ESG Disclosures And Corporate Boards - Insights From India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Corporate & Insolvency
Published:
Updated:
ESG DISCLOSURES AND CORPORATE BOARDS:
INSIGHTS FROM INDIA
Laksmi Suria V, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore
ABSTRACT
Companies must critically evaluate their actions due to past two decades of climate change difficulties along with insufficient employee welfare and unacceptable business practices. The need for ESG principles caused companies to integrate these sustainable frameworks into their operational procedures (Chams & García-Blandón, 2019). The paper defines ESG as a measurable tool for Corporate Social Responsibility which contains three essential elements (De Masi et al. 2021). Environmental: Evaluating the ecological impact of business activities. Social: Organizations need to define their approach for engaging and interacting with employees and suppliers alongside their relationship with local communities. Governance: Organizations must verify that their corporate activities properly support stakeholder needs.
Business organizations across the world implement ESG strategies to respond to recent changes in the corporate environment. Sustainability reporting methods help businesses to reveal their effects on environmental social and governance elements in an open manner. When a company follows reporting standards its credibility improves significantly among its investors together with critical stakeholders. Organizations operating under the leadership of the board of directors maintain their status as top decision-makers along with shareholder fund guardian role to shape sustainability reporting outcomes. To meet its regulatory duties the board supervises the strategic direction of governance practices which must align with expectations from stakeholders.
Through its oversight responsibilities the board implements oversight by utilizing its executive authority to appoint and terminate senior executives and approve their compensation and conduct strategic decision oversight (Fama & Jensen, 2019). The ESG mandate has found its way into corporate board discussions so that board directors now take ESG factors into account during decision-making processes more frequently than in
2019. They now evaluate ESG factors in 52% of board decisions compared to 34% in 2019.
Studies of corporate governance performance relationships concentrate heavily on financial measurements yet dedicate scant attention to non-financial measurements according to Mishra & Mohanty (2014) Shahbaz et al (2020) and Yermack (1996). The demand from investors along with other stakeholder groups triggered a substantial increase in non-financial reporting practices for advanced economies during the last decade (Behl et al. , 2021). Researchers in developed countries utilize the prevalence of data alongside rising stakeholder awareness to generate a growing body of academic works (Atif et al. , 2021; Birindelli et al. , 2019; Yarram & Adapa, 2021). The topic faces restrictions in academic research within emerging economies according to (A. A. Zaid et al. 2020), (Mackenzie 2007) and others. (Khan et al.
2013) conducted research regarding the connection between board elements and sustainability results in emerging sectors of Asia and Africa. The research findings in this domain show low generalizability because structured and contextual variations create differences between laws and regulations as well as economic conditions and cultural influences and market structures (Pareek et al. , 2021). This research analyzes how corporate board of directors affect ESG disclosure requirements in public companies operating under mandatory CSR regulations established by the Companies Act 2013. Further, the research delves deeper into board diversity, with a particular focus on gender diversity, in light of the increasing implementation of gender quotas for boards of directors. The research analyzes stocks from the NSE Nifty 100 index during the years 2013 to
2022. The study utilizes both instrumental variables and dynamic GMM methods to analyze
this relationship properly. The proposed advanced analytical approaches resolve endogeneity problems while supporting the evaluation of dynamic variables (Corlett & Aigner, 1972; Nguyen et al. , 2021). Organizations under the influence of their CSR committees tend to reveal their ESG activities according to the research results. ESG reporting shows no association with board size and independence along with CEO duality and women directors included on the board. Numerous research articles by Lafuente & Vaillant (2019) and Nguyen et al. (2021) as well as Post et al. (2011) and Yarram & Adapa (2021) present findings that suggest the presence of a solitary female director alongside 85 male colleagues (85:15 proportion) will not lead to ESG disclosure changes even if three women board members are added.
Past records of ESG reporting practices by companies significantly affect their current and future publication practices. The sampled companies show greater dedication to social issues and financial targets than environmental ones because they confirm a preference for people along with profit rather than planetary concerns. Boards of directors in India need to refocus their CSR and ESG initiatives toward better environmental sustainability because India aims to become carbon neutral by 2070. The main findings of this investigation lead to the following set of contributions: • Research builds current literature about corporate boards and ESG disclosures by studying them from an emerging market point of view.
• The study introduces critical mass as a theoretical construct which no earlier research had explored in studies linking board gender diversity to non-financial ESG disclosures in Indian organizations (Pareek et al. , 2021; Saggar et al. , 2022; Sanan, 2016). • A system GMM framework serves to handle endogeneity and reverse causality issues which previous research failed to tackle (Dwivedi & Jain, 2005; Fahad & Rahman, 2020; S. Mishra & Mohanty, 2014; Sharma et al. , 2020). • The research shows how CSR committees drive ESG reporting within Indian corporations by delivering essential policy recommendations to build up the core of corporate social and environmental responsibility. ESG Companies must critically evaluate their actions due to past two decades of climate change difficulties along with insufficient employee welfare and unacceptable business practices.
The need for ESG principles caused companies to integrate these sustainable frameworks into their operational procedures (Chams & García-Blandón, 2019). The paper defines ESG as a measurable tool for Corporate Social Responsibility which contains three essential elements (De Masi et al. 2021). Environmental: Evaluating the ecological impact of business activities. Social: Organizations need to define their approach for engaging and interacting with employees and suppliers alongside their relationship with local communities. Governance: Organizations must verify that their corporate activities properly support stakeholder needs. Business organizations across the world implement ESG strategies to respond to recent changes in the corporate environment. Sustainability reporting methods help businesses to reveal their effects on environmental social and governance elements in an open manner.
When a company follows reporting standards its credibility improves significantly among its investors together with critical stakeholders. ESG Disclosure: The growing sustainability reporting requirements have two main factors that drive business operations. Organizations simultaneously aim to become market leaders or sustain business competitiveness in today's transforming market. Through sustainability reporting methods businesses become able to provide clear assessments about their effects on environmental social and governance (ESG) elements. 1 The demand from investors for information about ESG matters has noticeably expanded (Clementino & Perkins, 2021).
Majority proxy vote owners belonging to institutional investors incorporate ESG issues into their investment selections and force businesses to follow responsible corporate actions that align with ESG evaluation systems (Walter, 2020). The reporting standards create better investor and stakeholder trust in a company while matching shareholder advocacy initiatives to advance board-level gender diversity (Gow et al. , 2023). ESG Investing: Through its establishment as the Principles for Responsible Investing (PRI) in 2005 under the United Nations all institutional investors worldwide became directly impacted to bring ESG elements into their investment decisions. ESG factors have become essential for investors to evaluate investment sustainability due to the rise of sustainable and responsible investing (SRI) (Losse & Geissdoerfer, 2021).
Fund managers rapidly integrated ESG data into their strategies after 2012 and thus increased the total amount to $38 trillion in 2020 which is expected to reach
1 Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI - Home. https://www.globalreporting.org/
$53 trillion before 2025. 2 Fund managers who use ESG-based approach examine value creation potential among socially-driven sustainable businesses that adopt superior governance systems. Policymakers will make the environmental aspects of ESG their primary focus as governments more strongly believe net-zero transition relies on environmental sustainability. Research Background The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) launched the Integrated Reporting Framework during 2013. The Value Reporting Framework emerged when the IIRC unionized with the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) during 2021. The entity established in 2022 became part of the IFRS Foundation which eventually built the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) during the COP26 climate conference launch in November 2021.
The ISSB implemented two sustainability and climate-related standards that will become effective in 2024 which provide enterprises with a system for reporting non-financial sustainability and climate disclosures. The intended outcome of these standards enhances transparency because they enable investors along with financial market participants to evaluate corporate ESG opportunities and risks. Since Global Reporting Initiative features double materiality methods GRI does the opposite by establishing a single materiality structure that targets investor needs. People have expressed doubts about how widely applicable SASB standards are to stakeholders beyond investors. Regulatory bodies and investors who support integrated reporting provide companies that engage in voluntary ESG disclosure opportunities to establish early leadership in the market.
Companies face major drawbacks when they report ESG data voluntarily since they can self-select which aspects to share with stakeholders while showcasing positive findings to attract investors. Indian companies obtained competitive advantages through the 2013 CSR requirements to outperform their counterparts in other emerging markets which helped India accelerate the implementation of 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) established new ESG reporting requirements by creating the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR). The new framework requires Indian publicly listed companies to disclose their ESG performance3 information together with their financial statements in 2Bloomberg. (2021). Sustainable Finance: Bloomberg Professional Services. Bloomberg. 3 SEBI, 2021. (n. d. ).
Business report and Sustainability reporting by listed entities. Retrieved September 26, 2021, from https://www. sebi. gov. in/sebi_data/meetingfiles/apr2021/1619067265752_1. pdf order to boost transparency and corporate sustainability accountability. CHAPTER 1-ESG DISCLOSURE AND BOARD GENDER DIVERSITY The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate if board gender quotas help build sufficient female director numbers who can impact ESG disclosures throughout India. Research on corporate governance demonstrates a deep study of how women in director roles influence financial performance alongside non-financial outcomes in corporations. The increasing focus on the relationship stems from growing board gender quotas as well as expanding female workforce participation and above all SDG 5's advocacy for gender equality.
Research on ESG reporting linked to board gender diversity weakly considers how a significant number of female directors affect performance. The author examines in this chapter how corporate boards enhanced by women directors lead to sustainability and ESG disclosure outcomes by using critical mass theory as conceptual base. The chapter evaluates the significance of independent female directors because India requires their appointment as part of its regulatory framework. Six different measurements of board gender diversity patterns are used to extend current research findings. The article finishes its sequence by examining the article's results and their applications towards sustaining corporate governance and sustainability reporting.
Board size The board of directors serves three essential roles the first as intermediary between managers and shareholders and second as decision-making body and third as organizational representative. To achieve proper functionality and efficiency a board needs suitable membership numbers. Aboard containing many directors promotes decision quality regarding societal and environmental matters by providing extensive viewpoints and knowledgeable inputs according to resource dependence and stakeholder theories (de Villiers et al. , 2011). The additional members found in larger boards act as protection for organizations against external pressure points enabling companies to maintain stability. The agency theory shows that extensive boards experience difficulties with both teamwork coordination and communication leading to impaired choices (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Yermack, 1996).
The research shows that smaller boards tend to face lower communication issues that enable better coordination (Post et al. , 2011). Scientists studying sustainability disclosure continue to disagree about how board size affects this form of disclosure. CEO Role Consolidation One person who possesses the role of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in addition to being the chairperson falls under CEO duality. Shareholder value might decrease as a result of role dualism caused by single-person authority concentration. The analysis conducted by Shivdasani & Yermack (1999) reveals double-role CEOs allocate fewer independent board members to their companies. The level of sustainability reporting together with sustainability initiatives will be impacted by the personal interests of executives (Jensen & Meckling, 1976).
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Committee Modern sustainability practices force businesses to create CSR committees throughout various nations. Senior management demonstrates its social and environmental commitment through dedicated CSR committee formation (Rodrigue et al. , 2013). Through the committee management receives assistance to devise and monitor the organization's CSR plans while simultaneously establishing productive connections between the business and stakeholders. The rising investor demand for clear corporate ESG initiatives has led to the establishment of non-financial or integrated reporting becoming standard operational practice. The Companies Act of 2013 and Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) in India demand that CSR committees must form as part of publicly listed corporations which also need to submit detailed BRSR reports annually (Agarwala et al.
, 2022; Fahad & Rahman, 2020). Through its regulatory framework India has attained the leading position in non-financial reporting while other economies now begin to implement parallel regulations. Companies that create a specialized CSR committee will enhance their performance in fulfilling both social and environmental responsibilities. Summary An empirical investigation within this chapter studies how ESG disclosures associate with vital components of the board structure adopted by Indian publicly listed corporations. According to previous hypotheses this chapter executes a test with system GMM as the analysis method since it demonstrates better robustness than pooling and fixed effects models. Research results demonstrate that CSR committees act as essential factors for improving ESG disclosure activities.
General ESG reporting along with its individual element performance enables companies to show present-day and future environmental and social commitments with their forecasted reporting methods. Global accountability for environmental and social responsibilities depends directly on a dedicated CSR committee which focuses on sustainability throughout its operations. CHAPTER 2 - ESG DISCLOSURE AND BOARD GENDER DIVERSITY The previous chapter laid the groundwork for a detailed assessment of board gender diversity effects especially those involving board gender quotas on sustainability reporting. The current chapter establishes its research objective to evaluate if Indian organizations using board gender quota requirements develop a sufficient number of female directors for influencing environmental social governance reporting.
The research field of corporate governance examines board gender diversity as its main structural aspect which significantly impacts financial and non-financial firm performance metrics. Gender quotas introduced on corporate boards combined with expanding female workforce employment and the SDG 5 initiative about gender equality have made board diversity investigations more prominent. Past research about board gender diversity and ESG reporting normally misses the essential role of establishing meaningful female director representation. This chapter fills an academic void by evaluating how female directors affect sustainability and ESG report disclosure through an investigation based on critical mass theory. The research examines the significance of independent female directors given India's requirement for board member appointment.
Six alternative approaches to measuring board gender diversity are included in this research contribution. The analysis ends by exploring results and their practical effects. Context and Hypothesis Development Cultural change within global markets forces businesses to adopt sustainability measures and social factors into their corporate strategic process. Transparency in ESG reporting received support from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) through their 2016 introduction of ESG disclosure requirements. Modern investors especially those of the millennial generation along with women investors now base their investment choices on ESG metrics. Many large Indian corporations now release their ESG performance in order to earn trust both from investors and stakeholders (Behl et al. , 2021).
As the apex decision-making body of the company board members have fundamental responsibility for promoting both better governance along with sustainable corporate operations (Mohammadi et al. , 2021; Rao & Tilt, 2016). A well-diversified board ought to contain multiple genders in order to represent different stakeholder interests effectively. Women demonstrate higher levels of environmental and social empathy which leads them to develop stakeholder-friendly decision frameworks according to Liu (2018). CEO selection criteria of female directors often triggers substantial influence on corporate social responsibility activities stemming from their personal history, expertise and emotional characteristics (Manita et al. , 2018).
The empowerment of women in leadership positions supports United Nations Sustainable Development Goal number 5 for gender equality and helps advance corporate governance principles about gender diversity (United Nations, 2016). During the last ten years corporate board gender quotas resulted in better female boardroom participation throughout different countries. Institutional Investor Advisory Services India Limited (IIAS) finds that Spain along with Norway, France and Italy leads the world in female representation at executive levels within companies. Growing numbers of institutional investors along with asset managers worldwide have taken up the campaign for corporate boards to reach at least 30% female composition. 4 Optimal Representation of Women Directors Different social group compositions determine how members interact within their groups (Kanter, 1977).
Kanter established four social group categories depending on gender proportion which she named uniform, skewed, tilted and balanced. The 100:0 male directors composition defines a uniform board in a corporate setting. The majority of corporate boards remain skewed as they contain predominantly males in ratios of 85:15 (Lafuente & Vaillant, 2019; Yarram & Adapa, 2021) making female directors experience tokenization and weak deliberative power. Physical boards consist of mainly male members who outnumber female directors 65 to 35 but their contribution to board operations remains substantial. Gender parity at 50:50 creates a balanced board structure that leads to better relations between male and 4 MSCI Inc. (2014). Survey of Women on Boards Global Trends in Board Gender Diversity. In Governance Issue Report 2015.
female members who together generate anticipated positive results for the organization (Lafuente & Vaillant, 2019). Corporate boards containing women tend to demonstrate improved socially responsible decision-making according to universal research findings. Implementing women directors in companies needs to move beyond artificial and superficial practices. Studies demonstrate that high numbers of women directors create better corporate social responsibility performance in combination with environmental outcomes (Bear et al. , 2010; Post et al. , 2011). According to Birindelli et al. (2019) the number of female directors did not affect banking sustainability in US financial institutions regardless of reaching a critical threshold. When organizations were led by a woman as their CEO the relationship developed into more favorable conditions. Atif et al.
(2021) conducted research on 1,491 US firms and determined that one female director showed only minimal positive impact on firms implementing renewable energy practices. Independent females holding two or more directorship positions demonstrated a stronger influence than female executive directors when numerous female directors joined the board. Both Yarram and Adapa (2021) studied how Australian boards with critical numbers of female directors affected corporate social performance and found substantial positive relationships between these elements. Points of power in the top management team now show a tendency to select female relatives as directors because of regulatory demands yet these appointments often become symbolic instead of authentic participation.
Economic value creation occurs when a board maintains gender representation which leads to better teamwork in corporate decisionmaking processes. Research investigating how female directors impact sustainability reporting remains insufficient in India according to Pareek et al. (2021), Saggar et al. (2022), Sanan (2016) and Sharma et al. (2020). The research presents critical mass theory by Kanter (1977) to examine ESG disclosure and board gender diversity relations in publicly traded Indian organizations. The research analyzes how independent female directors influence ESG disclosure reporting given the new regulatory requirement to appoint them as directors. Summary The importance of women at leadership positions has gained recognition because diverse leadership best serves stakeholders and gender represents a fundamental aspect of this diversity.
This research paper uses empirical methods to examine how female directorate critical mass impacts ESG disclosure practices in publicly listed Indian businesses. A total of six alternative indicators are used to measure board gender diversity in order to evaluate female director effects on corporate Environmental Social Governance disclosures. Research concludes that female director critical masses do not provide extensive backing to corporate ESG declarations at either corporate or segment levels. Research results demonstrate identical disciplinary patterns among independent female board members. Women participate at a minimal level in Indian corporate boards since their representation remains exceptionally low in board seats across the country. ESG disclosure performance of organizations improves substantially when two or more female board members join their CSR committees.
CONCLUSION
AND IMPLICATIONS The willingness to showcase ESG or CSR activities publicly motivates companies most companies whereas corporate boards need to regulate between financial and environmental and social aspects. This research evaluates board structural attributes' role in influencing ESG disclosures among Indian publicly listed firms that belong to the NSE Nifty 100 index from
2013 through 2022. A research design combining a panel model with fixed effects considered
unmeasured diversity before testing how boardroom women's participation affects ESG disclosure practices in Indian publicly traded firms. The application of dynamic GMM provides additional strength to the reliability of discovered results. The study establishes that the CSR committee functions as a central element which increases ESG reporting activity within business organizations. ESG disclosure practices in Indian public-listed firms are not affected by board size as well as the independence level or CEO duality position or female director representation. Research by Lafuente & Vaillant (2019) and Nguyen et al. (2021) and Post et al. (2011) and Yarram & Adapa (2021) demonstrates that a single female director on a board consisting of 85 males to 15 females does not affect ESG reporting magnitude even if the female director count reaches three.
Board gender diversity according to Lafuente & Vaillant (2019) did not significantly affect ESG disclosure ratings which supports part of the critical mass theory. Research conducted by Hafsi & Turgut (2013), Hollindale et al. (2019), and Pareek et al. (2021) revealed that female board representatives create positive relations with sustainability performance assessment. The percentage of female directors at Indian corporate board levels remains extremely low because they represent only about 13% of board members on average. Women in this instance serve as regulatory placeholders since their primary appointment purpose is to satisfy requirements instead of contributing to the board beyond meeting quota numbers.
Companies who want to access the advantages of different perspectives and expertise should actively work toward establishing a more gender-balanced board according to Saggar et al. (2021). Despite limited influence, ESG support from boards of directors becomes possible through strategic guidance of CSR activities that optimize benefits for suppliers together with customers and investors along with employees and the wider community. Corporate decisionmaking requires a stakeholder-focused strategy which covers sustainability issues in full. Past ESG disclosure activities from companies create a substantial impact on their ongoing and forthcoming disclosure behavior. Environmental considerations seem to receive diminished importance from the analyzed sample firms because they choose people interests together with profit generation ahead of planetary protection.
Board members need to shift their CSR and ESG initiatives toward environmental solutions if the nation plans to meet its carbon neutrality objective by 2070. Practical Implications This research has significant implications for investors, policymakers, and businesses.
1. The analysis found that Indian organizations fail to incorporate adequate female
representation in their boards because women make up only 13.61% of board members. The common characteristics between senior managers lead them to choose representatives who share similar perspectives together with social backgrounds and interests. Board gender diversity between 40–60% demonstrates positive effects for corporate performance according to Lafuente and Vaillant (2019). Organizations need to abandon minimalistic equality practices and establish fair methods of appointing board members across all sectors.
2. Indian firms have external directors making up more than half of their boards whereas the
remaining directors remain outside the normal day-to-day operations. Managers find directors to work in a passive observational capacity during decision-making sessions. Board directors uphold integrity through transparent corporate governance practices because they achieve good governance disclosure ratings but they do not actively deal with environmental or social matters. Such detachment from management operations might create substantial enduring impacts for stakeholders along with businesses.
3. The establishment of functional CSR committees in publicly traded Indian firms helps push
forward ESG initiatives with lasting value creation. Indian businesses use these committees to create well-balanced environmental social and governance (ESG) disclosures which help them achieve the fundamental goal of the triple bottom line seek to balance relationships between ecosystems people and finances. Organization achievement of ESG goals requires that board directors devote their efforts to building up CSR committee capabilities. CSR compliance brings maximum value to companies that use both CSR regulation and complete and core BRSR frameworks which address ESG factors.
4. The country’s 2070 target to reach net-zero emissions shapes the development of basic
sustainability policies in India. The coverage of BRSR must be expanded to smaller businesses beyond tier-1 listed companies according to regulators and policy makers who want to fulfill this pledge effectively. The positive outcomes from CSR regulations indicate that an equivalent framework establishing environmental responsibilities might benefit the entire business sector.
5. The research emphasizes the value of enforced ESG disclosure requirements since socially
responsible investing (SRI) becomes increasingly attractive to stakeholders holding ethical and millennial investing interests. Modern business conditions require boards of directors to manage investor concerns for current stakeholders and prospective investors together with other stakeholder interests.
6. The process of implementing non-financial reporting standards by standard-setting bodies
could become difficult because of mounting pressure from investors along with governments and other stakeholders. Economies need to construct equilibrium between their advancement goals and commitments concerning environmental sustainability together with social protection. The major developing countries India Brazil Russia and China demonstrate promise to shift their emphasis from rapid development followed by environmental concerns to sustainable development practices. Research Limitations and Future Directions The research needs to establish prospective study paths which will investigate ESG practices together with corporate governance and the board of directors' responsibilities. Our study investigates future research directions through literature reviews and our obtained data to develop several possibilities which expand the field's knowledge.
1. The research results cannot be considered generalizable worldwide since countries maintain
different regulatory environments and economic development levels. Research should examine board diversity impacts on sustainable practices by studying the differences between developed and developing economies.
2. The study analyzes top-listed Indian companies but its scope remains restricted. More studies
should investigate how structure in the boardroom of unlisted companies and SMEs impacts their sustainability projects.
3. Family-owned businesses control the majority of the Indian business sector instead of widely
held corporations even though their operational approaches differ. Research opportunities exist to assess variations between ESG disclosures as well as board gender diversity in both familyrun companies and publicly traded organizations.
4. The worldwide process of integrating sustainability and technology creates novel
possibilities for startups that employ technology and work towards environmental goals. The initiatives of Make in India, Digital India and Startup India should be researched for how new businesses use technology to reach net-zero goals in upcoming scholarly work.
5. BRSR reports based on the BRSR framework will be mandatory for all companies starting
with the fiscal year ending March 2023 which provides detailed information about Indian company ESG initiatives at a local level. This India-focused non-financial reporting structure possesses capabilities to tackle specific environmental social and governance problems operating throughout the nation. The analysis of future BRSR reports should develop policies to advance ESG criteria.
6. Propensity score matching (PSM) and difference-in-differences (DID) represent new
experimental methods which can strengthen current research through advanced methodology. The analysis of this research field lacks interpretivist studies that would validate and possibly contest findings from existing positivist-based methods. Qualitative research methods will aid in resolving conflicting evidence that exists within the current research domain.
7. Research can benefit from investigating extra variables for measuring board gender diversity
through examining female directorship numbers and CEO and chairperson appointment statistics.
BIBILIOGRAPHY
A. A. Zaid, M., Wang, M., Adib, M., Sahyouni, A., & T. F. Abuhijleh, S. (2020). Boardroom nationality and gender diversity: Implications for corporate sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251, 119652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119652 Arora, A. (2020). Empirical evidence on optimal board size for Indian listed companies. International Journal of Corporate Governance, 11(3/4), 341. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCG.2020.115515 Arora, A. (2020). Empirical evidence on optimal board size for Indian listed companies. International Journal of Corporate Governance, 11(3/4),
341. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCG.2020.115515
Bear, S. , Rahman, N. , & Post, C. (2010). The Impact of Board Diversity and Gender Composition on Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 207–221. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s10551-010-0505-2 Beji, R. , Yousfi, O. , Loukil, N. , & Omri, A. (2021). Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility: Empirical Evidence from France. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(1), 133–155. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s10551-020-04522-4 Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden Connections: The Link between Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 185–197. https://doi. org/10. 1007/s10551-012-1293-7 Bloomberg. (2021). Sustainable Finance: Bloomberg Professional Services. Bloomberg. https://www. bloomberg. com/professional/solution/sustainablefinance/ Fahad, P. , & Rahman, P. M. (2020).
Impact of corporate governance on CSR disclosure. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 17(2–3), 155–167. https://doi. org/10. 1057/s41310-020-00082-1 Giannarakis, G. (2014). Corporate governance and financial characteristic effects on the extent of corporate social responsibility disclosure. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4), 569–590. https://doi. org/10. 1108/SRJ-02-2013-0008 Lagasio, V. , & Cucari, N. (2019). Corporate governance and environmental social governance disclosure: A meta-analytical review. In Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (Vol. 26, Issue 4, pp. 701–711). John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi. org/10. 1002/csr. 1716 Responsibility and Environmental Management (Vol. 26, Issue 4, pp. 701–711). John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi. org/10. 1002/csr. 1716 Walter, I. (2020). Sense and nonsense in ESG ratings.
Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, 5(2), 307–336. https://doi. org/10. 1561/108. 00000049 Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on Corporate Boards of Directors and their Influence on Corporate Philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10. https://doi. org/10. 1023/A:1021626024014