Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of board diversity on corporate social responsibility (CSR). The aim is twofold; does board diversity has any effect on CSR, do structural and demographic differences between one-tier and two-tier board models may impact this effect?

This paper applies a panel generalized method of moments estimator to a sample of 2,544 non-financial listed firms from 42 countries over the period of 2013–2017.

The findings reveal that board diversity leads to effective CSR. By distinguishing between diversity among boards from diversity within boards, the results display the effects of the specific variables that make up the manner and latter’s constructs within unitary and two-tier board structures. Specifically, this paper reveals that tenure, ideology and educational level (gender and nationality) predominantly appear to drive a firm’s CSR within one (two)-tier boards settings. These results remain consistent when robustness tests are ruled.

The study provides managers, investors and policymakers with knowledge about how among and within board diversity attributes favor the decision-making process around CSR. The evidence is useful for companies in setting the criteria to identify directors who can support their strategic decisions. It benefits, moreover, academics in better understanding firms’ CSR determinants and practices under different corporate board models.

Examining how different sets of board diversity affect firms’ CSR given divergences between one-tier and two-tier board structure is a useful and informative endeavor for all community actors.

Unlike prior studies that identify the limited scope of diversity, the study is the first to examine the effect of broader dimensions of board diversity on CSR under both one-tier and two-tier board settings. This paper provides a contribution to a greater understanding of the impacts underlying board models and different attributes of board diversity on CSR. This new understanding will help to improve predictions of different features of board diversity impacts on decision-making processes around organizational outcomes.

Alternative corporate governance systems (CGSs) have attracted a significant bulk of research recently. While the connection between the adoption of an alternative system (one tier board or two tier board system) and firms’ performances has not been fully analysed yet, the purpose of this paper is to analyse whether companies which have turned into an alternative board system have eventually improved their performance over time.

Using a sample of more than 15,000 Italian unlisted joint stock companies, the authors compare performance outcomes in 2009 of firms adopting alternative systems with performances of firms that maintained the system in force before the 2003 Corporate Law Reform (defined as “traditional”). Because of the choice of an alternative system (one tier or two tier board) instead of a traditional one is not random, the authors reduce selection bias implementing matching methods and comparing firms that are close in terms of propensity score measured in 2003 (the year before the new CGSs have been introduced by a corporate law reform).

The authors do not find evidence of a significant improvement of performances in 2009 concerning those firms that have adopted a one tier or two tier board systems with respect to those which maintained a traditional one.

The novelty of the study concerns the application of propensity score matching for the evaluation of the impact of the change of the CGS that is possible in presence of two conditions that are all verified in our setting: first, to have a country where corporate law allows for choosing among different systems; in this case Italy is a good laboratory, because it allows for the choice among three different systems; and second, to have the opportunity to evaluate the effect of the change in light of a relatively recent “pre-treatment” condition; this is made possible by the fact that before the 2003 Reform of corporate law all the companies had a traditional system.

This paper aims to investigate the effects of board model and board independence on corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure of multinational corporations (MNCs).

The authors developed an empirical model in which CSR disclosure is the dependent variable and board model (two-tier vs one-tier), board independence (a proportion of independent directors on a board) and the interaction variable of board model and board independence together with several variables conventionally used as control variables are independent variables. The authors collated the panel dataset of 244 Fortune World’s Most Admired (FWMA) corporations from 2005 to 2011 of which 117 MNCs use the one-tier board model, and 127 MNCs use the two-tier board model from 20 countries. They used the random-effect regression method to estimate the empirical models with the data they collated and also ran regressions on the alternative models for robustness check.

The authors found a significantly positive effect of a board model on CSR disclosure by MNCs. Two-tier MNCs tend to reveal more CSR information than one-tier MNCs. The results also confirm the significant moderating impact of board model on the effect of board independence on CSR disclosure. The effect of board independence on CSR disclosure in the two-tier board MNCs tends to be higher than that in the one-tier board MNCs. The results do not support the effect of board independence on CSR disclosure in general for all types of firms (one-tier and two-tier board). The impact of board independence on CSR disclosure is only significant in two-tier board MNCs and insignificant in one-tier board MNCs.

The authors advise the MNCs who wish to improve CSR reporting and transparency to consider the usage of two-tier board model and use a higher number of outside directors on board. They note that once a firm uses one-tier model, number of IDs on a board does not matter to the level of CSR disclosure. They advise regulators to enforce an application of two-tier board model to improve CSR reporting and transparency in MNCs. The authors also recommend regulators to continue mandating publicly traded companies to include more external members on their boards, especially for the two-tier board MNCs.

This paper is the first that investigates the role of board model on CSR disclosure of MNCs.

This paper has two purposes: to use polarisation to identify variations in loyalty and to apply polarisation to an important non‐brand attribute, price.

A comprehensive revealed preference data set of wine purchases is used to apply polarisation. Polarisation was defined in two ways: as a function of the beta binomial distribution (BBD) to give a measure of loyalty for an alternative; and as a function of the Dirichlet multinomial distribution (DMD) to give a baseline level of loyalty. Variations were identified by analysing the differences between the BBD and DMD.

Polarisation was shown to be one way of identifying variation across price tiers. In the empirical example used, the DMD model is violated with the price tiers not being directly substitutable with one another. Buyers show excess loyalty towards the lowest and highest price tier levels. One tier shows “change‐of‐pace” loyalty. Small brands do better when they focus on high loyalty tiers, middle brands compete in the change‐of‐pace tier and large brands do well across all tiers.

Very little work has been undertaken into price tier loyalty and no known empirical research has been undertaken into behavioural loyalty to price tiers in wine. Very little empirical research has considered the association between excess loyalty for attribute levels (such as price tiers) and the existence of niche, change‐of‐pace and reinforcing brands.

Implementing sustainable practices in multi-tier supply chains (MTSCs) is a difficult task. This study aims to investigate why such endeavours fail and how MTSC partners can address them.

A single-case study of a global food retail company was used in this study. Semi-structured interviews with the case firm and its first- and second-tier suppliers were used to collect data, which were then qualitatively analysed using thematic analysis.

Major barriers impeding the implementation of sustainability in multi-tier food supply chains were revealed such as the cost of sustainability, knowledge gap, lack of infrastructure and supply chain complexity. Furthermore, the findings reveal five possible solutions such as multi-tier collaboration and partnership, diffusion of innovation along the chain, supply chain mapping, sustainability performance measurement and capacity building, all of which can aid in the improvement of sustainability practices.

Future research should investigate how specific barriers and drivers affect specific aspects of sustainability, pointing practitioners to specific links between the variables that can aid in tailoring sustainability oriented investment.

This research supports managerial comprehension of MTSC sustainability, pointing out ways to improve sustainability performance despite the complex multi-tier system of food supply chains.

The research on MTSC sustainability is still growing, and this research contributes to the debate about how MTSCs can become more sustainable from the perspective of the triple bottom line, particularly food supply chains which face significant sustainability challenges.

This paper identifies the new economic force regenerating the East Asian economies in the post‐crisis era. Based on the convergence of five main economic indexes, it reclassifies the ten East Asian entities into four tiers, and highlights the language similarities among the tiers. It also discusses the inter‐ and intra‐regional economic dynamics, and the implications on further regional trade/investment, financial cooperation and monetary integration, such as a possible unifying Asian currency.

This study seeks to explore how non-executive directors address governance problems on Dutch two-tier boards. Within this board model, challenges might be particularly difficult to address due to the formal separation of management boards' decision-management from supervisory boards' decision-control roles.

Semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire among non-executive directors provide unique insights into three major challenges in the boardrooms of two-tier boards in The Netherlands.

The study indicates that non-executive directors mainly experience challenges in three areas: the ability to ask management critical questions, information asymmetries between the management and supervisory boards and the management of the relationship between individual executive and non-executive directors. The qualitative in-depth analysis reveals the complexity of the contributing factors to problems in the boardroom and the range of process and social interventions non-executive directors use to address boardroom issues with management and the organization of the board.

While policy makers have been largely occupied with the “right” board composition, the results highlight the importance of adequately addressing operational challenges in the boardroom. The results emphasize the importance of a better understanding of board processes and the need of non-executive directors to carefully manage relationships in and around the boardroom.

Whereas most studies have focussed on regulatory initiatives to improve the functioning of boards (e.g. the independence of the board), this study explores how non-executive directors attempt to enhance the effectiveness of boards on which they serve.

The chapter aims to clarify the relationship between corporate governance structure and corporate subscription to Global Compact standards. Part one of the chapter looks at the relationship between different models of board governance and active Global Compact participation by publicly listed companies. Part two of the chapter examines a number of external mechanisms aimed at bringing corporate behavior in line with Global Compact principles, and argues that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between internal governance structures and external provisions aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

Part one of the chapter uses an independent T-test to compare the average (mean) proportion of publicly listed companies from unitary board countries with an active Global Compact Communication on Progress status with the average proportion of publicly listed companies from two-tier/hybrid corporate governance systems listed as active Global Compact participants. Part two of the chapter uses primary and secondary sources to examine external mechanisms operating across national borders aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

The chapter finds that a higher proportion of public companies from countries with two-tier/hybrid corporate governance structures have become active Global Compact participants compared to public companies from legal systems with unitary board corporate governance structures. Part two of the chapter examines the potentially mutually reinforcing relationship between internal governance structures and external mechanisms for modifying corporate behavior.

While external codes and standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises appear to be influencing corporate behavior worldwide, quantitative data confirming and recording the extent and nature of this influence (if any) remains limited.

The chapter provides useful insights for policy makers and corporate leaders into the relationship between internal corporate governance structures and external codes, standards and guidelines aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

This chapter provides original insights into whether and how internal governance structures can complement and reinforce social standards regarding global corporate citizenship, and the legal guidelines reflecting those standards.

We review the concept of response to intervention (RtI) as it is being applied to emotional and behavioral disorders (EDB) in the early part of the 21st century, examining how it differs from and incorporates features of other approaches to addressing those problems, including pre-referral interventions, applied behavior analysis, functional behavioral assessment, curriculum-based measurement, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and special education. After discussing alternative concepts about how RtI might be applied to students with EBD, we note that our search of the literature revealed very few studies examining the application of RtI with students having EBD. We found both substantive and methodological problems in the studies we reviewed. For example, researchers did not describe adequately how students were selected for tiers, what dependent measures were chosen and why, what independent variables were manipulated, what criteria led to moving a child to a different tier, and how RtI addressed (or failed to address) the need for special education services. We conclude that, although some of the components of RtI have solid evidentiary bases, little evidence supports common claims of the benefits of RtI, especially as applied to students with EBD.

In this chapter, we explore the legal framework of AGMs in seven Member States (Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) of shareholder decision-making rights. We find that, since only a small part of the decision-making rights is harmonized at the European level, there are numerous differences in shareholder rights among national laws. These decision-making rights are usually about the topics director (re-)elections, pay matters, share capital, amendments to articles of association, annual accounts, etc. To be able to conduct empirical research in the remaining chapters, we develop a categorization framework of 15 voting items.