The link between corporate governance and sustainability: Evidence from the oil and gas industry

This study sought to investigate the link between corporate governance and sustainability in oil and gas firms across two countries. Sustainability was conceptualized as including three firm obligations: (1) economic performance; (2) social responsiveness; and (3) environmental quality. Using archival data from 53 Australian and 65 Canadian oil and gas companies from 2004, we found that Australian firms were more socially responsive while Canadian firms demonstrated higher levels of environmental quality. Board size was a significant predictor of social responsiveness and environmental quality for Australian firms, whereas none of the corporate governance variables provided explanations for the sustainability levels of Canadian firms.

[1]  Jonathan L. Johnson,et al.  Number of Directors and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis , 1999 .

[2]  G. W. Hill.  Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[3]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Cocreating business's new social compact. , 2007, Harvard business review.

[4]  D. Hambrick,et al.  Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers , 1984 .

[5]  G. Nicholson,et al.  Multiple Directorships and Corporate Performance in Australian Listed Companies , 2006 .

[6]  O. C. Ferrell,et al.  Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits , 1999 .

[7]  Ruth V. Aguilera,et al.  Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: a Multi-Level Theory of Social Change in Organizations , 2004 .

[8]  Amy J. Hillman,et al.  Organizational Predictors of Women on Corporate Boards , 2007 .

[9]  A. Carroll.  A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance , 1979 .

[10]  N. Stern.  What is the Economics of Climate Change , 2006 .

[11]  Diana Bilimoria.  Building the Business Case for Women Corporate Directors , 2000 .

[12]  S. Jackson,et al.  Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? , 1989 .

[13]  Andrew D. Henderson,et al.  Information-Processing Demands as a Determinant of Ceo Compensation , 1996 .

[14]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

[15]  G. Nicholson,et al.  Evaluating Boards and Directors , 2005 .

[16]  Martin T. Wells,et al.  Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms 1 We wish to thank Asiakastieto Oy for fu , 1998 .

[17]  Allen C. Amason,et al.  The Effects of Top Management Team Size and interaction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict , 1997 .

[18]  R. Klassen,et al.  The Impact of Environmental Technologies on Manufacturing Performance , 1999 .

[19]  M. Porter,et al.  Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. , 2006, Harvard business review.

[20]  K. R. Conner.  A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought Within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm? , 1991 .

[21]  A. Kolk,et al.  Business Responses to Climate Change: Identifying Emergent Strategies , 2005 .

[22]  John L. Campbell.  Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? an institutional theory of corporate social responsibility , 2007 .

[23]  Albert A. Cannella,et al.  Corporate Governance: Decades of Dialogue and Data , 2003 .

[24]  C. Oliver.  STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[25]  A. Hoffman.  Climate Change Strategy: The Business Logic behind Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reductions , 2004 .

[26]  S. Hart.  A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1995 .

[27]  N. Brennan,et al.  Corporate Governance Practices in Irish Companies , 1997 .

[28]  Sydney Finkelstein,et al.  CEO Duality as a Double-Edged Sword: How Boards of Directors Balance Entrenchment Avoidance and Unity of Command , 1994 .

[29]  M. Russo,et al.  A Resource-Based Perspective On Corporate Environmental Performance And Profitability , 1997 .

[30]  G. Nicholson,et al.  Board Composition and Corporate Performance: How the Australian Experience Informs Contrasting Theories of Corporate Governance , 2003 .

[31]  R. Jacobson,et al.  Trading off between Value Creation and Value Appropriation: The Financial Implications of Shifts in Strategic Emphasis , 2003 .

[32]  S. Piderit,et al.  Board Committee Membership: Effects of Sex-Based Bias , 1994 .

[33]  Amy Cassara,et al.  Tomorrow's Markets: Global Trends and Their Implications for Business , 2002 .

[34]  Jonathan L. Johnson,et al.  META-ANALYTIC REVIEWS OF BOARD COMPOSITION, LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE, AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE , 1998 .

[35]  S. Waddock,et al.  Strategic Issues Management: An Integration of Issue Life Cycle Perspectives , 1992 .

[36]  Robert D. Hisrich,et al.  The Woman Entrepreneur: Management Skills and Business Problems , 1984 .

[37]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[38]  D. Cormier,et al.  Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? , 2005 .

[39]  Philip J. Shrives,et al.  The use of disclosure indices in accounting research: A review article , 1991 .

[40]  G. Benson,et al.  Corporate Boards and Company Performance: Review of Research in Light of Recent Reforms , 2007 .

[41]  Thomas W. Dunfee,et al.  How Binding the Ties? Business Ethics as Integrative Social ContractsTies That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics , 1999 .

[42]  M. Clarkson.  A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance , 1995 .

[43]  Size Really Matters: Further Evidence on the Negative Relationship Between Board Size and Firm Value , 2005 .

[44]  C. Prahalad,et al.  Serving the world's poor, profitably. , 2002, Harvard business review.

[45]  C. Daily,et al.  CEO and Board Chair Roles Held Jointly or Separately: Much Ado About Nothing? , 1997 .

[46]  Iain J. Clelland,et al.  Talking Trash: Legitimacy, Impression Management, and Unsystematic Risk in the Context of the Natural Environment , 2004 .

[47]  Gavin J. Nicholson,et al.  A Framework for Diagnosing Board Effectiveness , 2004 .

[48]  J. Lash,et al.  Competitive advantage on a warming planet. , 2007, Harvard business review.

[49]  J. B. Rosener.  America's Competitive Secret: Utilizing Women as a Management Strategy , 1995 .

[50]  S. Schmidheiny.  Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment , 1992 .

[51]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[52]  Joseph E. Stiglitz,et al.  Globalization and Its Discontents , 2002 .

[53]  Kevin Hendry,et al.  The Role of the Board in Firm Strategy: Integrating Agency and Organisational Control Perspectives , 2004 .

[54]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[55]  S. Finkelstein,et al.  Top Management Team Size, CEO Dominance, and firm Performance: The Moderating Roles of Environmental Turbulence and Discretion , 1993 .

[56]  David L. Levy,et al.  Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry , 2002, Business and Politics.