The Effect of Communication with Those Charged with‎Governance on ESG Performance, Focusing on Female Directors on The Board

Authors

  • Suyon Kim

    RoadTech, South Korea

How to Cite

Kim, S. (2025). The Effect of Communication with Those Charged with‎Governance on ESG Performance, Focusing on Female Directors on The Board. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(4), 158-165. https://doi.org/10.14419/ttnxp415

Received date: June 18, 2025

Accepted date: July 23, 2025

Published date: August 5, 2025

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14419/ttnxp415

Keywords:

Communication with Those Charged with Governance; ESG Performance; Female Directors on ‎the Board

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between communication with those charged with ‎governance and ESG performance. Communication with those charged with governance, ‎which refers to formal interactions between external auditors and governance structures, has ‎become increasingly significant in recent years due to heightened regulatory expectations. ‎This trend is driven by regulatory efforts to strengthen disclosure requirements, aiming to ‎enhance accounting transparency. Using data from Korean firms (2019-2020), the empirical ‎results show that more frequent communication with those charged with governance improves ‎ESG performance. Such interactions promote internal governance effectiveness, which in ‎turn supports long-term sustainability. In addition, the presence of female board directors ‎strengthens the positive relationship between governance communication and ESG outcomes, ‎emphasizing the value of board diversity‎.

References

  1. Adams RB, Ferreira D. Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics. 2009; 94(2): 291—309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.007.
  2. Albuquerque R, Koskinen Y, Yang S, Zhang C. Resiliency of environmental and social stocks：An analysis of the exogenous COVID－19 market crash. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies. 2020; 9(3): 593－621. https://doi.org/10.1093/rcfs/cfaa011.
  3. Ashbaugh－Skaife H, Collins DW, LaFond R. The effects of corporate governance on firms’ credit ratings. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 2006; 42(1－2): 203－243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2006.02.003.
  4. Baik D, Chen CX, Godsell D. Board gender diversity and investment efficiency: Global evidence from 83 country-level interventions. The Ac-counting Review. 2024; 99(3): 31-36. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2022-0251.
  5. Barber BM, Odean T. Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001; 116(1): 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556400.
  6. Ben Brik A, Rettab B, Mellahi K. Market orientation, corporate social responsibility, and business performance. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011; 99(3): 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0658-z.
  7. Berg F, Jay J, Kolbel J, Rigobon R. The signal in the noise. EconPol Forum. 2023; 24: 23-27.
  8. Bernasek A, Shwiff S. Gender, risk, and retirement. Journal of Economic Issues. 2001; 35(3): 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2001.11506368.
  9. Bianchi MS, Corvino A, Doni F, Rigolini A. Human capital disclosure: a determinant of firm growth and financial performance. Empirical evidence from European listed companies. European Journal of Management. 2014; 14(2): 153-175. https://doi.org/10.18374/EJM-14-2.15.
  10. Brazel JF, Jones KL, Zimbelman MF. Using non-financial measures to assess fraud risk. Journal of Accounting Research. 2009; 47: 1135-1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00349.x.
  11. Broadstock DC, Chan K, Cheng LTW, Wang X. The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance Research Letters. 2021; 38: 101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101716.
  12. Cho M, Jo J. Jung T, Kim NKW. Use of videoconferencing in audit committee-auditor communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from Korea. Managerial Auditing Journal. 2024; 40(2): 179-213. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-07-2023-3968.
  13. Clarkson PM, Li Y, Richardson GD, Vasvari FP. Does It Really Pay to Be Green? Determinants and Consequences of Proactive Environmental Strategies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. 2011; 30(2): 122-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2010.09.013.
  14. Croson R, Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature. 2009; 47(2): 448—474. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448.
  15. Flammer C. Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science. 2015; 61(11): 2549－2568. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2038.
  16. Gamerschlag, R. Value relevance of human capital information. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2013; 14(2): 325-345. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931311323913.
  17. Gul FA, Srinidhi B, Ng AC. Does board gender diversity improve the informativeness of stock prices? Journal of Accounting and Economics. 2011; 51(3): 314–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.01.005.
  18. Hambrick DC, Mason PA. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review. 1984; 9(2): 193–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434.
  19. Hart SL. A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review. 1995; 20(4): 986-1014. https://doi.org/10.2307/258963.
  20. Hillman AJ, Cannella AA, Paetzold RL. The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies. 2000; 37(2): 235-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00179.
  21. Harjoto M, Laksmana I, Lee R. Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2015; 132(3): 641–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2343-0.
  22. Hong JY, Kim SM, Shin SH. The effect of communication behavior between audit committee and external auditor on audit quality. Korean Ac-counting Review. 2022; 47(6): 163-203.
  23. Hong JY, Kim YJ. The effect of communication method and social tie between external auditors and internal audit organizations on earnings quali-ty. Korean Accounting Information Review. 2021; 39(2): 1-26. https://doi.org/10.29189/KAIAAIR.39.2.01.
  24. Horak S, Suseno Y. Informal networks, informal institutions, and social exclusion in the workplace: insights from subsidiaries of multinational cor-porations in Korea. Journal of Business Ethics. 2023; 186: 633-655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05244-5.
  25. Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1999; 44(4): 741–763. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054.
  26. Jensen M, Meckling W. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 1976; 3(4): 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
  27. Jones TM. Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review. 1995; 20(2): 404-437. https://doi.org/10.2307/258852.
  28. Kim D, Starks LT. Gender diversity on corporate boards: Do women contribute unique skills? American Economic Review. 2016; 106: 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161032.
  29. Kim J, Kim KS. Relationship between frequency of external auditors’ communication with those charged with governance and audit quality. Jour-nal of Taxation and Accounting. 2020; 21(3): 29-48. https://doi.org/10.35850/KJTA.21.3.02.
  30. Kim Y, Hong J. The effect of communication between external auditors and those charged with governance on earnings response coefficient. Ko-rean Journal of Management Accounting Research. 2021; 21(1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.31507/KJMAR.2021.4.21.1.1.
  31. Kim Y, Hong J. The effect of communication between external auditors and those charge with governance on corporate bond credit ratings. Korean Association of Business Education. 2023; 38(5): 79-98. https://doi.org/10.23839/kabe.2023.38.5.79.
  32. KICPA (Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants). 2018. Audit Practice Guideline 2018-2: Practice Guideline on Communication with Those Charged with Governance. Seoul: Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
  33. KICPA (Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants). 2023. Audit Practice Guideline on Communication with Those Charged with Govern-ance. Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
  34. Lee J, Kim S, Heo E. A statistical study on ESG rating divergence: Case study on KOSPI50 companies. Innovation Studies. 2024; 19(2): 137-155. https://doi.org/10.46251/INNOS.2024.5.19.2.137.
  35. Lee SJ, Kim H, Choi W. The effects of communication between and external auditor and a firm’s governance on the detection of embezzlement and malpractice. Accounting Tax and auditing Research. 2021; 63(4): 1-39.
  36. Lourenço IC, Callen JL, Branco MC, Curto, J.D. The value relevance of reputation for sustainability leadership. Journal of Business Ethics. 2014; 119(1): 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1617-7.
  37. Maraghni I, Nekhili M. Audit committee diligence in French companies: A question of independence or competence? In Accounting Auditing Con-trol. 2014; 20(2): 1-30. https://doi.org/10.3917/cca.202.0095.
  38. McWilliams A, Siegel D. Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 2011; 37(5): 1480-1495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385696.
  39. Park BJ. The moderating effects of controlling shareholder on the characteristics on internal monitoring body and audit committee activity. Review of Accounting and Policy Studies. 2021; 26(3): 57-88. https://doi.org/10.21737/RAPS.2021.08.26.3.57.
  40. Park J, Shim H. Financial fraud and communication between external auditors and audit committees. Journal of Taxation and Accounting. 2024; 25(2): 53-82.
  41. Russo MV, Fouts PA. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal. 1997; 40(3): 534-559. https://doi.org/10.2307/257052.
  42. Williams KY, O’Reilly CA. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior. 1998; 20(3): 77–140.
  43. Yoon SJ. The organizational culture of the Chaebol and workplace inequality: Stunted mobilities of Korean Chinese Employees in a Beijing Subsid-iary. Journal of Contemporary Asia. 2019; 49(1): 78-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2018.1488176.
  44. Zhou D, Zhou R. ESG performance and stock price volatility in public health crisis: Evidence from COVID－19 pandemic. International Environ-mental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(1): 1－15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010202.

Downloads

How to Cite

Kim, S. (2025). The Effect of Communication with Those Charged with‎Governance on ESG Performance, Focusing on Female Directors on The Board. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(4), 158-165. https://doi.org/10.14419/ttnxp415

Received date: June 18, 2025

Accepted date: July 23, 2025

Published date: August 5, 2025