Political connection, ownership concentration, and corporate social responsibility disclosure quality (CSRD): empirical evidence from Jordan
Tóm tắt
One of the main goals of this study is to investigate whether politically connected firms have a different tendency toward disclosing CSR information compared to those without political connections. Another purpose of this research is to add to the existing literature by looking into the impact of political connections in moderating the relationship between ownership concentration and CSRD. We collect data on CSR activities undertaken by a group of 94 non-financial Jordanian companies listed on the Amman Stock Exchange using the content analysis approach. From 2010 to 2019, 940 yearly reports were evaluated for this study. Also, the study hypotheses are tested using Ordinary Least Squares regression (OLS). In Jordan, politically connected companies are more likely to disclose high-quality CSRD than unconnected companies. Furthermore, the findings revealed that CSRD is likely to be negatively impacted by ownership concentration. However, political ties can moderate the relationship between ownership concentration and the disclosure practice of companies included in our sample. The regression analysis results show that closely held businesses with political ties are more likely to reveal high-quality CSRD than businesses without political ties. The study adds to the debate over CSRD by shedding light on the role of political ties and ownership structure (particularly ownership concentration) in influencing CSRD by businesses. The findings of the study can help managers of Jordanian companies listed on the stock exchange make better decisions about their CSRD and other related disclosure, such as environmental disclosure. This is the first study to look at how political nexuses can moderate the relationship between firm CSRD and political connections in Jordan. As a result, it significantly adds to previous research.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abdullah, S.N., N.R. Mohamed, and M.Z. Mokhtar. 2011. Board independence, ownership and CSR of Malaysian large firms. Corporate Ownership and Control 8 (3): 417–431.
Abu Qa’dan, M.B., and M.S. Suwaidan. 2018. Board composition, ownership structure and corporate social responsibility disclosure: The case of Jordan. Social Responsibility Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2017-0225.
Agrawal, A., and C.R. Knoeber. 2001. Do some outside directors play a political role? The Journal of Law and Economics 44 (1): 179–198.
Ahmed Haji, A. 2013. Corporate social responsibility disclosures over time: Evidence from Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal 28 (7): 647–676.
Al Amosh, H., and S.F. Khatib. 2021. Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure of sustainability performance: The case of Jordan. SN Business and Economics 1 (12): 1–22.
Al Amosh, H., and S.F.A. Khatib. 2022a. Ownership structure and environmental, social and governance performance disclosure: The moderating role of the board independence. Journal of Business and Socio-Economic Development 2 (1): 49–66.
Al Amosh, H., and S.F.A. Khatib. 2022b. Websites visits and financial performance for GCC Banks: The moderating role of environmental, review social and governance performance. Global Business. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509221109576.
Ali, W., J.G. Frynas, and Z. Mahmood. 2017. Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in developed and developing countries: A literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 24 (4): 273–294.
Alshbili, I., A.A. Elamer, and E. Beddewela. 2020. Ownership types, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Empirical evidence from a developing country. Accounting Research Journal 33 (1): 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-03-2018-0060.
Alshirah, M.H., A.F. Alshira’h, and A. Lutfi. 2021. Political connection, family ownership and corporate risk disclosure: Empirical evidence from Jordan. Meditari Accountancy Research 30: 1241–1264.
Al-Sraheen, D.A.-D., R.M. Saleh, and M.H. Alsmadi. 2019. Cosmetic accounting practices among jordanian firms? The role of ownership concentration and political influence. Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research 17 (1): 18–25.
Amran, A., S.P. Lee, and S.S. Devi. 2014. The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment 23 (4): 217–235.
Ananzeh, H. 2022. Corporate governance and the quality of CSR disclosure: Lessons from an emerging economy. Society and Business Review 17: 281–306.
Ananzeh, H., H. Alshurafat, and K. Hussainey. 2021. Do firm characteristics and ownership structure affect corporate philanthropic contributions in Jordan? Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 20: 789–808.
Ananzeh, H., H. Alshurafat, A. Bugshan, and K. Hussainey. 2022. The impact of corporate governance on forward-looking CSR disclosure. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-10-2021-0379.
Aronson, E., T.D. Wilson, and R.M. Akert. 2005. Social Psychology, 2005. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Instructor.
Bansal, S., M. Lopez-Perez, and L. Rodriguez-Ariza. 2018. Board independence and corporate social responsibility disclosure: The mediating role of the presence of family ownership. Journal of Administrative Sciences 8 (3): 33.
Bataineh, H., M. Abuaddous, and E. Alabood. 2018. The effect of family ownership and board characteristics on earnings management: Evidence From Jordan. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal 22 (4): 1–17.
Belal, A.R., and S. Cooper. 2011. The absence of corporate social responsibility reporting in Bangladesh. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (7): 654–667.
Beretta, S., and S. Bozzolan. 2004. A framework for the analysis of firm risk communication. The International Journal of Accounting 39 (3): 265–288.
Boubakri, N., J.-C. Cosset, and W. Saffar. 2008. Political connections of newly privatized firms. Journal of Corporate Finance 14 (5): 654–673.
Bouten, L., P. Everaert, L. Van Liedekerke, L. De Moor, and J. Christiaens. 2011. Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture? Accounting Forum 35 (3): 187–204.
Chau, G.K., and S.J. Gray. 2002. Ownership structure and corporate voluntary disclosure in Hong Kong and Singapore. The International Journal of Accounting 37 (2): 247–265.
Chau, G., and S.J. Gray. 2010. Family ownership, board independence and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 19 (2): 93–109.
Chi, W., S.J. Wu, and Z. Zheng. 2020. Determinants and consequences of voluntary corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from private firms. British Accounting Review 52 (6): 100939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100939.
Chiu, T.-K., and Y.-H. Wang. 2015. Determinants of social disclosure quality in Taiwan: An application of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics 129 (2): 379–398.
Dienes, D., and P. Velte. 2016. The impact of supervisory board composition on CSR reporting. Evidence from the German two-tier system. Sustainability 8 (1): 63.
Erhemjamts, O., Q. Li, and A. Venkateswaran. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and its impact on firms’ investment policy, organizational structure, and performance. Journal of Business Ethics 118 (2): 395–412.
Faccio, M. 2006. Politically connected firms. American Economic Review 96 (1): 369–386.
Faccio, M. 2010. Differences between politically connected and nonconnected firms: A cross-country analysis. Financial management 39 (3): 905–928.
Fahad, P., and K.B. Nidheesh. 2020. Determinants of CSR disclosure: An evidence from India. Journal of Indian Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-06-2018-0171.
Fahad, P., and P.M. Rahman. 2020. Impact of corporate governance on CSR disclosure. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 17 (2): 155–167.
Fan, J.P.H., T.J. Wong, and T. Zhang. 2007. Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance, and Post-IPO performance of China’s newly partially privatized firms. Journal of financial economics 84 (2): 330–357.
Francis, B.B., I. Hasan, and X. Sun. 2009. Political connections and the process of going public: Evidence from China. Journal of International Money and Finance 28 (4): 696–719.
Freeman, E., and A. Moutchnik. 2013. Stakeholder management and CSR: Questions and answers. uwf UmweltWirtschaftsForum 21 (1–2): 5–9.
Gujarati, D.N. 2003. Basic econometrics. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Habbash, M. 2016. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Social Responsibility Journal 12 (4): 740–754.
Haddad, A., W. AlShattarat, N. AbuGhazaleh, and H. Nobanee. 2015. The impact of ownership structure and family board domination on voluntary disclosure for Jordanian listed companies. Eurasian Business Review 5 (2): 203–234.
Haddad, A.E., A.E. Haddad, W.M. Sbeiti, W.M. Sbeiti, A. Qasim, and A. Qasim. 2017. Accounting legislation, corporate governance codes and disclosure in Jordan: a review. International Journal of Law and Management 59 (1): 147–176.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education Inc.
Hillman, A.J. 2005. Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? Journal of management 31 (3): 464–481.
Johnson, S., and T. Mitton. 2003. Cronyism and capital controls: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of financial economics 67 (2): 351–382.
Jones, T.M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of management review 20 (2): 404–437.
Khan, A., M. Muttakin, and J. Siddiqui. 2013. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics 114 (2): 207–223.
Khan, M., G. Serafeim, and A. Yoon. 2016. Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The accounting review 91 (6): 1697–1724.
Khatib, S.F.A., D.F. Abdullah, A.A. Elamer, and R. Abueid. 2021. Nudging toward diversity in the boardroom: A systematic literature review of board diversity of financial institutions. Business Strategy and the Environment 30 (2): 985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2665.
Khatib, S.F.A., D.F. Abdullah, A. Elamer, and S.A. Hazaea. 2022. The development of corporate governance literature in Malaysia: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society 22 (5): 1026–1053. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2020-0565.
Khwaja, A.I., and A. Mian. 2005. Do lenders favor politically connected firms? Rent provision in an emerging financial market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (4): 1371–1411.
Li, S., X. Song, and H. Wu. 2015. Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate philanthropy in China: A strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 129 (2): 399–411.
Lui, T.K., M.H. Zainuldin, A.N. Wahidudin, and C.C. Foo. 2021. Corporate social responsibility disclosures (CSRDs) in the banking industry: A study of conventional banks and Islamic banks in Malaysia. International Journal of Bank Marketing 39 (4): 541–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2020-0192.
Luo, X.R., and D. Wang. 2021. Are politically endorsed firms more socially responsible? Selective engagement in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 170 (3): 535–555.
Mangalagiri, J., and M.P. Bhasa. 2022. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Evidence from India’s national stock exchange listed companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 19 (2): 144–152.
Michelon, G., S. Pilonato, and F. Ricceri. 2015. CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 33 (59): 78.
Muttakin, M.B., and A. Khan. 2014. Determinants of corporate social disclosure: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Advances in Accounting 30 (1): 168–175.
Muttakin, M.B., R.M. Monem, A. Khan, and N. Subramaniam. 2015. Family firms, firm performance and political connections: Evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics 11 (3): 215–230.
Muttakin, M.B., D.G. Mihret, and A. Khan. 2018. Corporate political connection and corporate social responsibility disclosures: A neo-pluralist hypothesis and empirical evidence. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 31 (2): 725–744. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2015-2078.
Oehmichen, J. 2018. East meets west—Corporate governance in Asian emerging markets: A literature review and research agenda. International Business Review 27 (2): 465–480.
Reverte, C. 2009. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (2): 351–366.
Seibert, R.M., C.B. Macagnan, R. Dixon, and D. Souza Simon. 2019. Social responsibility indicators: Perspective of stakeholders in Brazil and in the UK. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 16 (2): 128–144.
Wang, H., and C. Qian. 2011. Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management journal 54 (6): 1159–1181.
Wang, J., and H. Zhang. 2022. Political transparency, corporate governance and economic significance. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 19 (1): 49–66.
Zamil, I.A., S. Ramakrishnan, N.M. Jamal, M.A. Hatif, and S.F.A. Khatib. 2021. Drivers of corporate voluntary disclosure: A systematic review. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-04-2021-0110.
Zeng, S., X. Xu, Z. Dong, and V.W. Tam. 2010. Towards corporate environmental information disclosure: An empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (12): 1142–1148.
Zhang, J., B. Yang, F. Wang, and P. Wang. 2012. Corporate philanthropic giving: Active responsibility or passive ingratiation? Evidence from Chinese family-controlled listed companies. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR) 28 (3): 427–440.
Zouari, G., and K. Dhifi. 2021. The impact of board characteristics on integrated reporting: Case of European companies. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 18 (1): 83–94.