The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Corporate governance and environmental social governance disclosure: A meta‐analytical review
Abstract
This paper provides, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the first meta‐analysis of evidence about the influence of the corporate governance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure, in a setting where the disclosure of information is voluntary but not discretionary. We apply meta‐analysis to a sample of 24 empirical studies to clarify the relationship of board size, board independence, women on board, number of board meeting, CEO duality, and company ownership with ESG disclosure. Our results show that board independence, board size, and women directorship visibly enhance ESG voluntary disclosure; board ownership and CEO duality do not improve the level of ESG disclosure; and some hesitations remain in respect of the number of board meetings and institutional and family ownership. The paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the corporate governance mechanisms that lead to more ESG disclosure and highlight the need of new approach on these issues.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569
Cited by
The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the SDG Reporting Score
Pizzi, S., Rosati, F., & Venturelli, A. (2021) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2628 · Cited by 426
Meta-analyses on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): a literature review
Velte, P. (2022) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-021-00211-2 · Cited by 367
Greenwashing behavior and firm value – From the perspective of board characteristics
Chen, P., & Dagestani, A. A. (2023) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2488 · Cited by 269
ESG-washing detection in corporate sustainability reports
Lagasio, V. (2024) · International Review of Financial Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103742 · Cited by 72
Self-citationTheoretical framework of sustainable value creation by companies. What do we know so far?
Zioło, M., Bąk, I., & Spoz, A. (2023) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.2489 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Lagasio, V., & Cucari, N.
- Venue
- Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-01-22
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 701-711
- ISSN
- 1535-3958 (ISSN-L)
- 1535-3966
- OpenAlex
- W2911614616
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 49.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Corporate governance and environmental social governance disclosure: A meta‐analytical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/csr.1716
- The paper
- Lagasio, V., & Cucari, N. (2019). Corporate governance and environmental social governance disclosure: A meta‐analytical review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1716
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
