T., Khan, M. A., Azad, T., Saddique, S., and Khan, M. A. (2017). The Corporate Social Responsibility and Firms’ Financial Performance: Evidence from Financial Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7 (2), 301-308.
10. Banerjee, S. B., Iyer, E. S., and Kashyap, R. K. (2003). Corporate environmentalism: Antecedents and influence of industry type. Journal of marketing, 67 (2), 106-122.
11. Baraibar-Diez, E., & Odriozola, M. D. (2019). CSR committees and their effect on ESG performance in UK, France, Germany, and Spain. Sustainability, 11 (18), 5077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185077
12. Baron, D. P., Harjoto, M. A., and Jo, H. (2011). The economics and politics of corporate social performance. Business and Politics, 13 (2), 1-46.
13. Bartov, E., and Mohanram, P. (2004). Private information, earnings manipulations, and executive stock-option exercises. The Accounting Review, 79 (4), 889-920.
14. 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, 97 (2), 207-221.
15. Beasley, M. S. (1996). An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. The Accounting Review, 71, 443-465.
16. Bebchuk, L. A., Cremers, K. M., and Peyer, U. C. (2011). The CEO pay slice. Journal of financial Economics, 102 (1), 199-221.
17. Bedard, J., Chtourou, S. M., and Courteau, L. (2004). The effect of audit committee expertise, independence, and activity on aggressive earnings management. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 23 (2), 13-35.
18. Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., and Omri, A. (2020). Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-23.
19. Bennouri, M., Chtioui, T., Nagati, H., and Nekhili, M. (2018). Female Board Directorship and Firm Performance: What Really Matters?. Journal of Banking and Finance. 88, 267-291.
20. Bilimoria, D., and Piderit, S. K. (1994). Board committee membership: Effects of sex-based bias. Academy of management journal, 37 (6), 1453-1477.
21. Blundell, R., and Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of econometrics, 87 (1), 115-143.
22. Book, E. W. (2000). Why the best man for the job is a woman: The unique female qualities of leadership. New York: Harper Business.
23. Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of business ethics, 113 (2), 185-197.
24. Boutin-Dufresne, F., and Savaria, P. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial risk. The Journal of investing, 13 (1), 57-66.
25. Burke, R. J. (1997). Women on corporate boards of directors: A needed resource. In Women in corporate management (pp. 37-43). Springer, Dordrecht.
26. Burke, J. J., Hoitash, R., & Hoitash, U. (2019). The heterogeneity of board-level sustainability committees and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 154 (4), 1161-1186.
27. Cai, J., Garner, J. L., and Walkling, R. A. (2009). Electing directors. The Journal of Finance, 64 (5), 2389-2421.
28. Cai, Y., Jo, H., and Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108 (4), 467-480.
29. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., and Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial review, 38 (1), 33-53.
30. Celentano, A., Lepore, L., Pisano, S., D'Amore, G., & Alvino, F. (2020). The Joint effect of board independence and CSR committee on CSR disclosure: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Ownership and Control, 17 (4), 319-328.
31. Chou, H. I., Chung, H., and Yin, X. (2013). Attendance of board meetings and company performance: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37 (11), 4157-4171.
32. Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20 (1), 92-117.
33. Clune, R., Hermanson, D. R., Tompkins, J. G., and Ye, Z. (2014). The nominating committee process: A qualitative examination of board independence and formalization. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31 (3), 748-786.
34. Collier, J., and Esteban, R. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and employee commitment. Business ethics: A European review, 16 (1), 19-33.
35. Conyon, M. J., and He, L. (2017). Firm performance and boardroom gender diversity: A quantile regression approach. Journal of Business Research, 79, 198-211.
36. Cormier, D., and Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental reporting management: a continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and public Policy, 22 (1), 43-62.
37. Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B., and Parker, L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and society, 12 (2), 111-122.
38. Cucari, N., Esposito De Falco, S., and Orlando, B. (2018). Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25 (3), 250-266.
39. Danvila del Valle, I., Esteban, J. M. D., and Pérez, Ó. L. D. F. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability committee inside the board. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260382 (accessed 02 January 2020).
40. Deegan, C., and Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting and business research, 26 (3), 187-199.
41. DeFond, M. L., and Francis, J. R. (2005). Audit research after sarbanes-oxley. Auditing: A journal of practice and theory, 24 (s-1), 5-30.
42. De Villiers, C., Naiker, V., and Van Staden, C. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37 (6), 1636-1663.
43. Dharmapala, D., and Khanna, V. (2018). The impact of mandated corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Indias’ Companies Act of 2013. International Review of law and Economics, 56, 92-104.
44. Donaldson, L., and Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of management, 16 (1), 49-64.
45. Donnelly, R., and Mulcahy, M. (2008). Board structure, ownership, and voluntary disclosure in Ireland. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16 (5), 416-429.
46. Eagly, A. H., and Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 108 (2), 233.
47. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., and Serafeim, G. (2012). The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance (No. W17950). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
48. Elmaghrabi, M. E. (2021). CSR committee attributes and CSR performance: UK evidence. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 21 (5), 892-919.
49. Elstad, B., and Ladegard, G. (2012). Women on corporate boards: key influencers or tokens?. Journal of Management and Governance, 16 (4), 595-615.
50. Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., and Ruiz, S. (2012). Does board gender composition affect corporate social responsibility reporting. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3 (1), 31-38.
51. Firth, M., Fung, P. M., and Rui, O. M. (2007). Ownership, two-tier board structure, and the informativeness of earnings–Evidence from China. Journal of accounting and public policy, 26 (4), 463-496.
52. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.
53. García-Sánchez, I., Gómez-Miranda, M., David, F., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2019). Board independence and GRI-IFC performance standards: The mediating effect of the CSR committee. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225, 554-562.
54. Girod, R., Fricker, Y., and Körffy, A. (1972). Counter-mobility. Social Science Information, 11 (5), 257-267.
55. Godos-Díez, J. L., Cabeza-García, L., and Fernández-González, C. (2018). Relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and internationalisation strategies: a descriptive study in the Spanish context. Administrative Sciences, 8 (4), 57.
56. Graham, J. R., Kim, H., and Leary, M. T. (2017). CEO power and board dynamics. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2938120 (accessed 02 January 2020).
57. Harrison, J. R. (1987). The strategic use of corporate board committees. California Management Review, 30 (1), 109-125.
58. Haywood, H. C., and Dobbs, V. (1964). Motivation and anxiety in high school boys. Journal of Personality, 32, 371-379.
59. Helfaya, A., and Moussa, T. (2017). Do board's corporate social responsibility strategy and orientation influence environmental sustainability disclosure? UK evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26 (8), 1061-1077.
60. Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday Currency.
61. Hermalin, B. E., and Weisbach, M. (1998). Endogenously chosen boards of directors and their monitoring of the CEO. American Economic Review, 88, 96-118.
62. Hillman, A. J., and Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line?. Strategic management journal, 22 (2), 125-139.
63. Hooijberg, R., and DiTomaso, N. (1996). Leadership in and of demographically diverse organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 7 (1), 1-19.
64. Huilong, L., Hong, W., and Liansheng, W. (2014). Removing Vacant Chairs: Does Independent Directors’ Attendance at Board Meetings Matter?. Journal of Business Ethics, 133 (2), 375-393.
65. Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., and Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149 (2), 411-432.
66. Husted, B. W., and de Sousa-Filho, J. M. (2019). Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 102, 220-227.
67. Ibrahim, N. A., and Angelidis, J. P. (1994). Effect of board members’ gender on corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10 (1), 35-41.
68. Jackson, S. E., and Joshi, A. (2011). Work team diversity. In APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 1: Building and developing the organization. (pp. 651-686). American Psychological Association.
69. Jenkins, H., and Yakovleva, N. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. Journal of cleaner production, 14 (3-4), 271-284.
70. Jizi, M. I., Salama, A., Dixon, R., and Stratling, R. (2014). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. Journal of business ethics, 125 (4), 601-615.
71. Kilian, T., and Hennigs, N. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and environmental reporting in controversial industries. European Business Review, 26, 79-101.
72. Kim, K. A., Nofsinger, J. R., and Mohr, D. J. (2010). Corporate Governance, International edition. 3rd ed., London: Pearson.
73. Klein, A. (1998). Firm performance and board committee structure. The Journal of Law and Economics, 41 (1), 275-304.
74. Kock, C. J., Santalo, J., and Diestre, L. (2012). Corporate governance and the environment: what type of governance creates greener companies?. Journal of Management Studies, 49 (3), 492-514.
75. Krishnan, G. V., and Parsons, L. M. (2008). Getting to the bottom line: An exploration of gender and earnings quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 78 (1-2), 65-76.
76. Law Chapple, L., Chen, Z., and Zhang, Y. (2017). Sustainability Committee Effectiveness and CSR Assurance. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2967165 (accessed 12 December 2019).
77. Liao, L., Luo, L., and Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47 (4), 409-424.
78. Line, M., Hawley, H., and Krut, R. (2002). The development of global environmental and social reporting. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9 (1), 69-78.
79. Lipton, M., and Lorsch, J. W. (1992). A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. The business lawyer, 59-77.
80. López, M. V., Garcia, A., and Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index. Journal of business ethics, 75 (3), 285-300.
81. Lovdal, M. L., Bauer, R. A., and Treverton, N. H. (1977). PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEES OF BOARD. Harvard Business Review, 55 (3), 40.
82. Luoma, P., and Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of management journal, 42 (5), 553-563.
83. Mallin, C. A., and Michelon, G. (2011). Board reputation attributes and corporate social performance: An empirical investigation of the US best corporate citizens. Accounting and Business Research, 41 (2), 119-144.
84. Mangena, M., and Pike, R. (2005). The effect of audit committee shareholding, financial expertise and size on interim financial disclosures. Accounting and Business Research, 35 (4), 327-49.
85. Mata, J., and Machado, J. A. (1996). Firm start-up size: A conditional quantile approach. European Economic Review, 40 (6), 1305-1323.
86. Mattis, M. C. (2000). Women corporate directors in the United States. In Women on corporate boards of directors (pp. 43-56). Springer, Dordrecht.
87. Melo, T., and Garrido-Morgado, A. (2012). Corporate reputation: A combination of social responsibility and industry. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 19 (1), 11-31.
88. Michelon, G., and Parbonetti, A. (2012). The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of management and governance, 16 (3), 477-509.
89. Muller-Kahle, M. I., and Lewellyn, K. B. (2011). Did board configuration matter? The case of US subprime lenders. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19 (5), 405-417.
90. Nurulyasmin, A., Ju, B., Afzalur, R., and Jeff, G. (2017). Board Independence and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting in Malaysia. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 11 (2), 61-85.
91. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., and Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies, 24 (3), 403-441.
92. Peters, G. F., and Romi, A. M. (2015). The association between sustainability governance characteristics and the assurance of corporate sustainability reports. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 34 (1), 163-198.
93. Peters, G. F., and Romi, A. M. (2014). Does the voluntary adoption of corporate governance mechanisms improve environmental risk disclosures? Evidence from greenhouse gas emission accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 125 (4), 637-666.
94. Peterson, C. A., and Philpot, J. (2007). Women’s roles on US Fortune 500 boards: Director expertise and committee memberships. Journal of Business Ethics, 72 (2), 177-196.
95. Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organisations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Rob Publishers.
96. Ponnu, C. H., and Karthigeyan, R. M. (2010). Board independence and corporate performance: Evidence from Malaysia. African journal of business management, 4 (6), 858-868.
97. Porter, M. K., and Kramer, E. J. (2011). MR (2011): Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89 (1/2), 62-77.
98. Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., Bel-Oms, I., and Olcina-Sempere, G. (2016). Corporate governance, female directors and quality of financial information. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25 (4), 363-385.
99. Radu, C., Smaili, N. (2021). Alignment Versus Monitoring: An Examination of the Effect of the CSR Committee and CSR-Linked Executive Compensation on CSR Performance. Journal of Business Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04904-2
100. Rahman, A., and Widyasari, K. N. (2008). The analysis of company characteristic influence toward CSR disclosure: empirical evidence of manufacturing companies listed in JSX. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia, 12 (1).
101. Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of business ethics, 88 (2), 351-366.
102. Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., and Cho, C. H. (2013). Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 114 (1), 107-129.
103. Rodriguez-Ariza, L., Martínez-Ferrero, J., and Bermejo-Sánchez, M. (2016). Consequences of earnings management for corporate reputation. Accounting Research Journal.
104. Rosenbaum, P. R., and Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70 (1), 41-55.
105. Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
106. Rosenstein, S., and Wyatt, J. G. (1997). Inside directors, board effectiveness, and shareholder wealth. Journal of financial Economics, 44 (2), 229-250.
107. Rowley, T., and Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business and Society, 39 (4), 397-418.
108. Ryan, M. K., and Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 549-572.
109. Salim, R., Arjomandi, A., and Seufert, J. H. (2016). Does corporate governance affect Australian banks’ performance?. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 43, 113-125.
110. Sánchez, I., Gómez-Miranda, M., David, F., and Lázaro, C. (2019). Board independence and GRI-IFC Performance Standards: the mediating effect of the CSR committee. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225, 554-562.
111. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., and Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The accounting review, 84 (3), 937-967.
112. Spira, L. F., and Bender, R. (2004). Compare and contrast: Perspectives on board committees. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12 (4), 489-499.
113. Spitzeck, H. (2009). The development of governance structures for corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society, 9 (4), 495-505.
114. Stetler, N. Z., (2002). Gender differences in leadership: Current social issues and future organizational. Journal of Leadership studies, 8 (4), 88-99.
115. Sturdivant, F. D., and Ginter, J. L. (1977). Corporate social responsiveness: Management attitudes and economic performance. California management review, 19 (3), 30-39.
116. Sundarasen, S. D. D., Je-Yen, T., and Rajangam, N. (2016). Board composition and corporate social responsibility in an emerging market. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 16, 35-53.
117. Surroca, J., and Tribó, J. A. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 35 (5-6), 748-789.
118. Uzun, H., Szewczyk, S. H., and Varma, R. (2004). Board composition and corporate fraud. Financial Analysts Journal, 60 (3), 33-43.
119. Vafeas, N. (1999). Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 53 (1), 113-142.
120. Velte, P., Stawinoga, M. (2020). Do chief sustainability officers and CSR committees influence CSR-related outcomes? A structured literature review based on empirical-quantitative research findings. Journal of Management Control, 31 (4), 333-77.
121. Vinacke, W. E., and Gullickson, G. R. (1964). Age and sex differences in the formation of coalitions. Child Development, 1217-1231.
122. Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., and Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link?. Strategic Management Journal, 33 (8), 885-913.
123. Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42 (1), 1-10.
124. Yeh, C. C., Kuo, L., and Yu, H. C. (2011). Disclosure of corporate social responsibility and value creation: evidence from China. Transnational Corporations Review, 3 (3), 34-50.
125. Zhang, J. Q., Zhu, H., and Ding, H. B. (2013). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of business ethics, 114 (3), 381-39.