Corporate commitments to biodiversity disclosure and sustainable board. Do NGO directors on board matter? Recent evidence from S&P 500 companies

Abstract

AbstractThis study analyzes the impact of the characteristics of sustainable boards and NGO directors on biodiversity disclosures. This research uses data from 481 US companies that are taken from Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P), ASSET4, for the period 2009–2020 (5616 company‐year observations). Data on NGO directors is provided by MSCI's GMI Rankings database. A panel data analysis with fixed effects models is used to estimate the results. The results also indicate that a sustainable board structure (proxied by Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) and Sustainability‐related executive compensation) is positively correlated with biodiversity disclosure. Our empirical results also show that the moderating role of NGO directors has a greater interaction effect with the characteristics of sustainable boards and biodiversity information disclosure initiatives. The results are also consistent for exploitative and nonexploitative industries, as well as for the pre‐ and post SDG (14–15) of the agenda 2030. In addition, the framework of SDG (14‐15) and the strategic plan of partnership with the Agenda of 2030 show a positive relationship with biodiversity disclosure. We then develop a causal relationship through the positive impact of NGO directors serving on the board of directors on a strategy of partnerships, onboarding, and increase/decrease of NGO directors—possible mechanisms by which NGO directors can influence biodiversity disclosure. Overall, our findings suggest that while NGO directors can potentially be appointed to a company's board of directors for legitimization reasons, these directors are associated with better biodiversity disclosure. The study has valuable implications for enduring board members, practitioners, and scholars. The results are supported by theories of legitimacy, stakeholders and resource dependence. However, evidence on this research question is still unknown and critical, especially in the context of stakeholder‐emphasized governance systems (continental Europe, Japan) and developing countries where there is a lack of knowledge application of regulations related to the disclosure of biodiversity.