The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0967-5426.htm

Gender diversity and SDG Gender

diversity and
disclosure: the mediating role of SDG disclosure

the sustainability committee

Giovanni Zampone 171
Department of Economics, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Capua, Italy
Giuseppe Nicolo Received 24 June 2022
Revised 3 October 2022
Department of Management and Innovation Systems, 14 November 2022
Accepted 9 December 2022
Universita degli Studi di Salerno, Fisciano, Italy, and
Giuseppe Sannino and Serena De Iorio
Department of Economics, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Capua, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – The study examines the association between board gender diversity and Sustainable Development
Goal (SDG) disclosure from an international and longitudinal perspective. It also investigates the role of the
Sustainability Committee (SC) as a possible factor that can mediate the relationship between board gender
diversity and SDG disclosure.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors focused on the annual Communication on Progress (CoP)
prepared annually by a sample of 526 companies from 39 countries and ten industry sectors along the 2017–
2020 period to evaluate the SDG disclosure. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step model is estimated to test the
impact of the presence of an SC on the SDG disclosure level and the mediating effect exerted by the SC on the
relationship between board gender diversity and SDG disclosure.
Findings – Findings shed light on the usefulness of the CoP as an alternative reporting tool to communicate
progress against SDGs achievement, especially regarding SDGs 13 and 8. This study evidences that board
gender diversity positively influences SDG disclosure. The relationship between board gender diversity and
SDG disclosure is not only direct but also mediated by the presence of an SC.
Research limitations/implications – Companies need to consider the role of women in enhancing the
effectiveness of their governance mechanisms and their ability to meet stakeholder information needs.
Establishing a specific SC represents a valid mechanism that ensures greater transparency about corporate
actions tackled to contribute toward SDGs and enhances the relationship between board gender diversity and
SDG disclosure among International companies.
Practical implications – The study’s findings offer stimuli for policy-makers and regulators to reflect on the
relevance of the CoP as a possible alternative communication tool to provide SDGs information and overcome
the limitations of the Sustainability Reports.
Originality/value – This is the first study that examines companies’ SDG disclosure practices focusing on
CoPs. Further, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that tests the relationship between
gender diversity and SDG disclosure, considering the mediating effect of an SC committee.
Keywords Sustainable development goals, SDGs, Gender diversity, Corporate governance,
Sustainability committee, Mediation analysis
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The recent launch of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (hereafter, The 2030
Agenda) adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2015 has represented a breakthrough

© Giovanni Zampone, Giuseppe Nicolo, Giuseppe Sannino and Serena De Iorio. Published by Emerald Journal of Applied Accounting
Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Research
Vol. 25 No. 1, 2024
Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both pp. 171-193
commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and Emerald Publishing Limited
0967-5426
authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode DOI 10.1108/JAAR-06-2022-0151
JAAR moment for all public and private sector organisations (Deloitte, 2017; PwC, 2018, 2019).
25,1 Under the motto “no one left behind”, the 2030 Agenda has proposed a holistic plan of action
based on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 related targets aimed at
addressing the world’s most relevant sustainability challenges and creating a better society
for present and future generations (Pizzi et al., 2020; Silva, 2021). The 2030 Agenda
introduction has created unprecedented social and political pressures on companies from all
sectors to take a leading role in contributing to achieving the SDGs (Deloitte, 2017; van der
172 Waal and Thijssens, 2020; Silva, 2021).
Private sector companies play a pivotal role in generating inclusive economic growth,
productivity and job creation (Deloitte, 2017; Pizzi et al., 2020; van der Waal and Thijssens,
2020). Accordingly, they have been prompted to harness their potential in terms of innovation
and creativity to address the socio-environmental challenges imposed by the 2030 Agenda
and create a “win-win” paradigm with society (Deloitte, 2017; van der Waal and Thijssens,
2020). As a result, incorporating SDG priorities into the business model, strategies and core
operations and communicating progress against the attainment of SDGs has become
essential for companies to preserve their legitimacy and meet emerging stakeholders’
expectations (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2022). Reporting on
SDGs paves the way for companies to enhance the understanding of their activities’ positive
and negative impacts on key sustainability issues and demonstrate their business case to
stakeholders (PwC, 2019; Izzo et al., 2020). However, despite recent advancements in non-
financial reporting, such as the Directive 2014/95/EU and the Corporate Sustainability
Reporting Directive (CSRD), SDG reporting remains mainly a voluntary practice (Hummel
and Szekely, 2021). Early surveys (e.g. OXFAM et al., 2018; PwC, 2018, 2019) have
demonstrated that while general awareness of the relevance of the goals is emerging,
companies are still far from fully embracing SDGs into their business strategies and reporting
practices. Companies still struggle to harmonise SDG ambitions with their primary purpose
of generating shareholder value (van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020; Garcıa-Meca and
Martinez-Ferrero, 2021; Nicolo et al., 2022a). It follows that boilerplate, vague and symbolic
information on SDGs prevails within corporate non-financial reports, mainly driven by the
purpose of influencing stakeholders’ perceptions positively and creating a rhetorical image of
a company committed to the 2030 Agenda (Garcıa-Meca and Martinez-Ferrero, 2021; Silva,
2021; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2022).
Previous literature emphasised the role of the board of directors as a fundamental
corporate governance mechanism (Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Rao and Tilt, 2016).
Besides its primary controlling and monitoring function, the board is expected to enhance
the dialogue between a company and its stakeholders by promoting better accountability
and transparency about financial and non-financial issues (Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012;
Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021; Nicolo et al., 2022b). An adequate board’s composition is
pivotal to defining objectives and strategies within the firm’s social contract boundaries
and harmonising social and environmental responsibility with company economic benefits
(Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Chan et al., 2014; Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021).
In particular, an emerging body of literature pointed out that higher gender diversity in
the board’s composition is essential to ensure the correct fulfilment of environmental,
ethical and social obligations and increase the company’s responsiveness towards
stakeholders and society at large (Rao and Tilt, 2016; Wasiuzzaman and Wan Mohammad,
2020; Nicolo et al., 2022b; Issa et al., 2022). Board gender diversity has increasingly been
considered a synonym for good corporate governance and an enabler mechanism of higher
transparency and accountability (Rao and Tilt, 2016; Arayssi et al., 2020; Wasiuzzaman and
Wan Mohammad, 2020). Consistently, several scholars provided empirical evidence
demonstrating that a higher presence of women on boards is conducive to greater levels of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
disclosure (e.g. Rao and Tilt, 2016; Arayssi et al., 2020; Wasiuzzaman and Wan Mohammad, Gender
2020; Nicolo et al., 2022b; Issa et al., 2022). diversity and
However, despite its relevance, there is still much to learn about the contribution of board
gender diversity in stimulating SDG disclosure practices. Specifically, little is known about
SDG disclosure
how women’s presence on the board may affect the extent to which companies incorporate
SDGs within their reporting practices. Prior studies on SDGs reporting are mainly normative
or descriptive, offering limited insights into the factors potentially influencing SDG
disclosure. In several cases, the country-specific nature of the study impaired the ability to 173
provide large-scale empirical insights into how companies disclose their contributions
toward SDGs.
Against this background, the present study attempts to bridge the research gap by
providing manifold contributions to the existing SDG disclosure and corporate governance
literature.
Firstly, this study extends our knowledge about corporate SDG disclosure behaviours
from an International and longitudinal perspective in an innovative way. While prior
research (e.g. Garcıa-Sanchez et al., 2020, 2022; Pizzi et al., 2021) examined the extent and
quality of SDG disclosure mainly relying upon the SDGs Compass guidelines, the present
study focuses on the annual Communication on Progress (CoP) prepared annually by a
sample of 526 companies coming from 39 worldwide countries and ten industry sectors for
the period 2017–2020. The CoP represents a public report drafted annually by business
participants in the UN Global Compact (UNGC) to report to stakeholders on the progress
achieved in implementing the UNGC principles and the SDGs. In particular, it contains a
specific section devoted to the SDGs.
Secondly, drawing upon a multi-theoretical framework connecting stakeholder,
legitimacy and resource dependence theory, the present study examines the association
between board gender diversity and SDG disclosure.
Last, this study also examines the Sustainability Committee (SC) role as a possible
contingent factor that can mediate the relationship between board gender diversity and SDG
disclosure. Corporate governance literature has emphasised the role of CSR/Sustainability
committees as incubators of managers holding specific competencies and skills that help
companies in assuming socially responsible behaviours and a proactive commitment toward
sustainability issues (Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Amran et al., 2014; Martınez-Ferrero
et al., 2021). Creating such committees as board sub-commissions is also fundamental to
stimulating the provision of non-financial disclosure that meets stakeholders’ expectations
(Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021). Accordingly, based on Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step
procedure, this paper examines the impact of the presence of an SC on the SDG disclosure
level and the mediating effect exerted by the SC on the relationship between board gender
diversity and SDG disclosure.
Findings shed light on the usefulness of the CoP as an alternative reporting tool to
communicate progress against SDGs achievement, especially regarding SDGs 13 and 8. This
study provides evidence about the role of women in overcoming firms’ resistance to
providing SDGs information, stimulating more accountability. Attuned, establishing a
specific SC represents a valid mechanism that ensures greater transparency about corporate
actions tackled to contribute toward SDGs and enhances the relationship between board
gender diversity and SDG disclosure among International companies.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, the relevant SDG literature is
reviewed, and the hypotheses are presented. Second, the research methodology is explained
concerning sample construction, variables definition and model specification. Third, the
results are reported and discussed. Finally, the conclusions, implications and directions for
further research are presented.
JAAR Literature review and hypothesis development
25,1 SDG reporting
Prior research has underlined that SDG reporting might be an important driver to embrace a
full commitment to integrate SDGs into the strategies and operations and communicate the
efforts towards their achievement to stakeholders (Fonseca and Carvalho, 2019; Rosati and
Faria, 2019a, b). On this point, target 12.6 of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and
Production) encourages companies to adopt sustainability practices and integrate
174 sustainability information in their reporting cycles. Hence, organisations are expected to
measure, understand and communicate against their commitment to the SDGs, disclosing
how their strategies, business models, programs and initiatives reflect priority SDGs and
related targets (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Fonseca and Carvalho, 2019).
Considering the growing stakeholders’ pressure to improve the efforts and engagement in
achieving the SDGs, disclosing information on SDGs has become fundamental for companies
to seek legitimacy and preserve their “license to operate” (Deegan, 2002; Silva, 2021; Heras-
Saizarbirtoria et al., 2022; Nicolo et al., 2022a). Organisations are part of a broader social
system with no inherent right to operate (Deegan, 2002, 2019). They have to earn this right by
demonstrating that they are moving within the society’s boundaries by aligning their core
operations and processes with broader societal expectations (Lindblom, 1994; Deegan, 2002;
Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012). As such, corporate disclosure is considered one of the best
ways companies may adopt to evidence the symmetry between their behaviours and the
system of social norms, beliefs and principles established by the society (or community) in
which they operate (Deegan, 2002, 2019; Chan et al., 2014; Silva, 2021). In particular,
considering the social and political pressures surrounding companies to take a primary role
in achieving the SDGs, communicating their commitment and the actions implemented to
achieve the SDGs has begun a crucial part of the dialogue between companies and society,
and, thus, a vehicle to gain legitimacy (Silva, 2021; Heras-Saizarbirtoria et al., 2022).
Nevertheless, the question of stakeholder influence remains partially unexpressed under
the lens of legitimacy theory. While the latter discusses society’s expectations at large,
stakeholder theory provides a more refined resolution by referring to particular stakeholder
groups within society (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006; Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012). Since
these two theories overlap (Gray et al., 1996), their complementary use allows for a better
understanding of the SDG disclosure relevance (Chan et al., 2014).
The Stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Gray et al., 1996) provides a lens to analyse the
relationship between the organisation and its stakeholders. According to this perspective,
companies should engage vis a vis with the needs of the stakeholders’ groups that provide
them with the crucial resources necessary for their survival (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006). So,
the disclosure of financial, social and environmental information plays an important role for
companies to demonstrate that they incorporate stakeholders’ expectations and demands
within their processes (Gray et al., 1996; Chan et al., 2014; Fuente et al., 2017). As SDGs
primarily focus on the needs of several stakeholders in society (UNGC, 2015), firms might
disclose their efforts towards the global goals to discharge their accountability and gain
stakeholders’ approval and support (Rosati and Faria, 2019a; Erin and Bamigboye, 2022;
Nicolo et al., 2022a).
Prior empirical studies on SDG accounting and reporting practices can be divided into two
groups.
The first group of studies has focused on investigating the contents of corporate SDG
disclosure practices, outlining certain trends on which goals have been prioritised more than
others in the reports. The SDGs 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation
and infrastructure), 12 (responsible consumption and production), and 13 (climate action) are
the most addressed by companies within their reports (Fonseca and Carvalho, 2019;
Gunawan et al., 2020; Izzo et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020; Heras-Saizarbirtoria et al., 2022). Overall,
scholars detected an inadequate level of SDG disclosure provided by companies (Fonseca and Gender
Carvalho, 2019; Tsalis et al., 2020; Hummel and Szekely, 2021; Pizzi et al., 2021; Erin and diversity and
Bamigboye, 2022). Some studies have also evidenced that companies tend to adopt a symbolic
rather than substantive disclosure approach to the SDGs without changing their business
SDG disclosure
models (van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020; Silva, 2021; Nicolo et al., 2022a; Manes-Rossi and
Nicolo, 2022). They also remain superficial in describing their approach to tackling the SDGs
in their reports (Heras-Saizarbirtoria et al., 2022).
The second group of studies includes a limited number of research investigating the 175
determinants of organisations’ SDG adoption or disclosure. In this field, Rosati and Faria
(2019a) have conducted an earlier study highlighting that the organisations that address the
SDGs in the Sustainability report belong to a group with specific characteristics: large size,
high level of intangibles, adoption of external assurance, a high proportion of young and
women directors in the boardroom (Rosati and Faria, 2019a). In a following work (i.e. Rosati
and Faria, 2019b), they have demonstrated that firms addressing SDGs are more likely to
belong in countries with specific characteristics. Also, Garcıa-Meca and Martinez-Ferrero
(2021) noted that integrating SDGs in Sustainability Reports leads to higher market
performance within controversial and environmentally sensitive sectors. Garcıa-Sanchez
et al. (2020) found that, among different types of institutional investors, the presence of
foreign investors, pension funds and other investors positively affects how International
companies integrate SDGs indicators within their Sustainability Reports. Similarly, Garcıa-
Sanchez et al. (2022) noted that larger firms with higher capital costs, larger boards and
monitored by a higher number of financial analysts are more likely to integrate indicators of
their contribution to the SDGs within their non-financial information system.
Furthermore, by focusing on the determinants of the SDG disclosure levels, Fonseca and
Carvalho (2019) observed that in the Portuguese context, firms with higher business volume,
participating in the UNGC and publishing online a Sustainability Report tend to provide a
greater extent of SDG disclosure. As well, van der Waal and Thijssens (2020) noted that the
SDG involvement of the largest stock-listed corporations worldwide is positively linked to
their size, reports’ assurance and commitment to other sustainability-related initiatives like
GRI and UNGC. Last, Pizzi et al. (2021) evidenced that the quality of SDG disclosure of Italian
Public Interest Entities is positively affected by the firms’ expertise with non-financial
reporting, reports’ length, independent directors on boards and the involvement in
environmental-sensitive sectors.

Board gender diversity and SDG reporting

There is an emerging body of governance literature contending that boards should be
composed in such a way as to collocate social, ethical and environmental concerns at the
forefront of the corporate agenda (Gallego-Alvarez and Pucheta-Martınez, 2020; Martınez-
Ferrero et al., 2021; Uyar et al., 2020). Particular attention has been devoted to gender diversity
as a vector that enables the board of directors to assume a privileged outlook toward CSR and
sustainability issues in line with emerging expectations of stakeholders and society at large
(Rao and Tilt, 2016; Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021; Issa et al., 2022). Therefore, women’s
presence on the board has been widely interpreted as a signal of good governance and a
driver for more transparency and accountability about non-financial issues (Manita et al.,
2018; Wasiuzzaman and Wan Mohammad, 2020).
Academics advocate that no single theory can fully account for the relationship between
board gender diversity and corporate non-financial disclosure practices (Rao and Tilt, 2016;
Amorelli and Garcıa-Sanchez, 2020; Wasiuzzaman and Wan Mohammad, 2020). Accordingly,
this study examines the impact of board gender diversity on the disclosure of sustainability
information drawing on a multi-theoretical framework. This combines the legitimacy theory
JAAR (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Lindblom, 1994), stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) and
25,1 resource dependence theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). Sharing a
similar ontological view (Chen and Roberts, 2010) and being all part of the system-oriented
theories (Gray et al., 1996; Deegan, 2019), these three theories can be considered
complementary in analysing how board gender diversity influences corporate SDG
disclosure practices.
Based on the stakeholder theory perspective, women bring unique characteristics to the
176 boards in terms of experiences, skills, viewpoints and networks that are likely to improve the
internal decision-making process and the firms’ ability to address multiple stakeholders’
needs (Manita et al., 2018; Zahid et al., 2019). Compared to their men counterparts, women are
more stakeholder-oriented and have more democratic and participative leadership styles
(Manita et al., 2018; Zahid et al., 2019; Wasiuzzaman and Wan Mohammad, 2020).
Accordingly, women manifest a greater propensity to communicate the values, purposes and
importance of the organisation’s mission, along with a greater sensibility to stakeholders’
concerns (Manita et al., 2018). In a nutshell, women directors play a vital role within the board
of directors, and they promote and endorse decisions supporting the community,
environment and social responsibility for the sake of stakeholders (Hillman and Dalziel,
2003; Wasiuzzaman and Wan Mohammad, 2020).
From a legitimacy theory standpoint, the company’s activities should reflect the
community’s social values, norms and expectations (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Gray et al.,
1995). Communities are more likely to consider a diverse board legitimate and confer this
legitimacy to the firm (Groening, 2019). If a firm’s board does not comply with societal norms
that expect diversity, a legitimacy gap may arise, hampering firms’ license to operate
(Groening, 2019). From this standpoint, according to Hillman et al. (2007), the appointment of
women on boards increase firms’ legitimacy by conveying a positive message to female
employees, the market, potential recruits and society at large that they are making maximum
efforts to conform with society’s expectations and norms.
The importance of women in the boardroom can be further explained by wearing the
theoretical lenses of the resource dependence theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Hillman et al.,
2007; Amorelli and Garcıa-Sanchez, 2020). The resource dependence theory postulates that
the company operates in a wider open system where it needs to exchange and acquire certain
strategic resources to survive (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Hillman et al., 2007; Amorelli and
Garcıa-Sanchez, 2020). Accordingly, the board of directors is responsible for defining the
corporate strategic direction and providing access to those external resources that help firms
reduce dependency on the external environment (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978; Hillman et al.,
2007; Amorelli and Garcıa-Sanchez, 2020). From this standpoint, a more diverse board
regarding women’s presence increases firms’ connections with the external environment and
the likelihood of having access to critical sources of external dependency (Pfeffer and
Salancik, 2003; Hillman et al., 2007; Lu and Herremans, 2019). Attuned, the heterogeneity of
resources brought by a higher presence of women positively impacts the internal decision-
making processes and increases firms’ ability to address the different stakeholders’ needs
through greater disclosure (Albitar et al., 2020; Wasiuzzaman and Wan Mohammad, 2020).
Based on these theoretical arguments, several scholars provided empirical evidence
demonstrating that a higher presence of women on boards is conducive to greater levels of
CSR and ESG disclosure (e.g. Rao and Tilt, 2016; Arayssi et al., 2020; Qureshi et al., 2020;
Wasiuzzaman and Wan Mohammad, 2020; Nicolo et al., 2022b; Issa et al., 2022). However,
evidence on the interplay between board gender diversity and SDGs is still scant. Only Rosati
and Faria (2019a) found that a higher share of female directors positively influences the
inclusion of SDGs within SRs. In contrast, Pizzi et al. (2021) failed to detect any significant
association between board gender diversity and SDG disclosure quality in the Italian context.
 Therefore, based on theoretical arguments and previous corporate governance literature Gender
empirical evidence, the following hypothesis is posited. diversity and
H1. Board gender diversity positively influences the level of SDG disclosure. SDG disclosure

The role of the sustainability committee

Specific committees within the board of directors are usually established to verify that the
company’s actions are suitable to meet the stakeholders’ expectations regarding CSR and 177
sustainability issues (Garcıa-Sanchez et al., 2019b; Uyar et al., 2020). Among these bodies, the
presence of an SC represents a vehicle through which the company’s boardroom promotes
sustainability practices, thus allowing a permanent dialogue with stakeholders (Michelon

and Parbonetti, 2012; Gallego-Alvarez and Pucheta-Martınez, 2020; Uyar et al., 2020).
Being composed of members with knowledge, capabilities and specific experiences in
sustainability, the SC acts to incorporate sustainability into the organisations’ strategic
direction and operations (Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021). It is in charge of reviewing policies,
programs and conducts regarding the company’s principles and its commitment to
sustainability concerns, ensuring, in turn, that sustainability is translated into concrete
actions (Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Amran et al., 2014). Furthermore, SCs should
supervise the quality and reliability of sustainability information disclosed by companies
(Fuente et al., 2017; Garcıa-Sanchez et al., 2019a). For these reasons, it is considered a means to
engage with stakeholders and preserve the legitimacy of corporate operations (Michelon and
Parbonetti, 2012).
Prior studies generally provide evidence of a positive relationship between the presence of
a CSR/Sustainability committee and the level of non-financial disclosure (e.g. Michelon and
Parbonetti, 2012; Amran et al., 2014; Liao et al., 2015; Fuente et al., 2017; Helfaya and Moussa,

2017; Gallego-Alvarez and Pucheta-Martınez, 2020 ). In particular, both Garcıa-Sanchez et al.
(2020, 2022) observed that a CSR committee positively affects how companies integrate SDGs
within their non-financial information systems.
In addition, a number of studies analysed the moderating and mediating (Garcıa-Sanchez
et al., 2019b; Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021) role of the SC in influencing the adoption of
sustainability practices. Specifically, they provided evidence of the mediating role played by
the SC in the cause-effect relationship between board independence and the adoption of a GRI-
IFC strategy (Garcıa-Sanchez et al., 2019b), as well as the existence of a mediating relationship
of the SC on the relationship between board cultural diversity and CSR performance
(Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021).
Therefore, we contend that establishing a specific SC may serve as a conscious strategy to
integrate SDGs concretely within corporate activities and reporting practices. This, in turn,
will increase firms’ ability to respond to stakeholders’ and society’s expectations. In a
nutshell, creating an SC may represent a valid means to fully incorporate the SDGs’ spirit.
Attuned, we contend that a higher proportion of women on the board may prompt companies
to adopt proactive sustainability strategies and discharge more accountability towards
stakeholders. So, we expect that an SC may help women coordinate and maximise their
efforts, offering them fertile ground to exert their leadership and promote more attention
toward SDG disclosure.
For these reasons, it is expected that the existence of an SC may positively affect the levels
of SDG disclosure provided by companies and mediate the relationship between board
gender diversity and SDG disclosure.
H2a. The presence of an SC positively influences the level of SDG disclosure.
H2b. The presence of an SC acts as a mediating variable in the relationship between
board gender diversity and the level of SDG disclosure.
JAAR Research methodology
25,1 Sample
The sampling process consists of the following three-step process.
First, the 2,000 largest international companies were identified according to the Forbes
Global 2000 list. Forbes Global 2000 list is annually provided by Forbes Magazine and
classifies the largest companies based on their sales, profits, assets and market value. It has
been commonly used in accounting research, including studies addressing SDGs (Freedman
178 and Jaggi, 2009; van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020).
Second, we matched the 2,000 companies selected according to the Forbes Global list with
a second database, the UNGC. The UNGC’s primary aim is to help companies align their
operations and strategies with ten human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption
principles and the 17 SDGs (UNGC, 2021a). Thus, among the 2,000 companies initially
identified, we restricted the sample to those signatories of the UNGC as they are expected to
be particularly committed to achieving the SDGs and integrating SDG disclosure in their
reporting systems (van der Waal and Thijssens, 2020).
Therefore, from the intersection between companies included in Forbes 2000 list and
those participating in the UNGC initiative, we obtained an initial sample of 661 firms for the
2017–2020 period. This period was deemed appropriate because 2017 represents the first
year in which most sampled companies released their CoP, while 2020 is the most recent
year that allowed us to obtain the highest number of observations from both databases.
However, 112 firms were excluded because they did not publish the CoP during the period
under inquiry.
The third step consisted of gathering data on independent variables – necessary for
testing our hypotheses – from the Thomson Reuters database. Hence, 23 firms were further
erased from the sample due to the lack of data on independent variables.
After completing the selection process, the resulting sample is an unbalanced panel
including 526 companies from 39 world’s countries and 10 industry sectors over the period
2017–2020. The sample composition is detailed in Table 1.
As reported in Table 1, the most represented country is Japan (314 firm-year observations,
17.78%), followed by the USA (292, 16.53%) and France (158, 8.95%). According to Refinitiv
Eikon’s industry classification, financials account for 19.03% of the sample, with 336 firm-
year observations. It is followed by Industrials (266, 15.06%), Consumer Non-Cyclicals (224,
12.68%) and Technology (215, 12.17%) sectors, as resumed in Table 2.

Variables
Dependent variable
Among various approaches, previous literature used the GRI-SDG Compass framework to
capture the level of SDG disclosure (Garcıa-Sanchez et al., 2020, 2022; Pizzi et al., 2021). Such
an approach focuses on aligning the indicators of the GRI-based reports and the SDGs,
providing a guide for integrating the SDGs into sustainability reports.
Unlike previous literature, in constructing an empirical proxy for a company’s SDG disclosure,
this study is based on UNGC CoP reports. The CoP represents a public report that business
participants must submit within one year of joining the UNGC (2015, 2021b). Participants that
fail to submit a COP by their deadline will be classified as “non-communicating”. If they remain
“non-communicating” for more than one year, they will be expelled from the UNGC (2015, 2021b).
The CoP assumes pivotal relevance as an accountability instrument for UNGC participants.
Through the COP, companies give an account to stakeholders on the progress achieved in
implementing the UNGC principles and the SDGs (UNGC, 2015, 2021b). The CoP assumes the
form of a self-assessment questionnaire in which a dedicated section is devoted to reporting on the
activities tackled to attain one or more SDGs.
Countries Freq. Percent
Gender
diversity and
Australia 45 2.55 SDG disclosure
Austria 18 1.02
Belgium 12 0.68
Brazil 1 0.06
Canada 52 2.94
Chile 6 0.34 179
China 27 1.53
Cyprus 4 0.23
Denmark 34 1.93
Finland 34 1.93
France 158 8.95
Germany 112 6.34
Greece 5 0.28
Hong Kong 8 0.45
Hungary 4 0.23
India 47 2.66
Ireland; Republic of 17 0.96
Israel 11 0.62
Italy 49 2.77
Japan 314 17.78
Kenya 4 0.23
Korea, Republic of (South Korea) 28 1.59
Luxembourg 4 0.23
Mexico 7 0.40
Netherlands 45 2.55
Norway 25 1.42
Philippines 5 0.28
Portugal 16 0.91
Qatar 3 0.17
Russia 22 1.25
Singapore 24 1.36
South Africa 11 0.62
Spain 52 2.94
Sweden 73 4.13
Switzerland 82 4.64
Thailand 13 0.74
Turkey 2 0.11
United Kingdom 100 5.66 Table 1.
USA 292 16.53 Sample description:
Total 1,766 100.00 distribution by country

Sector Freq. Percent

Basic Materials 194 10.99

Consumer Cyclicals 192 10.87
Consumer Non-Cyclicals 224 12.68
Energy 108 6.12
Financials 336 19.03
Healthcare 113 6.40
Industrials 266 15.06
Real Estate 41 2.32
Technology 215 12.17 Table 2.
Utilities 77 4.36 Sample description:
Total 1,766 100.00 distribution by sector
JAAR Thus, we conducted a content analysis focused on the “Sustainable Development Goals”
25,1 section of the CoP questionnaire to examine the extent to which sampled companies disclose
information about SDGs. Carney (1972, p. 21) defines content analysis as a “research technique
for making the inference by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics
of messages.”. It is one of the most widespread research methods used in accounting studies
to examine public information and codify texts in a reliable and replicable manner (Michelon
and Parbonetti, 2012; Chan et al., 2014). We constructed a disclosure index based on an
180 unweighted approach to process and quantify the information collected through content
analysis (e.g. Fonseca and Carvalho, 2019; Manes-Rossi et al., 2021; Erin and Bamigboye, 2022).
This approach minimises potential biases from attributing subjective weights to one or
more items and favours easy comparisons between different research (Manes-Rossi et al., 2018,
2021). The SDG disclosure index (SDGI) comprises 17 items linked to the 17 SDGs (Fonseca and
Carvalho, 2019). Specifically, a score of (1) was assigned if, in the CoP, the company disclosed
information related to an item (SDG) included in the checklist. Otherwise, a score of (0) was
assigned. Through this approach, the SDGI was computed as follows:
Pn
di
SDGI ¼ i¼1
n
Where d 5 1 if one or more activities related to the SDG included in the checklist were
disclosed and 0 otherwise; n 5 the maximum number of items (17 items).
Hence, the SDGI score ranges from 0 (no SDGs disclosed) to a maximum of 100
(information on all 17 SDGs were disclosed).

Model
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-steps procedure has been followed to test the hypotheses.
Within such a procedure, it is possible to ascertain whether an independent variable (BGD)
influences a dependent variable (SDGI) through a third mediating variable (SC). The usage of
this procedure is widespread in sustainability disclosure literature (Garcıa-Sanchez et al.,
2019b; Orazalin, 2019).
Thus, the following steps were followed (Step 1) the influence of the independent
variable (BGD) on the mediator variable (SC) was tested. (Step 2a) the influence of the
independent variable (BGD) on the dependent variable (SDGI) was tested. (Step 2b)
the effect of mediating variable (SC) on the dependent variable (SDGI) was tested. (Step 3)
the influence of both the independent variable (BGD) and mediating variable (SC) on the
dependent variable (SDGI) was tested. According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure, to
analyse the existence of a mediating effect, the following three conditions must be
respected: first, the independent variable influences the mediating variable; second, the
independent variable affects the dependent variable; third, the effect of the independent
variable on the dependent variable is lower in Step 3 than in Step 2, and the mediating
variable is significant from an econometric standpoint. In a nutshell, the predictive power of
the independent variable (BGD) will be lower in the model in which both the dependent and
the mediating variables are included.
In this respect, based on the three above steps, the following three models are proposed to
test the hypotheses and the mediating effect of SC on the relationship between BGD and SDGI.
Model 1 (Step 1).
SC ¼ β0 þ β1 BGD þ β2 BoardSize þ β3 BoardActivity þ β4 CEODuality
þ β5 BoardIndependence þ β6 Size þ β7 Performance þ β8 Leverage þ ε
Model 2a (Step 2a). Gender
SDGI ¼ β0 þ β1 BGD þ β2 BoardSize þ β3 BoardActivity þ β4 CEODuality diversity and
SDG disclosure
þ β5 BoardIndependence þ β6 Size þ β7 Performance þ β8 Leverage þ ε

Model 2b (Step 2b).

SDGI ¼ β0 þ β1 SC þ β2 BoardSize þ β3 BoardActivity þ β4 CEODuality 181
þ β5 BoardIndependence þ β6 Size þ β7 Performance þ β8 Leverage þ ε

Model 3 (Step 3).

SDGI ¼ β0 þ β1 BGD þ β2 SC þ β3 BoardSize þ β4 BoardActivity þ β5 CEODuality
þ β6 BoardIndependence þ β7 Size þ β8 Performance þ β9 Leverage þ ε

The variables in the above equations are defined as follows.

SDGI is the disclosure index calculated based on the SDGs reported in the CoP questionnaire.
BGD is the board gender diversity expressed as the percentage of female directors on total
directors. SC represents the presence of a Sustainability Committee. It is a binary variable that
assumes the value of 1 if the SC is present and 0 otherwise. In addition, several control variables
were added to the model to mitigate the omitted variable bias effect. The influence of these
variables on sustainability disclosure was already tested by previous literature (e.g. Chan et al.,
2014; Fuente et al., 2017; Helfaya and Moussa, 2017; Arayssi et al., 2020). They include:
BOARDSIZE, BOARDACTIVITY, CEODUALITY, BOARDINDEPENDENCE, SIZE, PROFITABILITY and LEVERAGE.
BOARDSIZE is measured as the number of directors sitting on the boards. BOARDACTIVITY is
measured as the number of board meetings per year. CEODUALITY represents the CEO duality
situation, expressed by a dichotomous variable equal to 1 if the CEO is also chairman and
0 otherwise. BOARDINDEPENDENCE is proxied by the percentage of independent directors on
total directors sitting on the boards. SIZE is proxied as the natural logarithm of the company’s
total assets. PERFORMANCE is measured as the ratio of net income to total assets (ROA),
LEVERAGE is measured as the ratio of total debt to total assets, and ε is the specific error term.
Taking into account the nature of the variables and the period of four years, Probit and
Tobit regression models were used (Garcıa-Sanchez et al., 2022; Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021).
Due to the dummy nature of the SC variable, a Probit regression was used for Model 1, whereas
a Tobit regression was used for the other models, considering that SDGI is a censored variable.
To control endogeneity probloems, a one-period lag in the independent and control
variables was considered. Moreover, YEAR_FE, COUNTRY_FE and SECTOR_FE limited variables are
included to control the variation across time, country and sector, respectively.

Results and discussion

Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics for dependent and independent variables are shown in Table 3.
Regarding the independent variables, the mean of BGD is 0.24 (SD: 0.14), indicating that
women form about a quarter of the board of directors. Also, about 91.68% of sampled
companies have established an SC.
Concerning control variables, the mean for the BOARDSIZE variable is 12.54, suggesting
that at least 12 directors are on the board on average. BOARDACTIVITY variable witnesses
that each company’s board organises – on average – about 10.46 meetings per year. The mean
for BOARDINDEPENDENCE is about 0.62, i.e. more than half of board directors are
JAAR Continuous variables Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
25,1
SDGI 1,766 0.54 0.32 0 1
BGD 1,766 0.24 0.14 0 0.64
BOARDSIZE 1,766 12.54 3.47 4 28
BOARDACTIVITY 1,766 10.46 5.20 1 56
BOARDINDEPENDENCE 1,766 0.62 0.26 0 1
182 SIZE 1,766 25.78 2.39 21.29 33.76
PERFORMANCE 1,766 0.06 0.07 0.26 0.49
LEVERAGE 1,766 0.24 0.15 0 0.79

Table 3. Limited variables Obs 0 1 0 (%) 1 (%)

Descriptive statistics
for dependent and SC 1,766 147 1,619 8.32 91.68
independent variables CEODUALITY 1,766 1,142 624 64.67 35.33

independent on average. Also, in approximately 35.33% of sampled companies, the CEO is the
chairman of its board of directors. Lastly, the mean of sampled companies’ size is about 25.78,
while the mean values of performance and leverage are about 0.06 and 0.24, respectively.
As concerns the dependent variable, the mean of SDGI is about 0.54 (with a standard
deviation of 0.32), indicating that, on average, sample companies disclose more than half of 17
SDGs in their CoPs. This result is higher than that observed in prior similar research (e.g.
Fonseca and Carvalho, 2019; Tsalis et al., 2020; Hummel and Szekely, 2021; Pizzi et al., 2021). It
evidenced the usefulness of the CoP as a communication tool to extend the corporate dialogue
with stakeholders about the SDGs and gain legitimacy by addressing broader societal
expectations about firms’ commitment towards the SDGs (Deegan, 2002; Wasiuzzaman and
Wan Mohammad, 2020). Such results are integrated by a longitudinal perspective offered in
Table 4. Table 4 shows the magnitude of changes in SDG disclosure provided by sample
companies through CoPs during the 2017–2020 period. Accordingly, it emerges how the level
of SDG disclosure constantly increased from 2017 to 2020. This signals the growing attention
companies have devoted to conveying SDG information to legitimise their societal position
and fulfil the social and political pressures arising from the 2030 Agenda’s introduction. So, in
line with prior studies (Manes-Rossi and Nicolo, 2022), we confirmed how SDGs had become
part of the business mindset after the first period of endorsement.
Table 5 provides the average disclosure for each SDG. It is possible to observe that, in line
with previous studies (e.g. Fonseca and Carvalho, 2019; Gunawan et al., 2020; Izzo et al., 2020;
Yu et al., 2020), the SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth)
are the most disclosed. On the contrary, SDG 14 (Life below water), SDG 2 (Zero hunger) and
SDG 1 (No poverty) represent the less reported.
In addition, Figure 1 evidences the disclosure trend for each SDG during the 2017–2020
period. Such a figure corroborates – from a longitudinal perspective – the results previously
outlined. Specifically, it graphically highlights how companies have devoted increasing
attention to disclosing information on each SDG, privileging SDGs 13 and 8. It is worth noting
that also the less disclosed SDGs, such as 14 and 2 have observed a mounting disclosure trend
from 2017 to 2020.
Table 6 presents the pairwise correlations matrix.

Table 4.
SDG disclosure. Variable 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
A longitudinal
perspective SDGI (%) 0.43 0.53 0.57 0.63 0.54
SDG Mean
Gender
diversity and
SDG1 0.35 SDG disclosure
SDG2 0.32
SDG3 0.63
SDG4 0.58
SDG5 0.69
SDG6 0.49 183
SDG7 0.59
SDG8 0.78
SDG9 0.62
SDG10 0.45
SDG11 0.50
SDG12 0.68
SDG13 0.78
SDG14 0.30
SDG15 0.45 Table 5.
SDG16 0.45 Descriptive statistics
SDG17 0.57 for SDGs

SDGs reported by companies over years

100.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Figure 1.
SDG1 SDG2 SDG3 SDG4 SDG5 SDG6 SDG7 SDG8 SDG9 SDG10 SDG11 SDG12 SDG13 SDG14 SDG15 SDG16 SDG17
SDG disclosure trend
2017 2018 2019 2020

All correlations are far below the critical threshold of 0.8 (Gujarati, 2009), suggesting that
multicollinearity is not a crucial problem in this analysis.

Multivariate and mediation analysis

Table 7 illustrates the multivariate results for the hypotheses proposed.
The Pseudo R2 and the other regression diagnostic parameters of the Probit and Tobit
regressions estimations show a good regressions fit. In addition, multicollinearity between
explanatory variables was tested by using the VIF test (Table 8). The VIF test shows values
lower than 2 in all the cases.
Regression results evidence a positive and significant association between BGD and SC
(ρ-value<0.01). This suggests that the presence of an SC is encouraged by women on the
board of directors. This result may be motivated by the higher women’s aptitude for
non-financial issues and greater stakeholder sensitivity. Compared to men, women are more
 25,1

184
JAAR

Table 6.
Correlation matrix
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(1) SDGI 1
(2) BGD 0.040* 1
(3) SC 0.152*** 0.065*** 1
***
(4) BOARDSIZE 0.096 0.039* 0.131*** 1
(5) BOARDACTIVITY 0.049** 0.099*** 0.000 0.029 1
(6) CEODUALITY 0.014 0.056** 0.035 0.013 0.126*** 1
(7) BOARDINDEPENDENCE 0.156*** 0.395*** 0.039* 0.258*** 0.253*** 0.074*** 1
***
(8) SIZE 0.218 0.487*** 0.043* 0.155*** 0.352*** 0.125*** 0.467*** 1
(9) PERFORMANCE 0.066*** 0.010 0.017 0.165*** 0.179*** 0.071*** 0.008 0.216*** 1
(10) LEVERAGE 0.028 0.005 0.058** 0.025 0.023 0.064*** 0.114*** 0.147*** 0.034 1
Note(s): ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Gender
(Step 1) (Step 2A) (Step 2B) (Step 3) diversity and
Explanatory variables SC SDGI SDGI SDGI SDG disclosure
BGD 1.205*** 0.199*** 0.172**
(0.402) (0.0716) (0.0713)
SC 0.170*** 0.165***
(0.0301) (0.0301) 185
Control Variables
BOARDSIZE 0.0782*** 0.00354 0.00302 0.00198
(0.0161) (0.00250) (0.00246) (0.00250)
BOARDACTIVITY 0.00667 0.00253 0.00186 0.00242
(0.00890) (0.00171) (0.00168) (0.00170)
CEODUALITY 0.0971 0.0360** 0.0404** 0.0392**
(0.0951) (0.0171) (0.0170) (0.0170)
BOARDINDEPENDENCE 0.0392 0.0963** 0.0695* 0.0976**
(0.231) (0.0400) (0.0380) (0.0397)
SIZE 0.0582** 0.0312*** 0.0250*** 0.0297***
(0.0255) (0.00450) (0.00403) (0.00447)
PERFORMANCE 1.245* 0.106 0.160 0.146
(0.665) (0.124) (0.123) (0.123)
LEVERAGE 1.053*** 0.171*** 0.132** 0.144***
(0.319) (0.0557) (0.0553) (0.0555)
YEAR_FE Included Included Included Included
COUNTRY_FE Included Included Included Included
SECTOR_FE Included Included Included Included
Constant 1.378* 0.338** 0.292** 0.421*** Table 7.
(0.780) (0.136) (0.125) (0.136) Board gender
Observations 1,766 1,766 1,766 1,766 diversity,
Log likelihood 467.74015 754.26309 742.12744 739.22698 sustainability
LR χ 2(11) 76.82 240.30 264.57 270.38 committee and SDGs:
Prob > χ 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 multivariate and
Pseudo R2 0.0759 0.1374 0.1513 0.1546 mediation analysis

committed to social and environmental initiatives and have deep concerns for the welfare of
the people, society and the environment (Manita et al., 2018; Zahid et al., 2019; Wasiuzzaman
and Wan Mohammad, 2020). Accordingly, their presence influences the creation of a specific
SC in which sustainability issues are at the centre of the corporate agenda.
Results also highlight that SDGI is positively influenced by BGD (ρ-value<0.01) and SC
(ρ-value<0.01). Thus, as expected, the presence of women on the company’s board encourages
SDG disclosures. This result is in line with stakeholder theory which postulates that female
directors provide the board with peculiar characteristics in terms of experiences, skills,
viewpoints and networks that improve the internal decision-making process and the firms’
ability to address multiple stakeholders’ needs through SDG disclosure (Manita et al., 2018;
Zahid et al., 2019). This result also validates the legitimising effect of appointing women on the
board of directors, enabling companies to send a positive message to stakeholders regarding
the attention paid to society’s expectations (Hillman et al., 2007). Likewise, it confirms resource
dependence theory arguments that consider a heterogeneous board – in terms of gender
diversity – a valid mechanism to increase firms’ connections with the external sources of vital
resources from which the company seeks legitimacy (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003; Hillman et al.,
2007; Lu and Herremans, 2019). This, in turn, enhances firms’ ability to address the different
stakeholders’ needs through greater disclosure of SDGs (Albitar et al., 2020; Wasiuzzaman and
Wan Mohammad, 2020). Thus, we confirmed that board gender diversity is a crucial corporate
JAAR Variables VIF 1/VIF
25,1
BGD 1.566 0.638
SC 1.043 0.958
BOARDSIZE 1.188 0.842
BOARDACTIVITY 1.24 0.806
CEODUALITY 1.043 0.959
186 BOARDINDEPENDENCE 1.618 0.618
SIZE 1.813 0.552
Table 8. PERFORMANCE 1.133 0.883
Board gender LEVERAGE 1.068 0.937
diversity, Year FE 1.03 0.971
sustainability Country FE 1.182 0.846
committee and SDGs: Sector FE 1.011 0.989
VIF analysis Mean VIF 1.245

governance mechanism to enhance company accountability and transparency. Their presence

may overcome companies’ recognised resistance to disclosing information about the activities
tackled to address the SDGs. Therefore, H1 is accepted.
In line with expectations, findings also provide evidence that the existence of an SC
positively influences SDG disclosure levels. This result is consistent with prior studies
observing a positive association between the presence of a CSR/Sustainability committee and
the level of sustainability (e.g. Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Amran et al., 2014); CSR

(Gallego-Alvarez and Pucheta-Martınez, 2020); environmental (Helfaya and Moussa, 2017);
and greenhouse gas disclosure (Liao et al., 2015). Accordingly, we can extend prior research
evidence on the importance of establishing a specific SC committee to increase transparency
on sustainability, as we found that SC committees behave similarly when they have to
address SDGs in the UNGC participants’ context. In particular, this positive association lets
us highlight that UNGC companies recognise the SC’s pivotal role in institutionalising SDGs
within the corporate agenda and translating related ambitions into concrete programs and
actions (Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Amran et al., 2014). We confirmed the assertion that,
being composed of members with knowledge, capabilities and specific experiences in
sustainability, the SC plays a pivotal role in supporting companies in incorporating
sustainability into their strategic direction and operations (Martınez-Ferrero et al., 2021).
This, in turn, facilitates organisations in enhancing the dialogue with their stakeholders by
providing a greater amount of information explaining how they have undertaken specific
activities to contribute toward the SDGs. Therefore, H2a is accepted.
Finally, results witness the influence of BGD (independent variable) and SC (mediating
variable) on the disclosure of SDGs, corroborating the abovementioned considerations.
Furthermore, it serves as a precondition to ascertain a mediating effect of the SC in the BGD-
SDGI relationship. Indeed, as aforementioned, there is a positive relationship between BGD
and SC, as required by the first condition. In addition, the coefficient of BGD reported in
Model 4 (β1 5 0.172; ρ-value<0.5) is lower than the coefficient of BGD reported in Model 2
(β1 5 0.199; ρ-value<0.01). In this respect, a Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) was conducted to
ascertain whether the indirect effect is significant. The obtained results (z 5 2.406, p < 0.01)
confirm that BGD has an indirect effect through SC on SDGI. Therefore, based on these
results, it is possible to accept H2b. From the above findings, it can be suggested that the
relationship between the BGD and SDGI is not (only) direct but also mediated by the presence
of an SC. This confirms that the existence of an SC may support women in coordinating and
maximising their efforts to stimulate more accountability and transparency about SDGs.
Accordingly, this result lets us state that the specific non-financial aptitudes and sensitivity
towards stakeholders’ concerns characterising women directors can be condensed within the Gender
creation of ad hoc SCs. Such SCs act as vectors for conveying more transparency and diversity and
accountability on firms’ commitment toward SDGs.
Last, about the effects of control variables on the disclosure of SDG disclosure, looking at
SDG disclosure
Table 7 it is possible to detect a positive impact exerted by CEODUALITY (ρ-value<0.05), SIZE
(ρ-value<0.01) and LEVERAGE (ρ-value<0.05) on SDGI. On the contrary, the BOARDINDEPENDENCE
exerts a negative influence (ρ-value<0.01) on SDGI.
187
Additional analyses
In order to mitigate the omitted variable bias, an alternative dependent variable was included
in the model specification. It is the sum of SDGs disclosed by the company (SDGISUM) that can
take values between 0 (no SDGs is disclosed) to 17 (all SDGs are disclosed).
X
17
SDGISum ¼ SDGs
i¼1

Table 9 reports the results of introducing the alternative SDG disclosure variable. Albeit with
a lower Pseudo R2, the sign of the coefficient of BGD leads to accepting H1 in all models.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

(Step 1) (Step 2A) (Step 2B) (Step 3)
Explanatory variables SC SDGISum SDGISum SDGISum

BGD 2.285*** 3.142** 2.632*

(0.408) (1.424) (1.417)
SC 3.168*** 3.092***
(0.597) (0.598)
Control Variables
BOARDSIZE 0.0303** 0.0681 0.0540 0.0384
(0.0136) (0.0498) (0.0491) (0.0498)
BOARDACTIVITY 0.000174 0.0510 0.0408 0.0494
(0.00996) (0.0340) (0.0335) (0.0338)
CEODUALITY 0.0522 0.683** 0.766** 0.745**
(0.0908) (0.341) (0.339) (0.339)
BOARDINDEPENDENCE 0.00508 1.791** 1.402* 1.825**
(0.219) (0.795) (0.756) (0.789)
SIZE 0.0749*** 0.646*** 0.547*** 0.618***
(0.0245) (0.0901) (0.0811) (0.0896)
PERFORMANCE 0.845 2.277 3.264 3.048
(0.605) (2.447) (2.435) (2.435)
LEVERAGE 0.465 3.153*** 2.481** 2.662**
(0.293) (1.109) (1.102) (1.105)
Year FE Included Included Included Included
Country FE Included Included Included Included
Sector FE Included Included Included Included
Constant 1.943*** 8.263*** 7.834*** 9.806***
(0.730) (2.724) (2.508) (2.723) Table 9.
Observations 1,766 1,766 1,766 1,766 Board gender
Log likelihood 551.75874 4822.6814 4811.0325 4809.3077 diversity,
LR χ 2(11) 232.09 233.16 256.46 259.91 sustainability
Prob > χ 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 committee and SDGs:
Pseudo R2 0.1738 0.0236 0.0260 0.0263 additional analyses
JAAR Likewise, H2a is also accepted since the sign of the coefficient of SC is positive and significant.
25,1 Furthermore, the mediating effect of SC in the relationship between BGD and the disclosure of
SDGs (H2b) is confirmed as all Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure conditions
were respected.

Conclusions
188 After introducing the 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs (UNGC, 2015), growing awareness of the
most urgent global sustainability issues emerged. An increasing number of studies related to
SDGs adoption, engagement and disclosure have begun to emerge in the academic world,
providing initial knowledge on the global goals and their inclusion in the non-financial
reporting systems (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Erin and Bamigboye, 2022).
While several studies have investigated the impact of specific firm-level characteristics
and external context variables on the company’s decision to mention or report information
about its SDGs commitment, there is still much to learn about the role that corporate
governance, in terms of board composition, may play in stimulating SDG disclosure.
Moreover, prior research stagnated on investigating SDG disclosure practices through GRI-
based Sustainability Reports, neglecting the existence of other communication tools that may
improve the dialogue between companies and stakeholders about SDGs.
Mindful of this, the present paper attempted to bridge the research gap by providing
manifold contributions to the existing SDG disclosure and corporate governance literature.
Accordingly, by investigating a sample of 526 companies from 39 countries and ten
industry sectors for 2017–2020, this study shed light on the usefulness of alternative
communication tools to Sustainability and Annual reports, such as the CoP prepared by
participating companies in the UNGC to increase accountability for SDGs. In particular, we
demonstrated that this tool might overcome companies’ recognised reluctance to integrate
SDGs in traditional financial and non-financial reporting systems, allowing them to enhance
their legitimacy and address emerging stakeholders’ needs. Also, this study provided
empirical evidence supporting stakeholder, legitimacy and resource dependency theory
arguments about the positive role exerted by the board gender diversity on corporate non-
financial disclosure. Specifically, the study’s results reveal that companies appointing more
women on their boards are more attentive to providing information about the actions taken to
address the SDGs. In such a way, this study confirms that the variety of opinions,
perspectives, skills, competencies, leadership styles, experiences and relationships ensured
by the presence of women in the boardroom improves the quality of discussion and the
internal decision-making processes. This enhances companies’ abilities to deal better with the
interests of the stakeholders’ groups through higher SDG disclosure levels.
Attuned, the study’s results also aid understanding of an SC’s pivotal role in influencing
SDG disclosure and mediating its relationship with board gender diversity. In particular, we
provided empirical evidence demonstrating that creating a specific SC may pave the way to
institutionalising the SDG spirit. The SC establishment stimulates the provision of a greater
extent of information that informs stakeholders about how the firms are making efforts to put
the SDGs at the core of the corporate agenda. The existence of an SC also offers room for
women to coordinate their efforts systematically to stimulate the board in better addressing
stakeholders’ needs through greater transparency about SDG commitment.
The implications of this study are not limited to the academic circles but are also of use for
the corporate sector, investors, standard-setter and policy-makers.
From a corporate perspective, these results aim to support managers and decision-makers
in better understanding key factors positively related to SDG disclosure. The empirical
results suggest that companies might appoint a certain proportion of women in the
boardroom to promote gender equality, in line with SDG 5 and constitute an SC. Moreover, the
study’s findings also offer stimuli for policy-makers and regulators to reflect on the relevance Gender
of the CoP as a possible alternative communication tool to provide SDGs information and diversity and
overcome the limitations of the Sustainability Reports.
This study’s findings should also be interpreted mindful of the following limitations that
SDG disclosure
provide avenues for future investigations. First, the research did not consider external
context variables that, in conjunction with those included in this analysis, might affect the
disclosure of SDGs differently. Second, being the sample composed of the largest worldwide
companies, the empirical evidence provided can not be generalised to small and medium 189
enterprises (SMEs). It would be interesting to test this relationship in the SMEs context in the
future. Third, this analysis did not operate any differentiation by sector. Since different
sectors could influence the disclosure of specific SDGs differently, additional future studies
may address this gap. Last, this paper deliberately focused on CoPs as communication tools
to derive unprecedented insight into companies’ SDG disclosure behaviours. Mindful of this,
future research might consider comparing different non-financial reporting documents,
including Sustainability or Integrated reports and CoPs, to obtain additional insights.

References
Albitar, K., Hussainey, K., Kolade, N. and Gerged, A.M. (2020), “ESG disclosure and firm performance
before and after IR: the moderating role of governance mechanisms”, International Journal of
Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 289-307.
Amorelli, M.F. and Garcıa-Sanchez, I.M. (2020), “Critical mass of female directors, human capital, and
stakeholder engagement by corporate social reporting”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 204-221.
Amran, A., Lee, S.P. and Devi, S.S. (2014), “The influence of governance structure and strategic
corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality”, Business Strategy and
the Environment, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 217-235.
Arayssi, M., Jizi, M. and Tabaja, H.H. (2020), “The impact of board composition on the level of ESG
disclosures in GCC countries”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 137-161.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research. conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bebbington, J. and Unerman, J. (2018), “Achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals:
an enabling role for accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Carney, T.F. (1972), Content Analysis: A Technique for Systematic Inference from Communications,
University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.
Chan, M.C., Watson, J. and Woodliff, D. (2014), “Corporate governance quality and CSR disclosures”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 1, pp. 59-73.
Chen, J.C. and Roberts, R.W. (2010), “Toward a more coherent understanding of the organisation–
society relationship: a theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting
research”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 651-665.
Deegan, C. (2002), “Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures–a
theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 282-311.
Deegan, C. (2019), “Legitimacy theory: despite its enduring popularity and contribution, time is right for a
necessary makeover”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 2307-2329.
Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C. (2006), “Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: an exploration of
the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry”, Accounting,
Organisations and Society, Vol. 31 Nos 4-5, pp. 343-372.
JAAR Deloitte (2017), “2030 Purpose: ‘Good business and a better future Connecting sustainable development
with enduring commercial success, United Kingdom’”, available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/
25,1 global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/purpose-2030-good-business-better-future.html (accessed
10 January 2022).
Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), “Organisational legitimacy: social values and organisational
behavior”, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 122-136.
Erin, O.A. and Bamigboye, O.A. (2022), “Evaluation and analysis of SDG reporting: evidence from
190 Africa”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 369-396.
Fonseca, L. and Carvalho, F. (2019), “The reporting of SDGs by quality, environmental, and occupational
health and safety-certified organisations”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 20, pp. 5797-5817.
Freedman, M. and Jaggi, B. (2009), “Global warming and corporate disclosures: a comparative analysis
of companies from the European Union, Japan and Canada”, Sustainability, Environmental
Performance and Disclosures, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Marshfield, Pitman.
Fuente, J.A., Garcıa-Sanchez, I.M. and Lozano, M.B. (2017), “The role of the board of directors in the
adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 737-750.

Gallego-Alvarez, I. and Pucheta-Martınez, M.C. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility reporting and
corporate governance mechanisms: an international outlook from emerging countries”, Business
Strategy and Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 77-97.
Garcıa-Meca, E. and Martınez-Ferrero, J. (2021), “Is SDG reporting substantial or symbolic? An examination
of controversial and environmentally sensitive industries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 298
No. 1, 126781.
Garcıa-Sanchez, I.M., Aibar-Guzman, B., Aibar-Guzman, C. and Somohano-Rodrıguez, F.M. (2022),
“The drivers of the integration of the sustainable development goals into the non-financial
information system: individual and joint analysis of their influence”, Sustainable Development,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 513-524.
Garcıa-Sanchez, I.M., Gomez-Miranda, M.E., David, F. and Rodrıguez-Ariza, L. (2019a), “The explanatory
effect of CSR committee and assurance services on the adoption of the IFC performance standards,
as a means of enhancing corporate transparency”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and
Policy Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 773-797.
Garcıa-Sanchez, I.M., Gomez-Miranda, M.E., David, F. and Rodrıguez-Ariza, L. (2019b), “Board
independence and GRI-IFC performance standards: the mediating effect of the CSR committee”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 225 No. 1, pp. 554-562.
Garcıa-Sanchez, I.M., Rodrıguez-Ariza, L., Aibar-Guzman, B. and Aibar-Guzman, C. (2020), “Do institutional
investors drive corporate transparency regarding business contribution to the sustainable
development goals?”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 2019-2036.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77.
Gray, R., Owen, D. and Adams, C. (1996), Accounting and Accountability: Changes and Challenges in
Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Prentice-Hall, London.
Groening, C. (2019), “When do investors value board gender diversity?”, Corporate Governance,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 60-79.
Gujarati, D.N. (2009), Basic Econometrics, Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Gunawan, J., Permatasari, P. and Tilt, C. (2020), “Sustainable development goal disclosures: do they support
responsible consumption and production?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 246 No. 1, 118989.
Helfaya, A. and Moussa, T. (2017), “Do board’s corporate social responsibility strategy and orientation
influence environmental sustainability disclosure? UK evidence”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1061-1077.
Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Urbieta, L. and Boiral, O. (2022), “Organisations’ engagement with sustainable Gender
development goals: from cherry-picking to SDG-washing?”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 316-328. diversity and
Hillman, A.J. and Dalziel, T. (2003), “Boards of directors and firm performance: integrating agency and
SDG disclosure
resource dependence perspectives”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 383-396.
Hillman, A.J., Shropshire, C. and Cannella, A.A. Jr (2007), “Organisational predictors of women on
corporate boards”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 941-952.
191
Hummel, K. and Szekely, M. (2021), “Disclosure on the sustainable development goals–evidence from
Europe”, Accounting in Europe, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-38.
Issa, A., Zaid, M.A.A., Hanaysha, J.R. and Gull, A.A. (2022), “An examination of board diversity and
corporate social responsibility disclosure: evidence from banking sector in the Arabian Gulf
countries”, International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 22-46.
Izzo, M.F., Ciaburri, M. and Tiscini, R. (2020), “The challenge of sustainable development goal
reporting: the first evidence from Italian listed companies”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 8, p. 3494.
Liao, L., Luo, L. and Tang, Q. (2015), “Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee
and greenhouse gas disclosure”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 409-424.
Lindblom, C.K. (1994), “The implications of organisational legitimacy for corporate social performance
and disclosure”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York.
Lu, J. and Herremans, I.M. (2019), “Board gender diversity and environmental performance:
an industries perspective”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1449-1464.
Manes-Rossi, F. and Nicolo, G. (2022), “Exploring sustainable development goals reporting practices:
from symbolic to substantive approaches—evidence from the energy sector”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1799-1815.
Manes-Rossi, F., Tiron-Tudor, A., Nicolo, G. and Zanellato, G. (2018), “Ensuring more sustainable
reporting in Europe using non-financial disclosure—De facto and de jure evidence”,
Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 1162.
Manes-Rossi, F., Nicolo, G., Tiron Tudor, A. and Zanellato, G. (2021), “Drivers of integrated reporting
by state-owned enterprises in Europe: a longitudinal analysis”, Meditari Accountancy Research,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 586-616.
Manita, R., Bruna, M.G., Dang, R. and Houanti, L. (2018), “Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure:
evidence from the USA”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 206-224.
Martınez-Ferrero, J., Lozano, M.B. and Vivas, M. (2021), “The impact of board cultural diversity on a
firm’s commitment toward the sustainability issues of emerging countries: the mediating effect
of a CSR committee”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 675-685.
Michelon, G. and Parbonetti, A. (2012), “The effect of corporate governance on sustainability
disclosure”, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 477-509.
Nicolo, G., Zanellato, G., Tiron-Tudor, A. and Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2022a), “Revealing the corporate
contribution to sustainable development goals through integrated reporting: a worldwide
perspective”, Social Responsibility Journal, forthcoming.
Nicolo, G., Zampone, G., Sannino, G. and De Iorio, S. (2022b), “Sustainable corporate governance and
non-financial disclosure in Europe: does the gender diversity matter?”, Journal of Applied
Accounting Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 227-249.
Orazalin, N. (2019), “Do board sustainability committees contribute to corporate environmental and
social performance? The mediating role of corporate social responsibility strategy”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 140-153.
OXFAM, Mhlanga, R., Gneiting, U. and Agarwal, N. (2018), “Walking the talk: assessing companies’ progress
from SDG rhetoric to action”, Oxford, United Kingdom, available at: https://oxfamilibrary.
openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620550/dpwalking-the-talk-business-sdgs-240918-en.pdf
JAAR Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (2003), The External Control of Organisations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, Stanford University Press, California.
25,1
Pizzi, S., Rosati, F. and Venturelli, A. (2020), “The determinants of business contribution to the 2030
agenda: introducing the SDG reporting score”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 404-421.
Pizzi, S., Venturelli, A. and Caputo, F. (2021), “The ‘comply-or-explain’ principle in directive 95/2014/
EU. A rhetorical analysis of Italian PIEs”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
192 Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 30-50.
Price Waterhouse Coopers Scott, L. and McGill, A. (2018), “From promise to reality: does business
really care about the SDGs? And what needs to happen to turn words into action”, available at:
https://www.pwc.com/sdgreportingchallenge
Price Waterhouse Coopers Scott, L. and McGill, A. (2019), “Creating a strategy for a better world. How the
Sustainable Development Goals can provide the framework for business to deliver progress on our
global challenges”, available at: https://www.pwc.com/sdgchallenge (accessed 10 January 2022).
Qureshi, M.A., Kirkerud, S., Theresa, K. and Ahsan, T. (2020), “The impact of sustainability (environmental,
social, and governance) disclosure and board diversity on firm value: the moderating role of industry
sensitivity”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 29, pp. 1199-1214.
Rao, K. and Tilt, C. (2016), “Board diversity and CSR reporting: an Australian study”, Meditari
Accountancy Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 182-210.
Rosati, F. and Faria, L.G.D. (2019a), “Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda:
organisational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 588-597.
Rosati, F. and Faria, L.G.D. (2019b), “Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: the relationship
with institutional factors”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 215 No. 1, pp. 1312-1326.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 224-253.
Silva, S. (2021), “Corporate contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals: an empirical analysis
informed by legitimacy theory”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 292, pp. 1-14.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
Models”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 13, pp. 290-312.
Tsalis, T.A., Malamateniou, K.E., Koulouriotis, D. and Nikolaou, I.E. (2020), “New challenges for
corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development
and the sustainable development goals”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1617-1629.
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) (2015), “Global compact communication on progress policy”,
available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/1851 (accessed 15 January 2022).
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) (2021a), UN Global Compact Strategy 2021-2023, UNGC, New
York, NY, available at: https://ungc-communications-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/about_
the_gc/UN-GLOBAL-COMPACT-STRATEGY-2021-2023.pdf
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) (2021b), Policy on Communication on Progress, 2021, available
at: file:///C:/Users/giuse/Downloads/UNGC_CoP_Policy__effective_2023_%20(2).pdf
Uyar, A., Kilic, M., Koseoglu, M.A., Kuzey, C. and Karaman, A.S. (2020), “The link among board
characteristics, corporate social responsibility performance, and financial performance: evidence
from the hospitality and tourism industry”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 35, 100714.
Van der Waal, J.W. and Thijssens, T. (2020), “Corporate involvement in sustainable development
goals: exploring the territory”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 252 No. 1, 119625.
Wasiuzzaman, S. and Wan Mohammad, W.M. (2020), “Board gender diversity and transparency of
environmental, social and governance disclosure: evidence from Malaysia”, Managerial and
Decision Economics, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 145-156.
Yu, S., Sial, M.S., Tran, D.K., Badulescu, A., Thu, P.A. and Sehleanu, M. (2020), “Adoption and Gender
implementation of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in China—agenda 2030”, Sustainability,
Vol. 12 No. 15, p. 6288. diversity and
Zahid, M., Rehman, H.U., Ali, W., Khan, M., Alharthi, M., Qureshi, M.I. and Jan, A. (2019), “Boardroom
SDG disclosure
gender diversity: implications for corporate sustainability disclosures in Malaysia”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 241 No. 1, pp. 1-8.

193
Further reading
EU Commission (2020), “Inception impact assessment ‘sustainable corporate governance’”, available
at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12548-Sustainable-
corporate-governance (accessed 9 January 2022).

About the authors

Giovanni Zampone is a Ph.D. in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Campania
“L. Vanvitelli” (Italy). His current research interests include non-financial disclosure, specifically corporate
social responsibility disclosure. He received his Master’s degree in Economics and Management from the
University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, and a second level specialised master at the University of Pisa.
Giuseppe Nicolo, PhD Europaeus in Public Sector Accounting, is a Senior Researcher in the
Department of Management and Innovation Systems at the University of Salerno (Italy) where he is also
a lecturer of Financial Accounting and Business Administration. His research is mainly focused on non-
financial disclosure including, Intellectual Capital, Integrated Reporting, Corporate Social
Responsibility, risk management and other social and environmental issues. He is also interested in
studying corporate governance mechanisms – including gender diversity – and their impact on
corporate performance. Giuseppe is member of the Italian Society of Ragioneria and Economia
Aziendale (SIDREA) and the European Accounting Association (EAA). Giuseppe Nicolo is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: gnicolo@unisa.it
Giuseppe Sannino is a full professor in accounting and financial reporting at the University of
Campania “L. Vanvitelli” where he teaches courses in financial accounting, managerial control and
mergers and acquisitions. He holds a Ph.D. in international financial accounting from the University of
Naples “Federico II”. His primary research areas include financial reporting, disclosure, earning
management, corporate governance, public sector accounting and performance management.
Serena De Iorio is a second-year doctoral student in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the
University of Campania “L. Vanvitelli”. Her current research interests relate to corporate governance,
specifically the board of directors, significant and less significant institutions, banks’ business models
and fintech.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com