Board of director's effectiveness and the stakeholder perspective of corporate governancedo effective boards promote the interests of shareholders and stakeholders?

  1. Nicolás García Torea 1
  2. Belén Fernández-Feijóo Souto 1
  3. Marta de la Cuesta González 2
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España


  2. 2 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España


Business Research Quarterly

ISSN: 2340-9444

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 19

Issue: 4

Pages: 246-260

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.BRQ.2016.06.001 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Business Research Quarterly


Cited by

  • Scopus Cited by: 60 (15-05-2023)
  • Dialnet Metrics Cited by: 4 (29-05-2023)
  • Web of Science Cited by: 48 (20-05-2023)
  • Dimensions Cited by: 62 (04-04-2023)

JCR (Journal Impact Factor)

  • Year 2016
  • Journal Impact Factor: 1.325
  • Journal Impact Factor without self cites: 1.075
  • Article influence score: 0.194
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: BUSINESS Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 85/121 (Ranking edition: SSCI)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2016
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.387
  • Best Quartile: Q2
  • Area: Business and International Management Quartile: - Rank in area: 134/446
  • Area: Strategy and Management Quartile: - Rank in area: 172/471
  • Area: Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) Quartile: Q2 Rank in area: 113/365
  • Area: Economics and Econometrics Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 326/678

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Year 2016
  • Journal Impact: 1.350
  • Field: ECONOMÍA Quartile: C1 Rank in field: 1/167


  • Social Sciences: A

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2016
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 2.0
  • Area: Business, Management and Accounting (all) Percentile: 74
  • Area: Economics and Econometrics Percentile: 63


(Data updated as of 04-04-2023)
  • Total citations: 62
  • Recent citations: 31
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR): 23.1


This paper analyzes whether effective boards of directors in addressing shareholder interests also prove to be effective in guaranteeing the interests of the rest of the firm’s stakeholders. We measure board effectiveness based on the shareholder perspective, and test whether it is valid for the stakeholder perspective. The novelty of this paper precisely lies in its approach, given that it considers both perspectives of corporate governance at a time. Using the transparency of sustainability reports as a proxy for the stakeholder perspective in an international sample of 2366 companies, the paper shows that effective boards are more likely to address the interests of both the shareholders and the rest of the firm’s stakeholders. Furthermore, we propose a measure of board effectiveness by gathering several board characteristics. Our results contribute to research on corporate governance and corporate social responsibility reporting, and it has implications for policy makers.

Funding information

We would like to acknowledge the financial support of ECOBAS --- Xunta de Galicia (AGRUP2015/08) for this research.


Bibliographic References

  • Abeysekera, I., A template for integrated reporting. J. Intell. Capital 14:2 (2013), 227–245.
  • Adams, R.B., Ferreira, D., Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. J. Financial Econ. 94:2 (2009), 291–309.
  • Adams, R.B., Hermalin, B.E., Weisbach, M.S., The role of boards of directors in corporate governance: a conceptual framework and survey. J. Econ. Lit. 48:1 (2010), 58–107.
  • Amran, A., Lee, S., Selvaraj, S., The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23:4 (2014), 217–235.
  • Anderson, R.C., Mansi, S.A., Reeb, D.M., Founding family ownership and the agency cost of debt. J. Financial Econ. 68:2 (2003), 263–285.
  • Ball, R., Kothari, S.P., Robin, A., The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. J. Account. Econ. 29:1 (2000), 1–51.
  • Baysinger, B., Hoskisson, R.E., Texas, A., The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: effects on corporate strategy. Acad. Manage. Rev. 15:1 (1990), 72–87.
  • Brammer, S., Pavelin, S., Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Bus. Strat. Environ. 17:2 (2008), 120–136.
  • Brown, H.S., de Jong, M., Levy, D.L., Building institutions based on information disclosure: lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting. J. Cleaner Prod. 17:6 (2009), 571–580.
  • Carnevale, C., Mazzuca, M., Venturini, S., Corporate social reporting in European banks: the effects on firm's market value. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 19:3 (2012), 159–170.
  • Castelo Branco, M., Lima Rodrigues, L., Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies. J. Bus. Ethics 83:4 (2008), 685–701.
  • Chen, E.T., Nowland, J., Optimal board monitoring in family-owned companies: evidence from Asia. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 18:1 (2010), 3–17.
  • Chin, W.W., The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling. Marcoulides, G.A., (eds.) Modern Methods for Business Research, 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 295–336.
  • Chin, W.W., How to write up and report PLS analyses. Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H., (eds.) Handbook of Partial Least Squares, 2010, Springer, Berlin, 655–690.
  • Coles, J., McWilliams, V., Sen, N., An examination of the relationship of governance mechanisms to performance. J. Manage. 27:1 (2001), 23–55.
  • Conger, J.A., Finegold, D., Lawler, E.E. III., Appraising boardroom performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76:1 (1998), 136–148.
  • Dahya, J., Mcconnell, J.J., Travlos, N.G., The Cadbury Committee, corporate performance, and top management turnover. J. Finance 57:1 (2002), 461–483.
  • Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., Bankruptcy and corporate governance: the impact of board composition and structure. Acad. Manage. J. 37:6 (1994), 1603–1617.
  • Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., Women in the boardroom: a business imperative. J. Bus. Strat. 24:5 (2003), 8–10.
  • de Andres, P., Azofra, V., Lopez, F., Corporate boards in OECD countries: size, composition, functioning and effectiveness. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 13:2 (2005), 197–210.
  • De la Cuesta-González, M., Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á., Analysis of social performance in the Spanish financial industry through public data. A proposal. J. Bus. Ethics 69:3 (2006), 289–304.
  • De Godos Díez, J.L., Gago, R.F., García, L.C., Propiedad y control en la puesta en práctica de la RSC. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 15:1 (2012), 1–11.
  • Deegan, C., Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Account. Audit. Accountab. J. 15:3 (2002), 282–311.
  • Defond, M.L., Hann, R.N., Hu, X., Does the market value financial expertise on audit committees of boards of directors?. J. Account. Res. 43:2 (2005), 153–193.
  • Denis, D.K., Mcconnell, J.J., International corporate governance. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 38:1 (2014), 1–36.
  • Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A., Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration. Br. J. Manage. 17:4 (2006), 263–282.
  • Duchin, R., Matsusaka, J.G., Ozbas, O., When are outside directors effective?. J. Financial Econ. 96:2 (2010), 195–214.
  • Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., Wells, M.T., Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. J. Financial Econ. 48:1 (1998), 35–54.
  • Erhardt, N.L., Werbel, J.D., Shrader, C.B., Board of directors diversity and firm financial performance. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 11:2 (2003), 102–111.
  • European Commission, A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for corporate social responsibility (COM/2011/0681, 25/10/2011). 2011, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
  • Fernández Sánchez, J.L., Luna Sotorrío, L., Baraibar Díez, E., The relationship between corporate governance and corporate social behavior: a structural equation model analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 18:2 (2011), 91–101.
  • Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., Commitment to corporate social responsibility measured through Global Reporting Initiative reporting: factors affecting the behavior of companies. J. Cleaner Prod. 81:15 (2014), 244–254.
  • Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., Ruiz, S., Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. J. Bus. Ethics 122:1 (2014), 53–63.
  • Fich, E.M., Are some outside directors better than others? Evidence from director appointments by Fortune 1000 firms. J. Bus. 78:5 (2005), 1943–1972.
  • Fifka, M.S., Corporate responsibility reporting and its determinants in comparative perspective - a review of the empirical literature and a meta-analysis. Bus. Strat. Environ. 22:1 (2013), 1–35.
  • Finegold, D., Benson, G.S., Hecht, D., Corporate boards and company performance: review of research in light of recent reforms. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 15:5 (2007), 865–878.
  • Forbes, D.P., Milliken, F.I., Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24:3 (1999), 489–505.
  • Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18:1 (1981), 39–50.
  • Freeman, R.E., Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. 1984, Pitman, Boston.
  • Gaa, J.C., Corporate governance and the responsibility of the board of directors for strategic financial reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 90:2 (2009), 179–197.
  • Gamerschlag, R., Möller, K., Verbeeten, F., Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: empirical evidence from Germany. Rev. Manage. Sci. 5:2-3 (2011), 233–262.
  • Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Sepulveda, C., Does media pressure moderate CSR disclosures by external directors?. Manage. Decis. 52:6 (2014), 1014–1045.
  • García-Sánchez, I.M., Frías Aceituno, J.V., Rodríguez Domínguez, L., The ethical commitment of independent directors in different contexts of investor protection. Bus. Res. Quart. 18:2 (2015), 81–94.
  • Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. 2006, GRI, Amsterdam.
  • Godos-Díez, J.-L., Fernández-Gago, R., Cabeza-García, L., Martínez-Campillo, A., Determinants of CSR practices: analysis of the influence of ownership and the management profile mediating effect. Spanish J. Finance Account. 43:1. (2014), 47–68.
  • Gray, R., Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour? Wrong question? Right time?. Account. Bus. Res. 36:1 (2006), 65–88.
  • Hair, J.F. Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2014, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
  • Hahn, R., Kühnen, M., Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J. Cleaner Prod. 59 (2013), 5–21.
  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R., The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Market. 20 (2009), 277–319.
  • Huse, M., Nielsen, S.T., Hagen, I.M., Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. J. Bus. Ethics 89:4 (2009), 581–597.
  • Jamali, D., Safieddine, A.M., Rabbath, M., Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 16:5 (2008), 443–459.
  • Jensen, M.C., The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. J. Finance 48:3 (1993), 831–880.
  • Joecks, J., Pull, K., Vetter, K., Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: what exactly constitutes a critical mass?. J. Bus. Ethics 118:1 (2013), 61–72.
  • John, K., Senbet, L.W., Corporate governance and board effectiveness. J. Bank. Finance 22:4 (1998), 371–403.
  • Johnson, R.A., Hoskisson, R.E., Hitt, M.A., Board of director involvement in restructuring: the effects of board versus managerial controls and characteristics. Strat. Manag. J. 14:1 (1993), 33–50.
  • Khan, A., Muttakin, M.B., Siddiqui, J., Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: evidence from an emerging economy. J. Bus. Ethics 114:2 (2013), 207–223.
  • Kiel, G.C., Nicholson, G.J., Board composition and corporate performance: how the Australian experience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 11:3 (2003), 189–205.
  • Klein, A., Firm performance and board committee structure. J. Law Econ. 41:1 (1998), 275–304.
  • Klein, A., Audit committee, board of director characteristics, and earnings management. J. Account. Econ. 33:3 (2002), 375–400.
  • Kramer, V.W., Konrad, A.M., Erkut, S., Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance. 2006, Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley.
  • Kroll, M., Walters, B.A., Wright, P., Board vigilance, director experience, and corporate outcomes. Strat. Manag. J. 29:4 (2008), 363–382.
  • Lattemann, C., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Li, S., Schneider, A.M., CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 17:4 (2009), 426–442.
  • Letza, S., Sun, X., Kirkbride, J., Shareholding versus stakeholding: a critical review of corporate governance. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 12:3 (2004), 242–263.
  • Mallin, C.A., Michelon, G., Board reputation attributes and corporate social performance: an empirical investigation of the US Best Corporate Citizens. Account. Bus. Res. 41:2 (2011), 119–144.
  • Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., Chin, W., Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 32:3 (2001), 86–112.
  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., Wright, P.M., Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. J. Manag. Stud. 43:1 (2006), 1–18.
  • Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Nielsen, S., Huse, M., Board task performance: an exploration of micro- and macro-level determinants of board effectiveness. J. Org. Behav. 33:2 (2012), 193–215.
  • Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Zona, F., Making boards effective: an empirical examination of board task performance. Br. J. Manag. 20:1 (2009), 55–74.
  • Money, K., Schepers, H., Are CSR and corporate governance converging? A view from boardroom directors and company secretaries in FTSE100 companies in UK. J. Gen. Manag. 33:2 (2007), 1–11.
  • Newell, R., Wilson, G., A premium for good governance. McKinsey Quart. 3 (2002), 20–23.
  • Nielsen, S., Huse, M., The contribution of women on boards of directors: going beyond the surface. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 18:2 (2010), 136–148.
  • Ntim, C.G., Soobaroyen, T., Corporate governance and performance in socially responsible corporations: new empirical insights from a neo-Institutional framework. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 21:5 (2013), 468–494.
  • Pfeffer, J., Organizational demography. Cummings, L.L., Staw, B.M., (eds.) Research in Organizational Behaviour, 5, 1983, JAI Press, Greenwich, 299–357.
  • Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Bus. Rev. 84:12 (2006), 78–92.
  • Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., Gallego-Alvarez, I., Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., Características del consejo de administración e información en materia de responsabilidad social corporativa. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad XXXVIII:141 (2009), 107–135.
  • Rechner, P., Dalton, D., CEO duality and organizational performance: a longitudinal analysis. Strat. Manag. J. 12:2 (1991), 155–160.
  • Renneboog, L., Ownership, managerial control and the governance of companies listed on the Brussels Stock Exchange. J. Bank. Finance 24:12 (2000), 1959–1995.
  • Reverte, C., The impact of better corporate social responsibility disclosure on the cost of equity capital. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 19:5 (2012), 253–272.
  • Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Will, A., SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). 2005, Hamburg, University of Hamburg.
  • Roberts, N., Thatcher, J.B., Conceptualizing and testing formative constructs: tutorial and an noted example. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 40:3 (2009), 9–39.
  • Roca, L.C., Searcy, C., An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 20:1 (2012), 103–118.
  • Rodríguez-Ariza, L., Frías Aceituno, J.V., Rubio, R., El consejo de administración y las memorias de sostenibilidad. Spanish Account. Rev. 17:1 (2014), 5–16.
  • Roldán, J.L., Sánchez-Franco, M.J., Variance-based structural equation modeling: guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. Mora, M., Gelman, O., Steenkamp, A., Raisinghani, M., (eds.) Research Methodologies in Engineering of Software Systems and Information Systems: Philosophies, Methods and Innovations, 2012, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, 193–221.
  • Ruigrok, W., Peck, S.I., Keller, H., Board characteristics and involvement in strategic decision making: evidence from Swiss companies. J. Manag. Stud. 43:5 (2006), 1201–1226.
  • Schäfer, H., Beer, J., Zenker, J., Fernandes, P., Who is Who in Corporate Social Responsibility Rating? A Survey of Internationally Established Rating Systems that Measure Corporate Responsibility. 2006, Bertelsmann Foundation, Gütersloh.
  • Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., Chua, W.F., Assurance on sustainability reports: an international comparison. Account. Rev. 84:3 (2009), 937–967.
  • Smith, N.C., Corporate social responsibility: whether or how?. Calif. Manag. Rev. 45:4 (2003), 52–76.
  • Smith, N., Smith, V., Verner, M., Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 55:7 (2006), 569–593.
  • Suchard, J., Singh, M., Barr, R., The market effects of CEO turnover in Australian firms. Pacific Basin Financial J. 9:1 (2001), 1–27.
  • Szabó, D.G., Sørensen, K.E., Integrating corporate social responsibility in corporate governance codes in the EU. Eur. Bus. Law Rev. 24:6 (2013), 781–828.
  • Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., Singh, V., Women directors on corporate boards: a review and research agenda. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 17:3 (2009), 320–337.
  • Tuggle, C.S., Sirmon, D.G., Christopher, R., Bierman, L., Commanding board of director attention: investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strat. Manag. J. 31:9 (2010), 946–968.
  • Vafeas, N., Board meeting frequency and firm performance. J. Financial Econ. 53:1 (1999), 113–142.
  • Van den Berghe, L.A.A., Levrau, A., Evaluating boards of directors: what constitutes a good corporate board?. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 12:4 (2004), 461–478.
  • Webb, E., An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. J. Manag. Govern. 8:3 (2004), 255–277.
  • Weimer, J., Pape, J., A taxonomy of systems of corporate governance. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 7:2 (1999), 152–166.
  • Williams, L.J., Vandenberg, R.J., Edwards, J.R., Structural equation modeling in management research: a guide for improved analysis. Acad. Manag. Ann. 3:1 (2009), 543–604.
  • Yermack, D., Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. J. Financial Econ. 40:2 (1996), 185–211.
  • Young, S., Marais, M., A multi-level perspective of CSR reporting: the implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corp. Govern.: Int. Rev. 20:5 (2012), 432–450.