The Relationship between the Geographical Proximity of Institutional Owners and Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility by Considering the Moderating Role of Corporate Governance Mechanisms

Iranian Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance

مقاله 2، دوره 7، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 23، مرداد 2023، صفحه 17-37   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/ijaaf.2023.42485.1134

نویسندگان

Yasaman Nikparast؛ Ameneh Bazrafshan^*

Department of Accounting, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

چکیده

This research aims to investigate the impact of the geographical proximity of institutional owners on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure while considering the moderating role of corporate governance mechanisms. The study examines 105 companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange between 2014 and 2020, using financial statements and independent auditor's reports as primary data sources. It adopts a correlational research design, categorizing it as descriptive and post-event due to its longitudinal time horizon and use of historical information. Findings suggest that ownership of local institutional owners alone does not significantly influence CSR disclosure. However, research and development expenditures and the independence and expertise of the audit committee moderate the relationship between the geographical proximity of institutional owners and CSR disclosure. Notably, companies with higher R&D expenditures and independent and specialized audit committees disclose more CSR information with increasing ownership of local institutional owners. Conversely, board independence, audit firm type, and CEO/chairman duality do not significantly affect this relationship. This study is innovative, as no previous research has explored the connection between the geographical proximity of institutional owners and CSR disclosure.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Geographical Proximity of Institutional Owners؛ Corporate Governance؛ Social Responsibility

مراجع

1. Abbott, W. F., and Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of management journal, 22(3), pp. 501-515. https://doi.org/10.5465/255740
2. Agrawal, A. K. (2012). Corporate governance objectives of labor union shareholders: Evidence from proxy voting. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(1), pp. 187-226. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr081
3. Ball, A., Owen, D. L., and Gray, R. (2000). External transparency or internal capture? The role of third‐party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports1 1. Business strategy and the environment, 9(1), pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10990836(200001/02)9:1<1::AID-BSE227>3.0.CO;2-H

4. Be´ dard, 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 & theory, 23(2), pp. 13-35. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2004.23.2.13
5. Brickley, J. A., Lease, R. C., and Smith Jr, C. W. (1988). Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments. Journal of financial economics, 20, pp. 267-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(88)90047-5
6. Bushee, B. J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73(3), pp. 305-333.
7. Chaganti, R., and Damanpour, F. (1991). Institutional ownership, capital structure, and firm performance. Strategic management journal, 12(7), pp. 479-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120702
8. Chang, K., Kabongo, J., and Li, Y. (2021). Geographic proximity, long-term institutional ownership, and corporate social responsibility. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 56(1), pp. 297-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-020-00895-9
9. Chang, K., Kang, E., and Li, Y. (2016). Effect of institutional ownership on dividends: An agency-theory-based analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), pp. 2551-2559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.088
10. Cheng, X., Wang, H. H., and Wang, X. (2022). Common institutional ownership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Banking & Finance, 136. pp. 106-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106218
11. Choi, B. B., Lee, D., and Psaros, J. (2013). An analysis of Australian company carbon emission disclosures. Pacific Accounting Review. 25(1), pp. 58-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/01140581311318968
12. Coffey, B. S., and Fryxell, G. E. (1991). Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: An empirical examination. Journal of business ethics, 10(6), pp. 437-444.
13. Coval, J. D., and Moskowitz, T. J. (2001). The geography of investment: Informed trading and asset prices. Journal of Political Economy, 109(4), pp. 811-841.
14. Dong, B., and Robinson, D. (2018). Auditor-client geographic proximity and audit report timeliness. Advances in Accounting, 40, pp. 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2017.12.001
15. Giannarakis, G. (2014). The determinants influencing the extent of CSR disclosure. International Journal of Law and Management, 56(5), pp. 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-05-2013-0021
16. Hadani, M., Goranova, M., and Khan, R. (2011). Institutional investors, shareholder activism, and earnings management. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), pp. 1352-1360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.004
17. Hasas-Yeganeh, Y, and Pouriansab, A. (2005). The role of institutional owners in the governance of joint stock companies. Accountant, 164(19), pp. 3-5. (In Persian).
18. Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., and Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(5), pp. 443-459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00702.x
19. Jensen, K., Kim, J. M., and Yi, H. (2015). The geography of US auditors: information quality and monitoring costs by local versus non-local auditors. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 44(3), pp. 513-549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-013-0416-2
20. Johnson, R. A., and Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of management journal, 42(5), pp. 564-576. https://doi.org/10.5465/256977
21. Kang, J. K., and Kim, J. M. (2008). The geography of block acquisitions. The Journal of Finance, 63(6), pp. 2817-2858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01414.x
22. Karamanou, I., and Vafeas, N. (2005). The association between corporate boards, audit committees, and management earnings forecasts: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(3), pp. 453-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2005.00177.x
23. Kordsachia, O., Focke, M., and Velte, P. (2021). Do sustainable institutional investors contribute to firms’ environmental performance? Empirical evidence from Europe. Review of Managerial Science, 16, pp. 1409-1436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00484-7.
24. Martínez-Ferrero, J.; Lozano, M.-B. (2021). The Nonlinear Relation between Institutional Ownership and Environmental, Social and Governance Performance in Emerging Countries, 13(3), pp. 15-86. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13031586.
25. Motta, E. M. and Uchida, K. (2018). Institutional investors, corporate social responsibility, and stock price performance. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. 47, pp. 91-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie.2017.12.002
26. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review, 16(1), pp. 145-179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
27. Sandhu, H. S., and Kapoor, S. (2010). Corporate social responsibility initiatives: an analysis of voluntary corporate disclosure. South Asian Journal of Management, 17(2), pp. 47-80.