The Influence of the Characteristics of the National Business System in the Disclosure of Gender-Related Corporate Social Responsibility Practices
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Support and Hypotheses
2.1. Political System
2.2. Financial System
2.3. Educational and Labour System
2.4. Cultural System
2.4.1. Distancing Power
2.4.2. Aversion to Uncertainty
2.4.3. Individualism vs. Collectivism
2.4.4. Masculinity vs. Femininity
2.5. Economic System
3. Methodology
3.1. Data Collection Instrument
- -
- Principle 1: Establish high-level corporate leadership for gender equality.
- -
- Principle 2: Treat all men and women fairly at work—respect and support human rights and non-discrimination.
- -
- Principle 3: Ensure the health, safety and well-being of all women and men workers.
- -
- Principle 4: Promote education, training and professional development for women.
- -
- Principle 5: Implement business development, supply chain and marketing practices that empower women.
- -
- Principle 6: Promote equality through community initiatives and advocacy.
- -
- Principle 7: Measure and publicly report progress to achieve gender equality.
3.2. Dependent Variable: Level of Disclosure of Gender-Related Information
3.3. Independent Variables
3.4. Empirical Model
β6(DPOWERi) + β7(AVUNCERi) + β8(INDIVIDi) + β9(FEMINi) + β10(PCGDPi) + β11(IEFi) + εi
4. Analysis of Results
4.1. Analysis of the Level of Disclosure
4.2. Analysis of Collinearity, Heteroscedasticity and Normality
4.3. Testing Hypotheses and Discussions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adams, Carol A., and George Harte. 1998. The changing portrayal of the employment of women in British banks’ and retail companies’ corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society 23: 781–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilera, Ruth V., Deborah E. Rupp, Cynthia A. Williams, and Jyoti Ganapathi. 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review 32: 836–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alon, Ilan, Christoph Lattemann, Marc Fetscherin, Shaomin Li, and Anna-Maria Schneider. 2010. Usage of public corporate communications of social responsibility in Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). International Journal of Emerging Markets 5: 6–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amran, Azlan, Shiau Ping Lee, and S. Susela Devi. 2014. The Influence of Governance Structure and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility toward Sustainability Reporting Quality. Business Strategy Environment 23: 217–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baughn, C. Christopher, Nancy L. (Dusty) Bodie, and John C. McIntosh. 2007. Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in Asian Countries and Other Geographical Regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14: 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belal, Ataur Rahman. 2000. Environmental reporting in developing countries: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Eco-Management and Auditing 3: 114–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Amar, Walid, Millicent Chang, and Philip McIlkenny. 2017. Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Response to Sustainability Initiatives: Evidence from the Carbon Disclosure Project. Journal of Business Ethics 142: 369–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blindheim, Bjørn-Tore. 2015. Institutional models of corporate social responsibility: A proposed refinement of the explicit-implicit framework. Business & Society 54: 52–88. [Google Scholar]
- Bonsón, Enrique, and Michaela Bednárová. 2015. CSR reporting practices of Eurozone companies. Spanish Accounting Review 18: 182–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braendle, Udo C. 2014. Recent developments in BRICS corporate governance with a focus on Russia—Innovation or imitation? Paper presented at The International Conference on Corporate Governance: A search for advanced standards in the wake of crisis, Milan, Italy, May 8; pp. 369–80. [Google Scholar]
- Cahan, Steven F., Charl De Villiers, Debra Jeter, Naiker Vic, and Chris J. Van Staden. 2015. Are CSR Disclosures Value Relevant? Cross-Country Evidence. European Accounting Review 25: 579–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, John L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32: 946–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celis, Izaskun Larrieta-Rubín de, Eva Velasco-Balmaseda, Sara Fernández de Bobadilla, María del Mar Alonso-Almeida, and Gurutze Intxaurburu-Clemente. 2015. Does having women managers lead to increased gender equality practices in corporate social responsibility? Business Ethics: A European Review 24: 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Stephen, and Petra Bouvain. 2009. Is corporate responsibility converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the USA, UK, Australia, and Germany. Journal of Business Ethics 87: 299–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deegan, Craig. 2002. The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures: A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15: 282–311. [Google Scholar]
- Defond, Mark L., and Mingyi Hung. 2004. Investor Protection and Corporate Governance: Evidence from Worldwide CEO Turnover. Journal of Accounting Research 42: 269–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durnev, Art, Randall Morck, and Bernard Yeung. 2004. Value-Enhancing Capital Budgeting and Firm-Specific Stock Return Variation. Journal of Finance 59: 65–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez-Feijoo, Belen, Silvia Romero, and Silvia Ruiz. 2012. Does Board Gender Composition affect Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting? International Journal of Business and Social Science 3: 31–38. [Google Scholar]
- Fetscherin, Marc, Shaomin Li, Ilan Alon, Christoph Lattemann, and Kuang Yeh. 2010. Corporate social responsibility in emerging markets: The importance of the governance environment. Management International Review: Journal of International Business 50: 635–54. [Google Scholar]
- Fuente, Juan Antonio, Isabel Maria García-Sanchez, and Maria Belén Lozano. 2017. The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production 141: 737–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Sánchez, Isabel-Maria, Beatriz Cuadrado-Ballesteros, and Jose-Valeriano Frias-Aceituno. 2016. Impact of the institutional macro context on the voluntary disclosure of CSR information. Long Range Planning 49: 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannarakis, Grigoris, George Konteos, and Nikolaos Sariannidis. 2014. Financial, governance and environmental determinants of corporate social responsible disclosure. Management Decision 52: 1928–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, Ednéia Batista do Prado, Márcia Maria dos Santos Bortolocci Espejo, Stella Maris Lima Altoé, and Simone Bernardes Voese. 2016. Gestão da diversidade: Um estudo de gênero e raça em brasileiras grandes empresas. Revista Enfoque Contábil 35: 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, Sidney J. 1988. Towards a theory of cultural influence on the development of accounting systems internationally. Abacus 24: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grosser, Kate. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and gender equality: Women as stakeholders and the European Union sustainability strategy. Journal of Business Ethics 18: 290–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grosser, Kate, and Jeremy Moon. 2005. Gender mainstreaming and corporate social responsibility: Reporting workplace issues. Journal of Business Ethics 62: 327–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grosser, Kate, and Jeremy Moon. 2008. Developments in company reporting on workplace gender equality: A corporate social responsibility perspective. Accounting Forum 32: 179–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfaya, Akrum, and Tantawy Moussa. 2017. Do Board’s Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy and Orientation Influence Environmental Sustainability Disclosure? UK Evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment 26: 1061–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heritage Foundation. 2016. Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity. Available online: http://www.heritage.org/index/default (accessed on 13 July 2016).
- Hofstede, Geert. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies 14: 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, Geert H. 1997. Culturas e organizações: Compreender a nossa programação mental. Lisboa: Silabo. [Google Scholar]
- Hofstede, Geert. 2016. Country Comparison. Available online: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/ (accessed on 13 July 2016).
- Hotho, Jasper J. 2014. From typology to taxonomy: A configurational analysis of national business systems and their explanatory power. Organization Studies 35: 671–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyun, Eunjung, Daegyu Yang, Hojin Jung, and Kihoon Hong. 2016. Women on Boards and Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability 8: 300–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Financing Committee, Global Report Initiative. 2009. Embedding Gender in Sustainability Reporting: A Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. [Google Scholar]
- International Monetary Fund. 2016. World Economic Outlook Database October 2016. Available online: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weoselco.aspx?g=2001&sg=All+countries (accessed on 13 October 2016).
- Ioannou, Ioannis, and George Serafeim. 2012. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies 43: 834–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, Julia Catharina, and Nicola Berg. 2012. Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated reporting: An institutionalist approach. Business Strategy and the Environment 21: 299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, Corina, Juniati Gunawan, Yussri Sawani, Mariam Rahmat, Josephine Avelind Noyem, and Faizah Darus. 2016. A comparative study of anti-corruption practice disclosure among Malaysian and Indonesian Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) best practice companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 2896–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassinis, George, Alexia Panayiotou, Andreas Dimou, and Georgia Katsifaraki. 2016. Gender and environmental sustainability: A longitudinal analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 23: 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kato, Takao, and Kodama Naomi. 2016. Corporate Social Responsibility and Gender Diversity in the Workplace: Evidence from Japan. RIETI Discussion Paper Series 16-E-063; Tokyo, Japan: Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI). [Google Scholar]
- Kirsch, Anja. 2017. The gender composition of corporate boards: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 29: 346–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lattemann, Christoph, Marc Fetscherin, Ilan Alon, Shaomin Li, and Anna-Maria Schneider. 2009. CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review 17: 426–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Lin, Le Luo, and Qingliang Tang. 2015. Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review 47: 409–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopatta, Kerstin, Frerich Buchholz, and Thomas Kaspereit. 2016. Asymmetric information and corporate social responsibility. Business & Society 55: 458–88. [Google Scholar]
- Mahadeo, Jyoti Devi, Vanisha Oogarah-Hanuman, and Teerooven Soobaroyen. 2011. Changes in social and environmental reporting practices in an emerging economy (2004–2007): Exploring the relevance of stakeholder and legitimacy theories. Accounting Forum 35: 158–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matten, Dirk, and Jeremy Moon. 2008. “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 33: 404–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumayer, Eric, and Richard Perkins. 2004. What explains the uneven take-up of ISO 14001 at the global level? A panel-data analysis. Environment and Planning 36: 823–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ringov, Dimo, and Maurizio Zollo. 2007. The impact of national culture on corporate social performance. Corporate Governance 7: 476–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Domínguez, Isabel, Isabel María García-Sánchez, and Luis Rodríguez-Dominguez. 2010. The influence of gender diversity on corporate performance. Revista de Contabilidad 13: 56–88. [Google Scholar]
- Scholtens, Bert, and Lammertjan Dam. 2007. Cultural values and international differences in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 75: 273–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setó-Pamies, Dolors. 2015. The Relationship between Women Directors and Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22: 334–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The World Bank. 2016. World Development Indicators. Available online: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=NY.GDP.MKTP.CD&country=# (accessed on 4 October 2016).
- Thompson, Lindsay J. 2008. Gender equity and corporate social responsibility in a post-feminist era. Business Ethics: A European Review 17: 87–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Transparency International. 2015. Corruption Perceptions Index 2015. Available online: http://files.transparency.org/content/download/1956/12836/file/2015_CPI_data.xlsx (accessed on 4 October 2016).
- Turban, Daniel B., and Daniel W. Greening. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal 40: 658–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turban, Daniel B., and Daniel W. Greening. 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society 39: 254–80. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations (UN) Women, and United Nations (UN) Global Compact. 2014. Women’s Empowerment Principles: Reporting on Progress. Equality Means Business. Guidance Document. Available online: http://weprinciples.org/files/attachments/WEPs_Reporting_Guidance_G4_Sept2014pdf.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2016).
- Verrecchia, Robert E. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics 32: 97–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vuontisjӓrvi, Taru. 2006. Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resource disclosures: An analysis of Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics 69: 331–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Qian, Junsheng Dou, and Shenghua Jia. 2016. A meta-analytic review of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: The moderating effect of contextual factors. Business & Society 55: 1083–121. [Google Scholar]
- Whitley, Richard. 1999. Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Whitley, Richard. 2003. How national are business systems? The role of different state types and complementary institutions in constructing homogenous systems of economic coordination and control. Paper presented at Workshop on National Business Systems in the New Global Context, Oslo, Norway, May 8–11. [Google Scholar]
- Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2012. Introdução à Econometria: Uma Abordagem Moderna, 2nd ed. São Paulo: Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
- World Economic Forum. 2016. The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017. Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016–2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2016).
- Yin, Juelin. 2017. Institutional drivers for corporate social responsibility in an emerging economy: A mixed-method study of Chinese business executives. Business & Society 56: 672–704. [Google Scholar]
WEP | G4 Guideline Indicator (UN Guideline—2014) | Gender Information to be Disclosed |
---|---|---|
P1 | G4-38 | Composition of the highest governance body and its committees by gender. |
G4-40 | Criteria adopted to select and appoint members of the highest governance body. | |
P2 | G4-LA1 | Total number and rates of new hiring of employees and employee turnover by age group, gender, and region. |
G4-LA12 | Composition of groups responsible for governance and discrimination of employees by functional category, according to gender. | |
G4-LA13 | Mathematical reason for salary and remuneration between women and men, broken down by functional category and relevant operating units. | |
G4-EC5 | Variation of the proportion of the lowest wage, broken down by gender. | |
G4-LA3 | Rates of return to work and retention after maternity/paternity leave, broken down by gender | |
G4-HR3 | Total number of cases of discrimination and corrective measures taken. | |
P3 | G4-HR3 | Total number of cases of discrimination and corrective measures taken. |
G4-LA6 | Types and rates of injuries, occupational diseases, days missed, absenteeism and number of work-related deaths, broken down by region and gender. | |
P4 | G4-LA9 | Average number of hours of training per year per employee, broken down by gender and functional category. |
G4-LA11 | Percentage of employees who regularly receive performance and career development assessments, broken down by gender and functional category. | |
P5 | G4-DMA | Describe policies and practices that promote inclusion when selecting suppliers. |
P6 | G4-SO1 | Percentage of operations with programmes implemented for local community engagement, impact assessment, and local development. |
System | Independent Variables | Indicator | Source | Operationalization | Previous Studies |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Political | H1: CORRUP | Perceived Corruption Index | Transparency International (2015) | Score obtained by country, ranging from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (no corruption) | (Lattemann et al. 2009; Mahadeo et al. 2011). |
H2: ENFORC | Rule of Law: Estimate | The World Bank (2016) | Score obtained by country, ranging from −2.5 (lower presence of the rule of law) to +2.5 (greater presence of the rule of law) | (Fetscherin et al. 2010; Lattemann et al. 2009). | |
Financial | H3: FINANC | Financing through local equity market | World Economic Forum (WEF 2016) | Score obtained by country, from 1 (extremely difficult) to 7 (extremely easy) | (Jensen and Berg 2012; Ioannou and Serafeim 2012). |
Educational and Labour | H4: EDUC | Quality of the education | WEF (2016) | Score obtained by country, ranging from 1 (not satisfying at all) to 7 (highly satisfactory) | (Ioannou and Serafeim 2012; Turban and Greening 1997, 2000). |
H5: UNION | Cooperation in labour-employer relations | WEF (2016) | Score obtained by country, ranging from 1 (generally confrontational relationship) to 7 (generally collaborative relationship) | (Jensen and Berg 2012; Ioannou and Serafeim 2012). | |
Cultural | H6: DPOWER | Cultural dimension of power distance—Score obtained by country | (Hofstede 2016) | Score obtained by country, ranging from 0 (no power distance) to 100 (maximum power distance) | (Gray 1988; Hofstede 1997; García-Sánchez et al. 2016). |
H7: AVUNCER | Cultural dimension of aversion to uncertainty | (Hofstede 2016) | Score obtained by country, varying from 0 (no aversion to uncertainty) and 100 (maximum aversion to uncertainty) | (Gray 1988; García-Sánchez et al. 2016). | |
H8: INDIVID | Cultural dimension of individualism | (Hofstede 2016) | Score obtained by country, ranging from 0 (no independence of an individual in relation to other members of society) and 100 (maximum independence) | (Gray 1988; García-Sánchez et al. 2016). | |
H9: FEMIN | Cultural dimension of femininity | (Hofstede 2016) | Score obtained by country, ranging from 0 (highest level of female characteristics) to 100 (highest level of male characteristics) | (Gray 1988; García-Sánchez et al. 2016). | |
Economic | H10: PCGDP | Per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) | (International Monetary Fund 2016) | Score obtained by country | (Baughn et al. 2007; Lattemann et al. 2009; Jensen and Berg 2012). |
H11: IEF | Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) | Heritage Foundation (2016) | Score obtained by country, ranging from 0 (no freedom) to 100 (higher level of economic freedom) | (Lattemann et al. 2009; Jensen and Berg 2012). |
Indicator | ARG (n = 15) | BRA (99) | CHI (6) | COL (7) | COS (S) | ECU (4) | MEX (10) | PAN (1) | PER (5) | VEN (1) | Total (150) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
G4-38 | 1.87 | 1.15 | 1.67 | 1.71 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.60 | - | 1.20 | 2.00 | 1.23 |
G4-40 | 0.53 | 0.81 | 1.00 | 1.14 | - | 0.50 | 0.20 | - | 0.80 | - | 0.73 |
G4-LA1 | 0.87 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.20 | - | 0.20 | 1.00 | 0.43 |
G4-LA12 | 1.53 | 1.03 | 1.83 | 1.86 | 1.00 | 1.25 | 0.50 | - | 1.20 | 2.00 | 1.13 |
G4-LA13 | 1.07 | 0.57 | 0.33 | 0.57 | - | - | 0.10 | - | 0.40 | - | 0.54 |
G4-EC5 | 0.67 | 0.45 | - | 0.57 | - | 0.50 | - | - | 0.80 | - | 0.43 |
G4-LA3 | 0.13 | 0.16 | - | 0.29 | - | - | 0.20 | - | - | - | 0.15 |
G4-HR3 (1) | 1.07 | 0.48 | 0.33 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 0.40 | - | 1.20 | 2.00 | 0.58 |
G4-LA6 | 0.40 | 0.26 | 0.33 | 0.29 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.24 |
G4-LA9 | 0.80 | 0.36 | 1.00 | 0.57 | - | 0.50 | 0.20 | - | - | - | 0.41 |
G4-LA11 | 0.60 | 0.29 | - | 0.57 | - | - | 0.10 | - | - | - | 0.29 |
G4-DMA | 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.14 | - | - | 0.10 | - | - | - | 0.17 |
G4-SO1 | 0.47 | 0.56 | 0.67 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.20 | - | 0.40 | 1.00 | 0.51 |
Total | 11.13 | 7.20 | 8.17 | 9.86 | 5.00 | 6.25 | 3.20 | - | 7.40 | 10.00 | 7.41 |
Const. | ENFORC | FINANC | UNION | DPOWER | AVUNCER | INDIVID | FEMIN | PCGDP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hypothesis | H2 | H3 | H5 | H6 | H7 | H8 | H9 | H10 | |
Exp. Signal | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | |
Linear Regression (OLS) | |||||||||
βi | −9.82 | −7.78 | 10.04 | 1.12 | −1.80 | −3.29 | 0.49 | 0.65 | 1.07 |
t | −0.53 | −1.58 | 2.34 | 0.42 | −1.20 | −1.16 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 2.13 |
p-value | 0.59 | 0.1163 | 0.0207 | 0.6760 | 0.2328 | 0.2475 | 0.7113 | 0.6515 | 0.035 |
Signal (Sig.) | + (**) | + (**) | |||||||
Test | Does not influence | Rejects | Does not influence | Does not influence | Does not influence | Does not influence | Does not influence | Does Not Reject | |
Non-linear Regression (Poisson) | |||||||||
βi | −5.79 | −2.87 | 6.36 | −2.80 | −1.25 | −0.42 | −0.35 | 1.13 | 0.37 |
Z | −1.36 | −1.97 | 2.38 | −2.33 | −2.67 | −1.40 | −2.51 | 3.13 | 2.34 |
p-value | 0.173 | 0.0481 | 0.0171 | 0.0194 | 0.0075 | 0.1589 | 0.0119 | 0.0017 | 0.0191 |
Signal (Sig.) | − (**) | + (**) | − (**) | − (***) | − (**) | + (***) | + (**) | ||
Test | Rejects | Rejects | Does Not Reject | Does Not Reject | Does not influence | Does Not Reject | Rejects | Does Not Reject |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oliveira, M.C.; Júnior, M.S.R.; De Oliveira Lima, S.H.; De Freitas, G.A. The Influence of the Characteristics of the National Business System in the Disclosure of Gender-Related Corporate Social Responsibility Practices. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8020014
Oliveira MC, Júnior MSR, De Oliveira Lima SH, De Freitas GA. The Influence of the Characteristics of the National Business System in the Disclosure of Gender-Related Corporate Social Responsibility Practices. Administrative Sciences. 2018; 8(2):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8020014
Chicago/Turabian StyleOliveira, Marcelle Colares, Manuel Salgueiro Rodrigues Júnior, Sérgio Henrique De Oliveira Lima, and George Alberto De Freitas. 2018. "The Influence of the Characteristics of the National Business System in the Disclosure of Gender-Related Corporate Social Responsibility Practices" Administrative Sciences 8, no. 2: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8020014
APA StyleOliveira, M. C., Júnior, M. S. R., De Oliveira Lima, S. H., & De Freitas, G. A. (2018). The Influence of the Characteristics of the National Business System in the Disclosure of Gender-Related Corporate Social Responsibility Practices. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8020014