Processing, Please wait...

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Decision Science Letters » An empirical study of the relationship between the busy outside directors and indicators of ESG performance

Journals

  • IJIEC (777)
  • MSL (2643)
  • DSL (690)
  • CCL (528)
  • USCM (1092)
  • ESM (421)
  • AC (562)
  • JPM (293)
  • IJDS (952)
  • JFS (96)
  • HE (32)
  • SCI (26)

DSL Volumes

    • Volume 1 (10)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)
    • Volume 2 (30)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • Volume 3 (53)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • Volume 4 (48)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (12)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (12)
    • Volume 5 (39)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • Volume 6 (30)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (7)
    • Volume 7 (41)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (17)
    • Volume 8 (38)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • Volume 9 (39)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (9)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • Volume 10 (43)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • Volume 11 (49)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (9)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (17)
    • Volume 12 (64)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (24)
      • Issue 3 (13)
      • Issue 4 (15)
    • Volume 13 (78)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (18)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (20)
    • Volume 14 (87)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (23)
      • Issue 3 (25)
      • Issue 4 (18)
    • Volume 15 (41)
      • Issue 1 (19)
      • Issue 2 (22)

Keywords

Supply chain management(168)
Jordan(165)
Vietnam(151)
Customer satisfaction(120)
Performance(115)
Supply chain(112)
Service quality(98)
Competitive advantage(97)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
SMEs(89)
optimization(87)
Artificial intelligence(85)
Financial performance(84)
Sustainability(84)
Trust(83)
TOPSIS(83)
Job satisfaction(81)
Factor analysis(78)
Genetic Algorithm(78)
Social media(78)


» Show all keywords

Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(66)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(64)
Endri Endri(45)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Hotlan Siagian(40)
Dmaithan Almajali(37)
Jumadil Saputra(36)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Ahmad Makui(33)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Sautma Ronni Basana(31)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Hassan Ghodrati(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Prasadja Ricardianto(28)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(28)


» Show all authors

Countries

Iran(2190)
Indonesia(1311)
Jordan(813)
India(793)
Vietnam(510)
Saudi Arabia(477)
Malaysia(444)
China(231)
United Arab Emirates(226)
Thailand(160)
United States(114)
Ukraine(110)
Turkey(110)
Egypt(105)
Peru(94)
Canada(92)
Morocco(86)
Pakistan(85)
United Kingdom(80)
Nigeria(78)


» Show all countries

Decision Science Letters

ISSN 1929-5812 (Online) - ISSN 1929-5804 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 11 Issue 3 pp. 323-332 , 2022

An empirical study of the relationship between the busy outside directors and indicators of ESG performance Pages 323-332 Right click to download the paper Download PDF

Authors: Amara Tijani, Ali Ahmadi

DOI: 10.5267/j.dsl.2022.2.001

Keywords: Board of directors, Busy directors, ESG performance

Abstract: In this article, we analyse whether the management structure of a company plays a role in the sustainability of companies. More specifically, we study the impact of occupied outside directors, outside directors sitting on several boards of directors, on the environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of the company. We collect information about board characteristics, information about the board and management from MSCI ESG Research and financial information from Compustat. The study collects data based on panel data, which ranges from 2014 to 2020. The final sample consists of 550 US companies over a five-year period and contains 3850 firm-year observations. The study finds a positive relationship between busy outside directors and ESG performance. Busy outside directors have a positive impact not only on the overall ESG score, but also on individual ESG components. The environmental score is most affected by busy external directors, while the governance score appears to be little affected. Contrary to the theory that busy outside directors are overly engaged and degrade the fixed value, the findings support the theory that busy outside directors improve a company's sustainability performance because of their engagement, experience and the ESG performance.

How to cite this paper
Tijani, A & Ahmadi, A. (2022). An empirical study of the relationship between the busy outside directors and indicators of ESG performance.Decision Science Letters , 11(3), 323-332.

Refrences
Aigbedo, H. (2021). An empirical analysis of the effect of financial performance on environmental performance of companies in global supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 121741.
Aguilera, R. V., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Marano, V., & Tashman, P. A. (2021). The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 0149206321991212.
Alsayegh, M. F., Abdul Rahman, R., & Homayoun, S. (2020). Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability, 12(9), 3910.
Bae, S. M., Masud, M., Kaium, A., & Kim, J. D. (2018). A cross-country investigation of corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosure: A signaling theory perspective. Sustainability, 10(8), 2611.
Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., & Omri, A. (2020). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-23.
Bolourian, S., Angus, A., & Alinaghian, L. (2020). The impact of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility at the board-level: A critical assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125752.
Chen, S. S., Chen, Y. S., Kang, J. K., & Peng, S. C. (2020). Board structure, director expertise, and advisory role of outside directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 138(2), 483-503.
Chintrakarn, P., Jiraporn, P., & Treepongkaruna, S. (2021). How do independent directors view corporate social responsibility (CSR) during a stressful time? Evidence from the financial crisis. International Review of Economics & Finance, 71, 143-160.
Crifo, P., Escrig-Olmedo, E., & Mottis, N. (2019). Corporate governance as a key driver of corporate sustainability in France: The role of board members and investor relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4), 1127-1146.
Cuadrado‐Ballesteros, B., Martínez‐Ferrero, J., & García‐Sánchez, I. M. (2017). Board structure to enhance social responsibility development: A qualitative comparative analysis of US companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(6), 524-542.
Cucari, N., Esposito de Falco, S., & 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.
Dahya, J., Golubov, A., Petmezas, D., & Travlos, N. G. (2019). Governance mandates, outside directors, and acquirer performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 59, 218-238.
Dwekat, A., Seguí‐Mas, E., Tormo‐Carbó, G., & Carmona, P. (2020). Corporate governance configurations and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Qualitative comparative analysis of audit committee and board characteristics. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2879-2892.
Fredriksson, A., Kiran, A., & Niemi, L. (2020). Reputation capital of directorships and demand for audit quality. European Accounting Review, 29(5), 901-926.
Fernández-Temprano, M. A., & Tejerina-Gaite, F. (2020). Types of director, board diversity and firm performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.
Ferris, S. P., & Liao, M. Y. S. (2019). Busy boards and corporate earnings management: an international analysis. Review of Accounting and Finance.
García‐Sánchez, I. M., Aibar‐Guzmán, B., Aibar‐Guzmán, C., & Azevedo, T. C. (2020). CEO ability and sustainability disclosures: The mediating effect of corporate social responsibility performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1565-1577.
Gerged, A. M., Beddewela, E., & Cowton, C. J. (2021). Is corporate environmental disclosure associated with firm value? A multicountry study of Gulf Cooperation Council firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 185-203.
Harymawan, I., Nasih, M., Ratri, M. C., & Nowland, J. (2019). CEO busyness and firm performance: evidence from Indonesia. Heliyon, 5(5), e01601.
Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 411-432.
Jizi, M. (2017). The influence of board composition on sustainable development disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5), 640-655.
Kanojia, S., Sharma, J. P., & Jain, S. (2020). Board Structure, Board Diversity and Corporate Governance: Evidence from Listed Indian Companies. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 19(1).
Mans-Kemp, N., Viviers, S., & Weir, J. (2020). Investigating the extent and impact of director overboardedness using a comprehensive measure. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.
Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N., Bansal, P., & Aragón‐Correa, J. A. (2019). Older and wiser: How CEOs’ time perspective influences long‐term investments in environmentally responsible technologies. British Journal of Management, 30(1), 134-150.
Mohapatra, M. R., & Mishra, C. S. (2021). Impact of multi-industry directorship on firm performance: a study with reference to India. Accounting Research Journal.
Harjoto, M. A., & Wang, Y. (2020). Board of directors network centrality and environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.
Naciti, V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance, Journal of Cleaner Production 237, 1-8.
Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N., Aguilera‐Caracuel, J., & Morales‐Raya, M. (2016). Corporate governance and environmental sustainability: The moderating role of the national institutional context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(3), 150-164.
Rao, K. K., & Tilt, C. (2020). Gender and CSR decisions: perspectives from Australian boards. Meditari Accountancy Research.
Saleem, I., Khan, M. N. A., Hasan, R., & Ashfaq, M. (2020). Corporate board for innovative managerial control: implications of corporate governance deviance perspective. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.
Saleh, M. W., Shurafa, R., Shukeri, S. N., Nour, A. I., & Maigosh, Z. S. (2020). The effect of board multiple directorships and CEO characteristics on firm performance: evidence from Palestine. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies.
Salhi, B. (2021). The Relationship between CEO Psychological Biases, Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(7), 317.
Tan, K. M., Kamarudin, F., Noordin, B. A. A., & Rahim, N. A. (2019). Firm efficiency of East Asia countries: the impact of board busyness. Vision, 23(2), 111-124.
Trinh, V. Q., Aljughaiman, A. A., & Cao, N. D. (2020). Fetching better deals from creditors: Board busyness, agency relationships and the bank cost of debt. International Review of Financial Analysis, 69, 101472.
Treffers, S. R., & Lippert, R. K. (2020). Condominium self-governance? Issues, external interests, and the limits of statutory reform. Housing Studies, 35(6), 1025-1049.
Uyar, A., Kuzey, C., Kilic, M., & Karaman, A. S. (2021). Board structure, financial performance, corporate social responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: Disentangling the connection in healthcare. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
Valbuena‐Hernandez, J. P., & Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N. (2021). Encouraging corporate sustainability through effective strategic partnerships. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
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, 1-45.
Yang, H., Yao, D., & Qu, X. (2021). How does independent directors’ reputation influence pay‐for‐performance? Evidence from China. Accounting & Finance.
Yu, S. H., & Liang, W. C. (2020). Exploring the determinants of strategic corporate social responsibility: An empirical examination. Sustainability, 12(6), 2368.
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Journal: Decision Science Letters | Year: 2022 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Views: 2195 | Reviews: 0

Related Articles:
  • The effect of applying institutional governance principles in the accountin ...
  • he role of corporate governance in enhancing the performance of Jordanian c ...
  • The controlling power of royal family members on the board of directors and ...
  • The effect of corporate governance characteristics on the performance of Jo ...
  • The role of gender in corporate governance: A state-of-art review

Add Reviews

Name:*
E-Mail:
Review:
Bold Italic Underline Strike | Align left Center Align right | Insert smilies Insert link URLInsert protected URL Select color | Add Hidden Text Insert Quote Convert selected text from selection to Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet Insert spoiler
winkwinkedsmileam
belayfeelfellowlaughing
lollovenorecourse
requestsadtonguewassat
cryingwhatbullyangry
Security Code: *
Include security image CAPCHA.
Refresh Code

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com