Do CEO/CFO characteris influence organization's voluntary CSR disclosures? : empirical evidence from Germany

(1)

Do CEO/CFO characteris E Master thesis Name: Nadine B Student No: 1060263 Program: Account Supervisor: Prof. Dr

Second evaluator: Dr. Pete

ristics influence organization's voluntary CSR Empirical evidence from Germany

Academic Year 2013 / 2014

e Böhmer 631

ntancy & Control - Specialization Control Dr. Frank Verbeeten MBA

ter Kroos

(2)

Corporate Social Responsibility gains an increasing importance for corporations. Due to this fact, more and more firms provide CSR disclosures to inform about their relevant activities. Top-level management's decisions regarding CSR disclosures are thereby influenced by several financial and non-financial motives. The assessment of accompanied costs and these potential benefits takes place on the basis of their own values and norms. A proxy for these non-observable factors are their individual demographics. The aim of this research is to examine if firm's high-level management, in particular the demographics of their CEOs and CFOs, have an influence on CSR disclosures.

The empirical results showed that the demographics of German CEOs and CFOs have comparatively low impacts on CSR disclosure, and that a detailed analysis is necessary. The findings suggest that longer-tenured CEOs tend to disclose more extensively. Similar results could be determined for certain functional experiences and the holding of a MBA. Furthermore, CSR disclosure is positively related to the organizational tenure as well as certain functional experiences of the CFO. An oppositional finding could be made for CFOs holding a MBA. Additionally, CSR disclosure did exhibit only poor relationships to CEO and CFO age or a managerial turnover. However, some of the CEO and CFO demographics are influenced by year- and firm-specific factors, so that these results only occur in specific environments. The findings differ only marginally when analyzing the provision of social and environmental information in detail.

Key words: Corporate Social responsibility, Corporate Social Responsibility disclosure, Positive Accounting Theory, Voluntary Disclosure Theory, Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory, Institutional Theory, CEOs and CFOs demographics

(7)

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

During the last years, the research and practice regarding organization's accounting processes have shifted from a focus on primarily financial to social aspects. Guthrie and Parker (1989) state that theorists and practitioners identify the impact of social factors on accounting processes and strategies. These adjustments in practices and structures evolve from a change in the perception of organizations. After companies have been considered only in terms of their economic activities for a long time, nowadays further aspects attract the attention of the public. The effects of entrepreneurial operations on the society and the environment are also considered by now (Elkington 1998). The alteration in managerial and public interests are based on the technological and social developments in the last decades. This progress has caused a change in the expectations and main focuses of these groups (Valor 2005).

According to Valor (2005), CSR emerged as a counterpart to the predominant neoclassical business model that became guidance for business activities. The alteration of CSR as it is perceived today looks back on a long process of development. Carroll (1999) states that the modern evolution of CSR in literature and practice started in the 1950s. The author assigns the origins of CSR in literature to Howard Rothmann Bowen and his book "Social Responsibilities of Businessman" that was published in 1953. Bowen was one of the first researchers that shed the light on the "social consciousness" (Bowen 1953, p. 44) of businessman in their general course of action. As a pioneer, he suggested that organizational policies as well as managerial activities have to comply to the objectives and values of the society. During the following years, CSR was analyzed from various perspectives. Literature extensively (for example Carroll, 1979; Swanson, 1995; Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998; Hooghiemstra, 2000; Gelb and Strawser, 2001) started to examine the involved parties and drivers of CSR and build up a comprehensive understanding of the existing interdependencies. In this course of action, the organization's social responsibilities were linked to operational and strategic management decisions (Valor 2005).

These changes in the organizational percipience simultaneously lead to changes in corporation's accounting processes. With a growing attention of the Corporate Social Responsibilities of businesses, the demand of environmental and social information is also increasing (Dhaliwal et al. 2011). These needs are met by the inclusion of information

(8)

regarding CSR in firm's disclosure strategies (Neu et al., 1998; Hooghiemstra, 2000). This form of disclosure is voluntary in most of the countries and the provision of these information thus exceeds legal regulations (Gamerschlag et al., 2011; Meek et al., 1995).

This voluntariness raises the question why organizations provide CSR information and which factors influence the level of disclosure. Dhaliwal et al. (2011) emphasize the growing importance and the material value that CSR disclosure has for an organization. The provision of CSR relevant information is demanded by different interest groups and can be essential for an organizations' survival as it may have an essential impact on the financial and non-financial performance of the company (Hooghiemstra, 2000; Healy and Palepu, 2001; Cormier et al., 2011). Prior literature extensively focuses on Legitimacy theory (Brown and Deegan, 1998; Wilmshurst and Frost 1999), Stakeholder theory (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006; Ullmann, 1985), Institutional theory (Cormier and Magnan, 1999; Meek et al., 1995; Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998) and Economic perspectives (Cormier et al., 2005; Déjean and Martinez, 2009) to explain the disclosure level. These perspectives will be considered by the top level management when defining the disclosure strategy. As the ultimate decision towards the disclosure lies in their discretionary decision-making, these managers are an interesting subject to evaluate. Hambrick and Mason's (1984, p. 193) upper echelons theory states that organizations are "a reflection of its managers attitudes and values". Decisions that are taken by the top level management team significantly depend on the inner beliefs of these managers. This research therefore suggests that managers evaluate different financial and non-financial motives for the disclosure of CSR information based on their own perceptions, for which their demographics are a proxy.

Since organizations Chief Executive Officers (CEO) and Chief Financial Officers (CFO) are the most important decision-makers of strategic and disclosure related decisions, these top-level managers will be the focus of this study (Manner, 2010; Waldmann et al., 2006). Prior literature already provides some information regarding the influence of manager's demographics on their decision-making towards the financial disclosure strategy (Bamber et al., 2010; Bertrand and Schoar, 2003; Schrand and Walther, 2000). However, the potential significant impact of firms on the society makes it interesting to investigate in the decisions regarding the publication of such information. Thus, this research project extends prior literature as it aims to analyze the transferability of prior findings to a non-financial setting.

(9)

Previous literature mainly focused on CSR in countries as the USA or Australia (for example Deegan and Blomquist, 2006; Holder-Webb et al., 2009). Through the focus on Germany, this study extends the existing findings with insights in a European context. Germany is a country with a longstanding CSR tradition that goes far back to the period of the European Industrialization and is firmly anchored in the German culture (Berthoin Antal et al. 2009). While numerous data are readily available, it provides an appropriate research setting.

1.2 Research question

Based on the prior literature that was illustrated in the previous section, this study wants to examine the influence of specific CEO and CFO demographics on the voluntary disclosure of CSR related information of organizations. Therefore, the research question is:

Do CEO/CFO characteristics influence organizations voluntary CSR disclosures?- Empirical Evidence from Germany

To pursue a quantitative analysis of the influence of manager's demographic characteristics on their disclosure behavior, this study relies on the upper echelons theory of Hambrick and Mason (1984). Annual reports as well as CSR reports or websites are analyzed to gather the information regarding the disclosure as well as the responsible CEOs and CFOs.

A further investigation on how top-level managements' attitudes influence the disclosure of CSR contributes in various ways to existing literature:

First, this research question responds to the proposition of Bamber et al. (2010) that only little research has been undertaken in the area of noneconomic determinants in managerial decision-making regarding voluntary disclosures. This study wants to extend previous literature by examining whether the results of the influence of several CEO and CFO demographics regarding financial disclosures are transferable to non-financial disclosures as well. Existing research only provides little information regarding the combination of voluntary disclosure strategy, managerial demographics and non-financial information. Through changing the setting to a relative under-researched field, the results generate additional knowledge regarding the determinants of environmental and social disclosures and thus contribute to academic literature. Since this research uses different demographic characteristics to analyze, the results also add to the upper echelons theory.

(10)

Second, as the CEO is an already widespread researched objective, the inclusion of the CFO is only of a minor manner. Especially in the combination with CSR the focus is mainly concentrated on the CEO (for example Bamber et al., 2010; Huang, 2012; Manner, 2010). However, as CFOs may play an important role in the reporting processes (Geiger and North 2006), this research shall investigate their particular influence as well. This study thus responds to researched gap identified by Bamber et al. (2010) who ascertain the demand of an evaluation of the top-level management beyond the CEO.

The societal contribution of this study deals with the employment process of managers. When organizations hire a new manager, they not only employ a new employee, but also a set of certain values and norms. By making firms aware of this fact, companies have the possibility to adjust their hiring processes in accordance to their business goals. Managers can be hired because the organization already has the objective that these CEOs or CFOs introduce their own disclosure styles. For example, firms that want to improve the disclosure of CSR information can selectively employ managers whose demographics promise a higher likelihood of these publications. This research thereby substantiates the proposition that individuals matter as they tend to differ in their choices.

1.3 Reading guide

The present thesis consists of five sections. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the existing literature regarding CSR and CSR disclosure. It illustrates the current developments and gives insights into the status quo of CSR and its disclosure in Germany. Additionally, diverse economical, non-economical and institutional influence factors of voluntary disclosures are discussed. With this information taken into consideration, the influence of CEOs and CFOs demographic characteristics in their strategic decisions towards voluntary corporate publications are described. Section 3 specifies and presents the research method, including a description of the utilized sample. Furthermore, the relevant variables and the empirical model are defined. Section 4 presents the empirical results of the analysis of the influence of CEOs and CFOs demographic characteristics on CSR Disclosure. An overall conclusion and elaboration on the limitations of this study completes the paper in section 5.

(11)

Figure 1: Firms in their closer environment (following Elkington (1998) and Carroll (1998)) 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility

During the last decades, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) gained an increasing attention from organizations and society. Practitioners and academics focused on an organizations' CSR strategy, the determinants of this strategy as well as the implications for the environment and for the organization itself (Hooghiemstra, 2000; Gelb and Strawser, 2001). Defining CSR is complex and prior literature does not provide an universally valid definition of the corporate social and environmental responsibilities (Freeman and Hasnaoui, 2011; Dahlsrud, 2008). The term CSR is often used interchangeably with, for instance, corporate responsibility, sustainability and corporate social performance (Freeman and Hasnaoui 2011). All of these definitions have in common that they assume that CSR establishes a connection between business and the society (Wood 1991).

Elkington (1998) confirms that organizations act in a net of three components: people, planet and profit. His concept of the "Triple Bottom Line" therefore leads to the expectations that organizations consider the impact of their activities on society in ethical, social and environmental terms. Based on their significant influence in society, firms have to fulfill responsibilities to aspire at social goals (Steiner 1972).

Carroll (1998) introduces the term "corporate citizenship" to capture such responsibilities. She argues that in their relationship to the society, organizations have to align their principles of corporate social responsibility in economic, legal, ethical and philanthropy aspects with society's beliefs. Organizations that are "good" corporate citizens aspire for economical profit to satisfy their investors and assure the supply of jobs and services/products. In addition, these firms act in conformity to legal regulations. Societies often demand for additional ethical standards beyond legal standards. Corporations have to consider these expectations. The philanthropy aspect asks for voluntary activities of organizations to support humankind.

Society Economy Profit Environment Firm • Economic face • Legal face • Ethical face • Philanthropic face

(12)

Based on these findings, CSR can be seen as a powerful instrument in the relationship between organizations and society. Argandona and von Weltzien Hoicvik (2010) specify social responsibilities from the point of view of the firm as:

"the set of moral duties towards other social actors and towards society that the firm assumes as a result of its economic, social, political, and, of course, ethical reflection on its role in

society and on its relationships with those other actors" (p. 225),

Friedman (1962) suggests that the interaction between organizations and society is only of a financial manner because the effective and efficient use of resources to achieve profits is the solely social duty of organizations. McWilliams and Siegel (2001) emphasize that companies use CSR to maximize their profits. In contrast to that, O' Dwyer (2003) indicates that the fulfillment of social responsibilities is mostly independent on economic constraints. With regard to a closer examination of the implementation of CSR in corporate decisions, McWilliams and Siegel (2001) point out that the solely alignment to legal regulations is not a part of CSR: CSR actions are in fact

"actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law".

These can be actions related to the community or humanitarian, environmental, health, safety and political giving aspects (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Roberts, 1992; Holder-Webb et al., 2009). Some examples may be the adaption of progressive human resource management programs, the development of non-animal testing procedures or the embodiment of products with social attributes or characteristics.

For the following research, the definition of the Commission of the European Communities (2001) is chosen since this definition contains all stated relevant aspects:

"Corporate Social Responsibility is a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their

stakeholders on a voluntary basis".

According to Dahlsrud (2008), this is one of the most widespread used definitions in literature. It determines that the CSR engagement of profit-oriented organizations exceeds legal regulations and aims to contribute to good conditions for the society. CSR activities should thus be part of the firms strategy. The definition is chosen for this study because it's

(13)

determination by a European Commission makes its application to the research setting Germany very likely. Besides, the explicit focus on firm's stakeholders makes it interesting to analyze if firms release CSR information to generate economic or non-economic benefits in their direct contact to diverse stakeholder groups and which motives they thereby pursue.

Firms' decisions to engage in social responsible activities are promoted by a variety of financial and non-financial motives (Holder-Webb, 2009; Roberts, 1992). To realize benefits out of this commitment, firms have to publish and promote their activities. One way to establish a contact with the relevant addressees can be firms' disclosure strategies (Neu et al. 1998). The disclosure of financial and non-financial information is an appropriate tool to communicate to several interest groups. These groups can only through these mandatory and voluntary reports attain relevant information that otherwise would have been kept in the organizations (Clarkson et al. 2008). The publication takes place in form of websites, press publications, conference calls, financial statements, footnotes, management discussion and analysis and other regulatory filings (Healy and Palepu 2001). It is depending on the incitation, firm's predisposition and existing response structures (Healy and Palepu, 2001; Gibbins et al., 1990). Firms tend to disclose information that they consider as value relevant due to two reasons. They either follow legal regulations or they expect firm-specific advantages of it (Healy and Palepu, 2001; Gibbins et al. 1990).

2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure

The appropriate establishment of the disclosure strategy is one way to fulfill corporate social responsibilities (Neu et al. 1998). As firms are considered to be responsible for their actions, they include further information regarding their behavior in their disclosures (Roberts, 1992; Cormier et al., 2011). The reason is that it is not sufficient to only proceed actions in the means of CSR, but it is also important to diffuse information about them (Holder-Webb et al. 2009). Roberts (1992) perceives the disclosure as an able method to include CSR in firms' strategies since this instrument is one of the CSR activities. In accordance to prior literature (Gray et al., 2001; Campbell, 2004; Gamerschlag et al., 2011, p. 235) CSR disclosure is defined as:

"The information that a company discloses about its environmental impact and its relationship with its stakeholders by the means of relevant communication channels".

(14)

Companies chose communication tools that are esteemed by the relevant society, as for example firm's annual financial reports or stand-alone CSR reports. Annual reports possess a high credibility which is likewise transferred to the information included and are thus a prominent tool for CSR communication (Neu et al., 1998; Tilt, 1994).

The disclosures provide information with regard to the relationship between a firm and its physical and social environment. It may give particulars about environment, energy, human resources and community involvement (Deegan and Gordon 1996). They can provide additional information for a companies' stakeholders beyond the financial information in firm's reports (Dhaliwal et al. 2011). With the disclosure of certain information, firms address themselves to specific interests groups within the society as well as to the society at large. Proceeding like this, a company enhances its accountability beyond its financial obligations (Gray et al. 2001). A CSR report gives a basis for a dialogue since it is the most direct way of a firm to pose its CSR attitudes and behaviors towards the society (Dierkes and Antal, 1985; Perrini, 2005). Ullmann (1985), Wood (2010) and Clarkson et al. (2008) suggest that firms social and environmental reports may be used as a measurement for firm's CSR performance. The authors emphasize that this measurement requires the review of a third party. In this sense, Clarkson et al. (2008) state that the disclosure enables firms to communicate their performance which otherwise would not be apparent for stakeholders. The extension of disclosure can thus be seen as a means of the CSR of the firm (Meng et al. 2013). Jenkins and Yakovleva (2006) likewise distinguish between several functions of CSR disclosure: the evaluation of the impacts of CSR activities, the analysis of the efficacy of CSR programs, the reporting on CSR as well as the provision of external and internal information systems that enable the society to analyze the firms' resources and impacts. Firms publish these data since they expect financial or a non-financial benefits (Holder-Webb, 2009; Roberts, 1992).

In most countries, the inclusion of environmental and social information in the disclosures takes place on a voluntary basis. Voluntary reports, according to Meek et al. (1995), are disclosures that exceed legal requirements. Because of this voluntariness, no clear regulations or content requirements do exist. This leads to various differences in the disclosures with regard to their qualities, titles, lengths, approaches, scopes, depths and contents and complicates a comparison (Cormier et al., 2011; Kolk et al., 2010; Reynolds and Yuthas, 2008). Voluntary disclosures give the top management team the whole power of deciding whether and to what extent to disclose (Meek et al. 1995). Hence, they have the opportunity to

(15)

subjectively select the information they disclose about the firms' environmental and social performance (Moser and Martin, 2012).

2.3 Corporate Social Responsibility and CSR Disclosure in Germany

A country with a longstanding CSR tradition is Germany. The view that businesses are social responsible towards their environment is firmly anchored in the German culture and goes far back to the period of the European Industrialization. At that time, it was the companies' duty to ensure society's welfare. Firms had to adapt the stewardship of the social circumstances of their employees and families as well as the community as a whole because the state did not provide relief (Berthoin Antal et al. 2009). Even if the welfare responsibilities are nowadays in charge of the public sector, Germany continues to exhibit characteristics that make an elaborative CSR behavior likely (Welford 2005). The model of the social market economy compromises firm's liabilities towards the society and environment (Berthoin Antal et al. 2009). Welford (2005) states that countries with a social democratic tradition are more likely to engage in CSR. For instance, firms retained responsibilities for their employees is apparent in the codetermination of the traditionally distinctive networks of labor unions on their activities (Adams et al. 1998).

The German Government also promotes the implementation of CSR activities in businesses. The Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs) pursue an active CSR promoting strategy as they define CSR as a foundation pillar of the social market economy.1 They support diverse initiatives to promote a common understanding of CSR and the accompanied responsibilities. Besides the influences of the political and historical development, Adams et al. (1998) note the strong influence of environmental pressure groups that is present in Germany. The authors determine that the Green Movement in Germany is one of the most strident movements in whole Europe.

As in most countries, the implementation and application of CSR disclosure in this country takes place on a voluntary basis.2 The first German firms adapted this form of provision of information already in the 1970s (Berthoin Antal et al. 2009). In more recent studies, KPMG (1999) and Welford (2005) found evidence that the disclosure of CSR information is broadly distributed nowadays. The strong attempts of Germany companies towards CSR disclosure

1

http://www.csr-in-deutschland.de/ueber-csr.html, retrieved on February 22, 2014.

2

http://www.csr-in-deutschland.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/BMAS/CSR_Konferenz/ Aktionsplan_CSR.pdf, retrieved on February 22, 2014.

(16)

are also confirmed by Cormiert et al. (2011) and Adams et al. (1998). These authors compared the geographically and economically comparable countries France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. They proofed that Germany tends to disclose more extensively and with a higher quality than the other companies. This is interesting since Kolk et al. (2010) inform that the other countries of this sample (UK, France and The Netherlands) even underlie stricter regulations than Germany. Several attempts are made to analyze the diverse CSR disclosures. Organizations as the "Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung und future e.V." (Ecological Economics Research Institute) regularly evaluate on the composition of environmental or sustainability reports. They determined an increase in the efforts towards such disclosures in large German companies and that especially some industries provide high-quality reports.3 These findings lead to the conclusion that German firms are driven by several motivational factors to provide such information.

2.4 Motives for Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure

Prior literature identifies two main drivers for social responsibility activities: the social responsibilities of business and the economic consequences of CSR (Roberts 1992). Based on this, two research streams regarding CSR disclosure can be identified. The first theoretical stream considers economic motives as the drivers of voluntary disclosure (Positive Accounting Theory, Voluntary Disclosure Theory). These researchers believe that the additional information raises the opportunities to accomplish economic advantages (Cormier et al., 2011; Botosan, 1997; Dhaliwal et al., 2011, 2012). The second stream argues that voluntary disclosures are driven by non-economic motives (Legitimacy Theory, Stakeholder Theory, Institutional Theory). These researchers state that firms use voluntary disclosures to legitimize or underline their behavior. Both streams will be evaluated in the following actions.

2.4.1 Economic motives

The economic motives of CSR disclosure are manifold and two theories aim to explain them.

Positive accounting theory

The positive accounting theory by Watts and Zimmermann (1978) aims to explain the motivation of managers to disclose CSR information. Prior literature shows discordance concerning the differentiation between the positive accounting theory (PAT) and the agency

3

http://www.ranking-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.de/data/ranking/user_upload/English_Publications/ Ranking_2009_EReport.pdf, retrieved on March 14, 2014.

(17)

theory. While some researchers determine a consensus (Reverte 2009), other researchers state that PAT encompasses the agency theory (Ness and Mirza 1991).

The PAT suggests that companies act in a net of contracts with various counterparties (Reverte, 2009; Healy and Palepu, 2001). Thus, firms are accountable for their proceed towards a variety of parties (Watts and Zimmermann 1978). Healy and Palepu (2001) state that these contracts determine firms voluntary disclosure decisions. According to Cormier et al. (2005), firms should provide performance related information if it has a value for the stakeholders. Those information needs are an important factor to disclose financial and non-financial information (Healy and Palepu, 2001; Cormier et al., 2005). However, the theory also identifies an information gap between management and stakeholders (Healy and Palepu 2001). This occurs as not all participants of the economic network dispose over the same information and, hence, complicates share- and stakeholder's evaluation of the firm. CSR disclosures can thereby reduce the information uncertainty (Belkaoui and Karpik 1989). According to Holder-Webb et al. (2009), a positive effect can be assumed as, for instance, investors who pay attention to the social responsible behavior of companies have a demand for information beyond those of financial statements. This information can provide benefits for such investors and support their choices of socially responsible investments. However, a lack of information leads to a missing basis for comparison of investment opportunities and complicates investors' decision-making process (Holder-Webb et al. 2009). Additionally, if this information would not be provided, stakeholders would potentially have to collect and evaluate from different sources at their own costs (Cormier et al. 2005). Thus, the voluntary disclosure reduces stakeholders and investors information costs (Kim and Verrecchia, 1994). The PAT assumes that managers thereby act self-interested with the aim to maximize their wealth (Watts and Zimmermann 1978 in Milne 2002). Hence, the disclosure of CSR information only takes place if it increases manager's wealth (Cormier et al. 2005).

Voluntary disclosure theory

Healy and Palepu (2001) extend the PAT theory by consideration of stock market effects of voluntary disclosures. These disclosure decisions have to be evaluated in a capital market context because the disclosed information has a critical role for markets' efficiency. The authors provided a review in which they illustrated several potential benefits of voluntary disclosure. Some of them are discussed in the following proceed.

(18)

The first benefit they determine occurs in the context of capital market transactions as a reduction in the information asymmetry can lead to simplified obtaining of equity and debt capital (Healy and Palepu 2001). Information asymmetries between managers and investors imply risk since they induce higher uncertainty (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Rhodes and Soobaroyen, 2010). The provision of information beyond legal requirements reduces these asymmetries and simplifies the raising of capital. The reason is that the market rewards information that is valuable for stakeholders with the provision of better conditions for the firm (Dhaliwal et al. 2011).

This finding can be connected to CSR as the argumentation implies that a voluntary provision of CSR information reduces the information asymmetry between the firm and stakeholders and thus decreases the cost of capital. Dhaliwal et al. (2011) found evidence for the fact that managers of firms with higher costs of equity capital use voluntary CSR disclosures to lower their costs. On the contrary, Richardson and Welker (2001) as well as Déjean and Martinez (2009) found evidence that at times social disclosures lead to a higher cost of capital. Although the authors approved that social disclosure may have positive effects in contact with non-financial stakeholders, they could not substantiate this reaction for financial stakeholders.

Additionally, prior literature states that financial stakeholders' assume that firms that pursue voluntary disclose beyond legal requirements do not tend to hide unfavorable information. This also leads to a reduction of the risk premium and to lower costs of capital (Sengupta, 1998; Botosan, 1997; Botosan and Plumlee, 2000). Furthermore, markets may discount more than the actual situation would require. As a result, managers adjust their disclosure strategies dependent on stock price performances. Firms tend to hide information that is considered as threatening this performance. In the aftermath of a stock price decrease, this information can be deemed as valuable and might still be disclosed (Sletten 2012). Sengupta (1998) as well as Nikolaev and van Lent (2007) found evidence for lower cost of debt capital with increasing disclosure level. However, Healy and Palepu (2001) point out that voluntary disclosure is not the only explanation for these implications as debt and equity are not isolated.

The aforementioned argumentation relates to CSR as an insufficient supply of information also complicates the evaluation of the antecedents and consequences of the CSR (Rodriguez et al. 2006). Firms that not voluntary disclose CSR information are perceived as being confronted with environmental or social liabilities. As a consequence, the market will impede

(19)

their financial possibilities (Cormier and Magnan 1999). On the other hand, firms' attempts to protect their environment might be valued as a non-quantifiable organizational value (Neu et al. 1998). A relationship between firm value and CSR is also identified by Rodriguez et al. (2006) but discussed with mixed results in prior literature.

According to Healy and Palepu (2001), a positive market performance also benefits the managers. In terms of a good financial situation of the firm, managers use voluntary disclosures to influence stock performance and secure their jobs whereas poor financial situations lead to a decrease in information publication (Healy and Palepu 2001). Another incentive might be the, at least partially, stock related compensation (Aboody and Kasznik, 2000; Healy and Palepu, 2001). However, the assumption that managers use voluntary disclosures to proof their competency is yet not justified or rejected (Healy and Palepu 2001).

Voluntary disclosures also enable managers to provide investors with information as early as possible. The underlying thought is that investors will reward these early information with a good market performance (Healy and Palepu 2001).

Besides these financial effects, an extensive disclosure strategy increases information intermediation (Healy and Palepu 2001). If managers decide to provide their private knowledge in excess of legal requirements, analysts will reward this with a greater supply (Bhushan 1989). More information attracts more analysts following and enables them to operate further analyses (Lang and Lundholm, 1993).

Firms have to be considered to be a credible disclosure before they can benefit from the economical advantages (Healy et al. 1999). However, as shown above, financial effects of CSR disclosures lead to mixed results in prior literature. While some researchers found positive relations (Holder-Webb et al., 2009; Neu et al., 1998), others negative these findings (Richardson and Welker, 2001; Déjean and Martinez, 2009). What stands out is that firms have to be mindful in the choice of information that they provide. Besides the favorable implications, firms also have to consider potential negative implications. Gibbins et al. (1990), for instance, mention possible changes in the competitive position of firms. The diffusion of additional information may lead to higher competition or increasing

(20)

governmental regulations because proprietary costs4 could arise and may outweigh the positive effects (Meek et al. 1995). Healy and Palepu (2001) state that several researchers already analyzed the negative effect of concerns of the competitive position on voluntary disclosures (for instance Verrecchia, 1983; Giggler, 1994). Cormier et al. (2005) point out that the publication of certain internal information can lead third parties to decisions that have a negative impact on future cash flows. The authors also state that the preparation and provision of CSR disclosure can generate additional costs that diminish the firm's profitability, for instance the net income (Belkaoui and Karpik 1989). Thus, managers have to balance the economical profits and additional costs of the information provision while making CSR disclosures decisions.

2.4.2 Non-Economic motives

CSR disclosure may also be driven by non-economic motives since the relevant addressees of firm's disclosures are no longer only the financial investors, but the society as a whole (Reynolds and Yuthas 2008). Prior literature defines the legitimacy, stakeholder and institutional theory as explanatory approaches for non-economic motives (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006; Brown and Deegan, 1998; Meek et al., 1995).

Legitimacy Theory

Organizations can have significant influences in their environment and as a result the society holds firms socially accountable for their actions (Adams et al. 1998). They are therefore stimulated to act socially responsible and to fulfill social responsibilities (Steiner, 1972). The legitimacy theory assumes that firms continuously try to act in accordance to these expectations (Deegan and Blomquist 2006).

Brown and Deegan (1998) introduce the term of a "social contract" (p. 22) to describe the bond between firms and society. Companies are exposed to clear perceptions of activities that are acceptable and that firms should aspire to meet the requirements of the social contract. Society's support is therefore dependent on the degree to which a firm's performance complies to the "bound and norms of (the) society" (p. 22). Hence, firms continuously have to prove their attempts to fulfill their responsibilities (Brown and Deegan 1998). The legitimacy theory supposes that firms have no intrinsic right to operate and that they have to demonstrate their

4

According to Meek et al. (1995), "proprietary costs arise when information is revealed that potentially damages the firm, such as if it results in increased competition or government regulation". These costs include for example competitive disadvantage and political costs.

(21)

alliance to prevailing values and norms to gain society's acceptance (Lindblom 1994). Deegan and Blomquist (2006) state that legitimacy results of society's perceptions. Thus, firms have to pursue adequate social and environmental performances and to inform about them.

According to Lindblom (1994, p. 2), legitimacy is defined as:

“a condition or status which exist when an entity’s value system is congruent with the value system of the larger social system of which the entity is a part. When a disparity, actual or potential, exists between the two value systems, there is a threat to the entity’s legitimacy”.

If firm's performances are perceived to infringe society's values, they risk sanctions that can imply negative effects on their business operations and survival (Brown and Deegan, 1998; Deegan and Blomquist, 2006). Firms that think that their actions could be perceived as illegitimate establish different strategies to legitimate their operations (Deegan and Blomquist 2006). One of the strategic components is the disclosure of information (Guthrie and Parker 1989). Cormier et al. (2011) underlines that society's concerns and the public pressure are explanations for CSR disclosure.

As firms are expected to exhibit CSR performances that apply to social prospects, managers may use the disclosures to react to current social and environmental performances (Cormier et al., 2011; Wood, 2010). Prior literature found mixed results regarding how organizations' CSR performances determine the decisions regarding voluntary disclosures (Ullmann, 1985; Al-Tuwaijri et al., 2004). Pattern (2002) found out that lower-performing firms may increase their disclosure behavior due to higher legitimacy attempts. Thus, an increase in disclosure can increase the likelihood of firms to be perceived as legitimate (Hooghiemstra 2000). On the other hand, Brammer and Pavelin (2004) argue that better performing firms use disclosures to communicate their good social performance and to distinguish from lower performers. This is in accordance to Ullmann (1985) and Wood (2010) who suggest that the disclosure is not only a CSR activity, but also a tool to measure the CSR performance.

Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholder theory can also be seen as an explanation of why firms want to begin with or increase the disclosure of CSR. While the legitimacy theory focuses on the relationship between organizations and the society as a whole, the stakeholder theory predicts that firms address themselves at their most powerful stakeholders (Deegan and Blomquist 2006).

(22)

Organizations usually operate in a society where they interact with a variety of stakeholders, for example employees, consumers, suppliers, stockholders, the government and communities (Cormier et al., 2011; Dhaliwal et al., 2011; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). The stakeholder theory as per Freemann (1984) reveals that organizations try to balance the divergent expectations of these groups to ensure their survival. Stakeholder groups are defined as

"those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist" (p. 89).

It is important for businesses to consider the expectations regarding the corporate behavior. The fulfillment of these demands enables firms to gain or maintain the promotion of their stakeholders. Similar to the legitimacy theory, the stakeholder theory predicts that not fulfilling stakeholders' expectations may lead to critical consequences for a firms' survival (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006; Wilmshurst and Frost, 2001; Brown and Deegan, 1998). The pursueance of CSR disclosures is an adequate method to respond to the expectations of their financial and non-financial stakeholders (Gelb and Strawser, 2011; Moser and Martin, 2001). It is effective in handling the management of stakeholders impressions since the voluntary disclosure can lead to the perception that a firm is concerned about society-related issues (Roberts 1992). Likewise, Abbott and Monsen (1979) suggest that firms use this instrument to demonstrate their high awareness of shareholders' long-term interests. The achievement of a good reputation is a major objective of CSR activities. The disclosure enables firms to create, protect or enhance their image and reputation towards groups whose compliance creates value for the firm (Hooghiemstra, 2000; Moser and Martin, 2012; Roberts, 1992). Rodriguez et al. (2006) suggest that managers should consider that stakeholders often encounter difficulties in the evaluation of an organization's behavior. Without sufficient information, the analysis whether a specific firm acts in accordance to its own moral and political standards might be complicated. Voluntary disclosure reduce these difficulties.

(23)

Figure 2: Organization's Stakeholders

(following Cormier et al., 2011; Dhaliwall et al., 2011; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001)

Institutional Theory

The institutional theory assumes that several firm-specific characteristics influence firm's voluntary disclosure decisions (Cormier and Magnan, 1999; Meek et al., 1995). These characteristics determine the economical and societal circumstances in which disclosure decisions are made (Gray et al. 2010). For instance, they depict the intensity of stakeholder pressure (Gamerschlag et al. 2011). Prominent traits are firm's size, industry and profitability.

A firm's size has been argued to have a significant influence since large firms tend to disclose more extensively (Meek et al. 1995). These firms exhibit greater agency problems and use voluntary disclosures to reduce their agency costs (Jensen and Meckling 1976). Large companies might have more shareholders that are interested in their CSR activities (Cowen et al. 1987). With an increasing size, firms are more visible by stakeholders and media. Thus, they may underlie higher political and regulatory supervisions (Meek et al., 1995; Gamerschlag et al., 2011). They also might be considered as more socially responsible. Larger firms are perceived to show structures that enable them for a cost-efficient CSR publication. These firms are perceived to already obtain disclosure processes. The merely extension of these processes is less cost intense (Brammer and Pavelin 2004).

The industry in which an organization operates may have an impact on the disclosure strategy. Socially and/or environmentally sensitive industries underlie a high pressure regarding their CSR performance (Meek et al. 1995). These firms are perceived to have a poor impact on their environment and are thus required to act responsible. Their disclosure strategy reflect

Employees Consumers Suppliers Stockholders Government Communities

(24)

this as they tend to provide more voluntary information (Roberts, 1992; Meek et al., 1995). Firms of polluting sectors and industries with a close relationship to consumers might use voluntary CSR disclosures to defend threats of their reputation or to reduce their political costs. (Brammer and Pavelin, 2004; Gamerschlag et al., 2011).

Dahliwal et al. (2011) determine that a firms' profitability influences voluntary CSR disclosure. Profitable firms dispose over ample economic resources that enable them to publish voluntary information. In contrary, companies' with less operational success have strictly to control their expenses and might be less inclined to undertake CSR activities (Roberts 1992). Firms in poor financial conditions are dependent on "fresh" financial support from the markets. If this firm is exposed to environmental liabilities, the publication of such information could decrease their shareholders willingness to further invest in this company and consequently restrict their financing opportunities (Cormier and Magnan 1999). On the other hand, these firms may want to profit from the economical benefits as explained in 2.4.1.

2.5 Individual motives

A business' motivation whether and how to disclose environmental and social information is not only dependent on economic motives and social concerns, otherwise it would be surprising that not every company publishes such information. Bertrand and Schoer (2003) determine an undefined disclosure variance after considering firm- and year- specific effects.

The reason lies in manager's decision-making (Manner 2010). According to Hambrick (2007), to understand why organizations' make specific decisions, it is important to consider the characteristics of their most powerful employees, more precisely their top executives. Prior literature emphasizes that individual managers are a central factor regarding disclosure policies (Bertrand and Schoar, 2003; Bamber et al., 2010). The driving forces for strategic decisions are thereby dependent on manager's objectives (Schrand and Walther 2000). According to Hambrick and Mason (1984, p. 193):

"Organizational outcomes – both strategies and effectiveness – are viewed as reflections of the values and cognitive bases of powerful actors in the organization".

Their upper echelons theory assumes that strategic choices, for instance disclosure decisions, are dependent on top managers' demographic characteristics and furthermore on their view of the world. This is an important starting point for managers' decision-making. Managers

(25)

interpret and value the situations in which they are suited on their own "experiences, values and personalities" (Hambrick 2007, p. 1). The reason is that managers personal attitudes and values shape the individuals when acting and deciding in complex situations (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Manner, 2010). As these are hard to measure, demographics can act as a proxy for individuals' unobserved cognitive abilities and determinants (Barron et al. 2011). Hence, managers' demographic characteristics are the initial point for an evaluation of differences in managerial behavior. Bertrand and Schoar (2003) suggest that managers have a statistically significant influence on corporate outcomes that deviates between individuals. Consequently, strategic choices, for example regarding the engagement in CSR or the disclosure strategy, are dependent on top managers' attitudes (Huang, 2012; Manner, 2010).

Hambrick (2007) identified age, tenure, functional experience and level of education as prominent characteristics to have an influence on manager's decisions. As the change of an individual implies changing personal attitudes, a turnover is also expected to have an effect.

The age of a manager is a means of a person's non-work-related experiences and may have a perceivable impact on managers' attitudes (Ryder 1965). The experiences that an age cohort undergoes influence managers in their "cognitive base" and thus in their decision-making (Schumann and Scott, 1989; Wiersema and Bantel, 1992, p. 949). Managers exhibit age-based differences regarding their flexibility and willingness to adopt strategic changes (Hambrick and Mason 1984). Hambrick and Mason (1984) as well as Wiersema and Bantel (1992) suggest that increasing age might lead to a reduction in flexibility and a resistance against strategic changes. Younger managers may be more willing to pursue new (riskier) approaches and more confident in their decisions (Huang et al., 2012; Wiersema and Bantel, 1992; Carlson and Karlson, 1970). However, mature managers can rely on a broad set of private and professional experiences. They set more value on a review of the implications of their behavior and scrutinize decisions once they notice negative consequences (Taylor 1975).

Managers are also expected to be shaped by their tenure. This demographic has an impact on the intensity of a manager's commitment to the existing norms and structures (Wiersema and Bantel, 1992; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990). The tenure indicates the degree to which managers are influenced by the corporate culture. The culture represents inter alia the humanistic inner beliefs of a firm and can shape a person's values and attitudes (Melo 2012). Finkelstein and Hambrick (1990) suggest that the willingness towards strategic changes is

(26)

negative associated with the length of stay in a firm. Managers may establish their own ways of doing and develop a stable behavior. They may rely on past experiences and less on new approaches (Katz 1982). However, Frederickson (1985) argues that the fall back on past decisions leads to a higher quality of decisions. Additionally, long-tenured managers have intensive knowledge about the environment in which they operate and established strong social networks (Thomas and Simerly 1994). Also, it enables managers to attain more power and to extend their discretion (Manner 2010).

The functional experience represents a manager's professional background and includes a variety of causal models, vocabularies and networks that reflect one's personality and values (Hambrick et al. 1996). The functional tracks may affect individuals since “career experiences partially shape the lenses through which they view current strategic opportunities and problems” (Hambrick and Mason 1984, p. 200). Hambrick and Mason (1984) divide between two categories: "output" and "throughput" functions. Managers of an "output" background undertake monitoring activities and promote firm's growth by discovering new opportunities to push the organization. Thereby, they have direct external contacts. Managers with "throughput" functions focus internally on increasing the efficiency of processes (Hambrick and Mason 1984). The experiences constitute the manner how information is analyzed and decisions are made (Walsh, 1988; Hitt and Ireland, 1985).

Additionally, managers' level of education reflects an individuals' cognitive ability and skills (Wiersema and Bantel 1992, p. 99). University scholars in different degrees shape and stimulate the managers in diverse ways (Huang et al. 2012). Slater and Dixon-Fowler (2010) proof differences in the business-related decisions between higher and lower educated managers. Individual's decisions are expected to be influenced by their education, either through "human and social capital accumulation or through a selection effect" (Bertrand and Schoar 2003, p.1199). Higher educated managers are argued to be more open towards innovative and strategic changes (Bantel and Jackson 1989). In Germany, a MBA degree or the Doctorate belong to a high-level education. These individuals are taught to consider the consequences of their business-related behavior from various perspectives. The Institute of Management Accountants states that accountants with a MBA exhibit a better knowledge over their businesses and overtake broader and more strategically responsibilities in their firms (Messmer 1998). Research oriented programs, as for instance the German Doctorate, imply that individuals use a broad informational basis for decisions (Matten and Moon 2004).

(27)

Furthermore, a managerial turnover in the top management level may be a key indicator of a strategic change in the firm (Barron et al. 2011). The upper echelons theory suggests that managers make decisions on their own values and experiences. As strategic decisions are significantly depending on a firms' top-level management team, the appointment of a new individual may thus lead to a change in the existing strategy (Wilmshurst and Frost, 1999; Bertrand and Schoar, 2003).

Bamber et al. (2010) proved that executive's demographics are linked to their individual disclosure styles. The authors could substantiate that manager's key experiences influence their behavior regarding voluntary financial disclosures and its contents. Bertrand and Schoar (2003) also identified that several noneconomic determinants lead to disclosure variances. They determined an influence of the age and educational level of the individual. Freedman and Stagliano (1992) suggest that these effects are transferable to a non-financial setting. It also applies to the consideration of external expectations. As organizations are "a reflection of its top managers", those inner beliefs and attitudes determine the manner in which organization meet the demands of their various interest groups (Hambrick and Mason 1984, p. 193). Hence, individual's particular attitudes towards CSR might subsequently be reflected in their business decisions (Hemingway and Maclagan 2004). Manager's demographics can thus influence one's motivation for voluntary CSR disclosures (Freedman and Stagliano 1992).

Managers have a profound knowledge about the economic and non-economic effects of an organization to voluntary disclose CSR information. The diverse incentives and constraints are already discussed in 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. On the basis of this knowledge, managers make their decision regarding the disclosure. Thereby, they are influenced by their own perceptions. As cited by Freedman and Stagliano (1992, p. 113):

"It is probable that there is no single motivation for making social disclosure. Social disclosure, for the most part, is a function of the attitude of top management towards it stakeholders. Whether there is an economic motivation for the disclosure..a reaction to user needs...or a political motivation...is probably a consequence of each management's particular

perception of the world it faces".

Bertrand and Schoar (2003) allocate an organization's CEO and CFO to this top management group. A CEO has a striking influence on a firm's culture and determines an organization's corporate social performance (Melo 2012). The CEO is an organization's most important

(28)

decision maker and is responsible for appropriate CSR initiatives. He can take the highest influence on the design and implementation of the CSR strategy and practice (Waldmann et al., 2006; Waldmann and Siegel, 2008). Prior literature already substantiated a strong relation between a CEO's characteristics and the CSR performance of a firm (Huang, 2013; Manner, 2010). CEOs set the framework for the ethical behavior of an organization and are responsible for the CSR strategies (Godos-Díez et al., 2011; Waldmann et al., 2006). Their impact on the CSR performance is influenced by their own attitude towards CSR and the involved activities, for instance the CSR disclosure (Manner 2010). Gibbins et al. (1990) and Bamber et al. (2010) found evidence for the fact that these values and norms are also reflected in the corporate disclosure strategy. As the "final authority" for a firm's strategic decisions, the CEO has a particular and significant impact on an organizations' disclosure strategy and its implementation (Manner, 2010; Bamber et al., 2010; Thomas and Simerly, 1994). Thus, CEO's prior perceptions may have an influence on the form of CSR disclosure.

But an organization is not only exposed to the powerful impacts of their CEOs, many strategic choices are prepared by the top management team conjointly (Gibbins et al. 1990). While a CEO is attributed to have a strong influence in all areas of a company, particularly in the field of financial disclosures he gets strong support by the CFO. CFOs power is apparent by consideration of their important responsibilities in the financial reporting process (Indjejikian and Matejka 2009). Due to the fact that CFOs exhibit a pronounced expertise in this field, their responsibility in the disclosure process is now on the same level as the responsibility of a CEO. Thus, the influences of their demographics may also be visible in the related strategies (Naranjo-Gil et al. 2009). Sun and Rakhman (2013) suggested that CFOs with their generally more financial oriented activities get an increasing awareness of CSR and integrate this into their professional decisions. They argue that more experienced CFOs recognize the importance of such an engagement for a firm's long-term performance and tend to pursue CSR activities more extensively. As these managers are responsible for the implementation and the content of the reporting statements, an influence on those forms and contents may be expected (Geiger and North, 2006; Naranjo-Gil et al., 2009).

2.6 Hypotheses development

CEOs as well as CFOs are driven by their own values and attitudes to engage in the disclosure of CSR information. An analysis whether and to what extent certain demographics will have an influence will therefore be the subject of the following study.

(29)

Managers' age is an important demographic since it determines the personal (non-) business experiences of a person and may thus shape a person's attitudes regarding CSR disclosures. Prior literature found contradictory results regarding the implications of age on managers' decision-making. The literature regarding strategic change suggests that younger managers are more willing to pursue changes in the disclosure strategy. However, the literature concerning the moral development of managers' perceptions proved that older managers base their decisions on more elaborative processes. An increasing maturity enables managers to base their decisions on a broader set of experiences and to put more attention on their social surroundings. Empirical evidence was found that older managers act more ethical than younger managers (Deshpande, 1997; Peterson et al., 2001). The more extensive development of ethical behavior is also observable in the business context (Peterson et al. 2001). It may thus lead to an increased awareness in the social and environmental responsibilities of an organization. Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) determine that CSR is more extensively promoted by more "caring" managers as the impulse of "doing good" is one driver of CSR activities. In this sense, older managers are not only expected to behave social favorable, but also to communicate extensively to their social environment to decrease information uncertainties. Based on these findings, the following hypothesis will be predicted:

H1: Older CEOs/CFOs will disclose more CSR information

Furthermore, managers' tenure is expected to have an influence on CSR Disclosure. Prior literature suggests that managers with an increasing length of stay in an organization tend to develop a defensive demeanor regarding strategic changes. However, empirical evidence substantiated a positive influence of top-level management tenure on the CSR activities of an organization (Huang, 2013; Surroca and Tribó, 2008). As stated by Manner (2010), a longer stay in a company increases the discretion of a CEO and may thus lead to a better CSR performance of the firm. Sun and Rakhman (2013) found evidence that longer-tenured CFOs exhibit a deeper financial experience and that this leads to a higher engagement in CSR activities. The length of a CEO's or CFO's stay in an organization is positively connected to their ability to predict the outcome of their behavior (Fredrickson 1985). Also, it increases their detailed knowledge of the needs of their stakeholders (Thomas and Simerly 1994). Long-tenured managers established strong networks inside and outside the firm that enable them to determine the demands of their direct environment (Thomas and Simerly, 1994; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990). Thus, these managers are able to assess the economic and

(30)

social implications of the (non-) provision of such information. This may be an important motivator to disclose CSR information. It can also be assumed that managers with longer tenures are more likely to have established a CSR disclosure strategy as they had more time for the implementation. Thus, the second hypothesis will be:

H2: CEOs/CFOs with a longer tenure will disclose more CSR information

Likewise, managerial attitudes regarding the disclosure of CSR information may also be influenced by their functional experiences. These may significantly shape manager's values and norms (Hambrick and Mason 1984). Managers of an "output background" consequently adjust an organization's products and markets according to customer expectations. The customer orientation increases their sensitivity for stakeholder demands for CSR information and can influence their decision-making regarding voluntary disclosures. Furthermore, these managers might be able to establish an order of precedence between different stakeholders groups and their demands (Thomas and Simerly 1994). Thus, through the direct contact, these managers are able to evaluate the financial and reputational consequence of a (non-) disclosure. Managers with "throughput functions" perform more internally oriented tasks and may be less aware of the stakeholder's demands. For instance, managers of an economical background are more likely to act in self-interest models to maximize an organization's value (Frank et al. 1993). Their focus lies more on their existing tasks and those efficiencies (Thomas and Simerly 1994). Likewise, managers with an engineering background are taught to focus on invention and improvement of technical components instead of the focus on environmental and social consequences (Wiersema and Bantel 1992). It can be inferred that these people are less concerned of social related issues as they work in highly regulated workspaces. There, they are mainly focused on hard facts as numbers, regulations or technical restrictions. Based on these findings, the following hypotheses propose:

H3a: CEOs/CFOs with output experiences disclose more CSR information H3b: CEOs/CFOs with throughput experiences disclose less CSR information Additionally, prior literature evaluates on the educational level of a manager and its impact on firm's CSR activities. Managers with greater knowledge are able to make decisions independent from a company's past strategy and this profound understanding is visible in firm's disclosure strategies (Fondas and Wiersema, 1997; Bertrand and Schoer, 2003). Prior literature substantiates this view by providing evidence for a positive relationship between the

Do CEO/CFO characteris influence organization's voluntary CSR disclosures? : empirical evidence from Germany

Table of Contents