Exploring Twitter for CSR Disclosure: Influence of CEO and Firm Characteristics in Latin American Companies

CITATION

Suárez-Rico, Y., Gómez-Villegas, M., & García-Benau, M. (2018). Exploring Twitter for CSR Disclosure: Influence of CEO and Firm Characteristics in Latin American Companies. Sustainability, 10(8).

For library access / research help in a similar topic: anyangoceline19@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Social networks, which are characterised by accessibility and interactivity, offer great
potential for dialogue between companies and stakeholders, for example as platforms for publishing
information on aspects of corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this paper, we use a synthetic
index to analyse levels of CSR disclosure via Twitter, and identify explanatory variables of this
disclosure by studying the demographic characteristics of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and of
the company. This synthetic index was based on data for 93 companies located in the four countries
of the Pacific Alliance (Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru), using categories based on the 2016 Global
Reporting Initave (GRI) Standards. The tweets were compiled during a period of two months in
2017, immediately before and after the publication of each CSR report. The synthetic index was
taken as the dependent variable and used as the basis for multivariate regression analysis to identify
the relationship between the level of CSR disclosure on Twitter and the characteristics of the firm
and its CEO. The results obtained show that firms operating in environmentally-sensitive industries
present higher levels of CSR disclosure on Twitter than those in other sectors. By country of origin,
the Colombian and Chilean companies offered higher levels of disclosure than those in Mexico
and Peru. The regression analysis revealed a positive relationship between the firm operating in a
sensitive industry and its level of CSR disclosure on Twitter, and an inverse relationship between the
latter variable and the tenure of the CEO.


REFERENCES
1. Baue, B.; Murninghan, M. The Accountability Web. Weaving Corporate Accountability and Interactive Technology. J. Corp. Citizsh. 2011, 41, 27–49.

2. Sundstrom, B.; Levenshus, A.B. The art of engagement: Dialogic strategies on Twitter. J. Commun. Manag. 2017, 21, 17–33

3. Abitbol, A.; Lee, S.Y. Messages on CSR-dedicated Facebook pages: What works and what doesn’t.
Public Relat. Rev. 2017, 43, 796–808

4. Etter, M. Reasons for low levels of interactivity: (Non-) interactive CSR communication in twitter.
Public Relat. Rev. 2013, 39, 606–608.

5. Etter, M. Broadcasting, reacting, engaging—Three strategies for CSR communication in Twitter.
J. Commun. Manag. 2014, 18, 322–342

6. Merkl-Davies, D.M.; Brennan, N.M. A theoretical framework of external accounting communication: Research perspectives, traditions, and theories. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2017, 30, 433–469.

7. Dutot, V.; Lacalle Galvez, E.; Versailles, D.W. CSR communications strategies through social media and influence on e-reputation An exploratory study. Manag. Decis. 2016, 54, 363–389.

8. Chae, B.; Park, E. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): A Survey of Topics and Trends Using Twitter Data and Topic Modeling. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2231.

9. Mazzei, M.J.; Noble, D. Big data dreams: A framework for corporate strategy. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 405–414.

10. U Mass-Darmouth. The 2017 Fortune 500 Go Visual and Increase Use of Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube. Available online: https://www.umassd.edu/cmr/socialmediaresearch/2017fortune500/#d.en.963986 (accessed on 3 April 2018).

11. Painter-Morland, M.; Deslandes, G. Reconceptualizing CSR in the Media Industry as Relational
Accountability. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 143, 665–679.

12. Hossain, M.; Reaz, M. The determinants and characteristics of voluntary disclosure by Indian banking companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2007, 14, 274–288

13. Tan, A.; Benni, D.; Liani, W. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Investor Reaction. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues 2016, 6, 11–17.

14. Thijssens, T.; Bollen, L.; Hassink, H. Secondary Stakeholder Influence on CSR Disclosure: An Application of Stakeholder Salience Theory. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 132, 873–891

15. Patten, D.M. Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. J. Account. Public Policy 1991, 10, 297–308.

16. Bakhtina, K.; Goudriaan, J.W. CSR reporting in multinational energy companies. Transf. Eur. Rev. Labour Res. 2011, 17, 95–99

17. Castelló, I.; Etter, M.; Årup Nielsen, F. Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social Media: The Networked Strategy. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 402–432.

18. Bonsón, E.; Ratkai, M. A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook. Online Inf. Rev. 2013, 37, 787–803.

19. Cho, M.; Furey, L.D.; Mohr, T. Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility on Social Media: Strategies, Stakeholders, and Public Engagement on Corporate Facebook. Bus. Prof. Commun. Q. 2017, 80, 52–69.

20. Li, Q.;Wei,W.; Xiong, N.; Feng, D.; Ye, X.; Jiang, Y. Social Media Research, Human Behavior, and Sustainable Society. Sustainability 2017, 9, 384

21. OECD. Government at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2017; OECD: París, France, 2016; ISBN 9789264266391.

22. Evans, M. 3 Things You Need To Know about Latin American Digital Consumers. Available
online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelleevans1/2017/08/10/3-things-you-need-to-know-aboutlatin-
american-digital-consumers/2/#6379015f226f (accessed on 12 June 2018).

23. Tench, R.; Jones, B. Social media: The Wild West of CSR communications. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 290–305.

24. Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media.
Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 59–68.

25. Jansen, B.J.; Zhang, M.; Sobel, K.; Chowdury, A. Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 2169–2188.

26. Colleoni, E. CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2013, 18, 228–248.

27. Bachmann, P.; Ingenhoff, D. Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the
disadvantages. Public Relat. Rev. 2016, 42, 386–394.

28. Benites-Lazaro, L.L.; Mello-Théry, N.A. CSR as a legitimatizing tool in carbon market: Evidence from Latin America’s Clean Development Mechanism. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 218–226.

29. Suchman, M. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610.

30. Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Pitman: Mashfield, UK, 1984; Volume 1, ISBN 0631218602.

31. Zimmerman, M.A.; Zeitz, G.J. Beyond Survival: Achieving New Venture Growth by Building Legitimacy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 414–431.

32. Dowling, J.; Pfeffer, J. Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior between the Organizations seek to establish congruence. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1975, 18, 122–136.

33. Cowen, S.S.; Ferreri, L.B.; Parker, L.D. The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Account. Organ. Soc. 1987, 12, 111–122.

34. Branco, M.; Rodrigues, L. Factors Influencing Social Responsibility Disclosure by Portuguese Companies. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 83, 685–701.

35. Bayoud, N.S.; Kavanagh, M. Factors Influencing levels of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure by Libyan Firms: A Mixed Study. Int. J. Econ. Financ. 2012, 4, 13–29.

36. Gamerschlag, R.; Möller, K.; Verbeeten, F. Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Empirical evidence from Germany. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2011, 5, 233–262.

37. Du, S.; Vieira, E.T. Striving for Legitimacy Through Corporate Social Responsibility: Insights from Oil Companies. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 110, 413–427.

38. Hackston, D.; Milne, M.J. Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Account. Audit. Account. J. 1996, 9, 77–108.

39. Wang, J.; Yao, S. The Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence From China. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 2013, 29, 1833.

40. Astley,W.; Van de Ven, A. Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory. Adm. Sci. Q. 1983, 28, 245–273.

41. Carpenter, M.A.; Geletkanycz, M.A.; Sanders, W.G. Upper Echelons Research Revisited: Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Management Team Composition. J. Manag. 2004, 30, 749–778.

42. Hambrick, D.C.; Mason, P.A. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. Source Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 193–206

43. Ng, E.S.; Sears, G.J. CEO Leadership Styles and the Implementation of Organizational Diversity Practices: Moderating Effects of Social Values and Age. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 41–52

44. Hambrick, D.C. Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 334–343.

45. Petrenko, O.; Aime, F.; Ridge, J.; Hill, A. Corporate Social Responibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 262–279.

46. Lewis, B.; Walls, J.; Dowell, G. Difference in Degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure. Strateg. Manag. J. 2014, 35, 712–722.

47. Marais, M. CEO rhetorical strategies for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Soc. Bus. Rev. 2012, 7, 223–243.

48. Oh, W.-Y.; Chang, Y.K.; Cheng, Z. When CEO Career Horizon Problems Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating Roles of Industry-Level Discretion and Blockholder Ownership. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 133, 279–291.

49. Manner, M. The impact of CEO characteristics on Corporate Social Performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 93, 53–72.

50. Khlif, H.; Achek, I. Gender in accounting research: A review. Manag. Audit. J. 2017, 32, 627–655.

51. Huang, S.K. The Impact of CEO Characteristics on Corporate Sustainable Development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 20, 234–244

52. Zhang, H.; Ou, A.Y.; Tsui, A.S.; Wang, H. CEO humility, narcissism and firm innovation: A paradox perspective on CEO traits. Leadersh. Q. 2017, 28, 585–604.

53. Damanpour, F.; Schneider, M. Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2009, 19, 495–522.

54. Barker, V.L.; Mueller, G.C. CEO Characteristics and Firm R&D Spending. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 782–801.

55. Kitchell, S. CEO characteristics and technological innovativeness: A Canadian perspective. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 1997, 14, 111–121.

56. Musteen, M.; Barker, V.L.; Baeten, V.L. The influence of CEO tenure and attitude toward change on organizational approaches to innovation. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2010, 46, 360–387.

57. Finkelstein, S.; Hambrick, D.; Canella, A. Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; ISBN 978-0-19-516207-3.

58. Fuchs, C.; Hofkirchner,W.; Schafranek, M.; Raffl, C.; Sandoval, M.; Bichler, R. Theoretical Foundations of the Web: Cognition, Communication, and Co-Operation. Towards an Understanding of Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. Future Internet 2010, 2, 41–59.

59. Lin, K.-Y.; Lu, H.-P. Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1152–1161.

60. Millham, M.H.; Atkin, D. Managing the virtual boundaries: Online social networks, disclosure, and privacy behaviors. New Media Soc. 2016, 20, 50–67.

61. Telefónica Redes Sociales en el Mundo Corporativo. Experiencias y Aprendizajes. Available online:
https://www.fundacioncarolina.es/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Redes-sociales-mundo-corporativo-
Douglas-Ochoa.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2018).

62. Internet Live Stats Twitter Usage Statistics. Available online: http://www.internetlivestats.com/twitterstatistics/
(accessed on 4 April 2018).

63. Statista.com. Number of Monthly Active Twitter UsersWorldwide from 1st Quarter 2010 to 4th Quarter 2017
(in Millions). Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-activetwitter-users/ (accessed on 4 April 2018).

64. Busch, T.; Shepherd, T. Doing well by doing good? Normative tensions underlying Twitter’s corporate social responsibility ethos. Converg. Int. J. Res. New Media Technol. 2014, 20, 293–315.

65. Van Dijck, J. Tracing Twitter: The Rise of a Microblogging platform. Int. J. Media Cult. Polit. 2012, 7, 333–348.

66. Khalil, S.; O’sullivan, P. Corporate social responsibility: Internet social and environmental reporting by banks. Meditari Account. Res. 2017, 25, 414–446.

67. Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. Tweetjacked: The Impact of Social Media on Corporate Greenwash. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 747–757.

68. Saxton, G.D.;Waters, R.D. What do Stakeholders Like on Facebook? Examining Public Reactions to Nonprofit Organizations’ Informational, Promotional, and Community-Building Messages. J. Public Relat. Res. 2014, 26, 280–299.

69. Araujo, T.; Kollat, J. Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter: The power of engaging strategies and storytelling elements For Authors Communicating effectively about CSR on Twitter The power of engaging strategies and storytelling elements. Internet Res. 2018, 28, 419–431.

70. MERCO. Qué es Merco-Monitor Empresarial de Reputación Corporativa. Available online: http://www.merco.info/co/que-es-merco (accessed on 11 July 2018).

71. Cegarra-Navarro, J.; Martínez-Martínez, A. Linking orporate social responsibility with admiration through organizational outcomes. Soc. Responsib. J. 2009, 5, 499–511

72. Ros-Diego, V.-J.; Castelló-Martínez, A.; Martínez-Arcos, C.-A. CSR communication through online social media. Rev. Lat. Comun. Soc. 2012, 67, 47–67.

73. Odriozola, M.D.; Baraibar-Diez, E. Is Corporate Reputation Associated with Quality of CSR Reporting? Evidence from Spain. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 121–132.

74. Global Reporting Initiative. GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/ (accessed on 12 February 2018).

75. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012.

76. Conde, M.D.F.T. Diseño de Índices de Divulgación de la Información de Responsabilidad Social Empresarial y Gobierno Corporativo: Un Análisis en las Mayores Empresas de la Península Ibérica. 2014. Available online: http://dehesa.unex.es/bitstream/handle/10662/2467/TDUEX_2014_Conde_MF.pdf?sequence=1
(accessed on 12 February 2018).

77. Correa, T.; Hinsley, A.W.; Gil De Zúñiga, H. Who interacts on the Web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 247–253.

78. Wamba, F.; Carter, L.S. Twitter adoption and use by SMEs: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 46 Hawaii International Conferences on System Sciences (HICSS), Maui, HI, USA, 7–10 January 2013.

79. Brammer, S.; Millington, A.I. Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 15, 6–19.

80. El Mercurio April 2016. Available online: http://www.emol.com/noticias/Nacional/2016/04/23/799468/
Girardi-anuncia-acciones-penales-contra-Codelco-por-grave-contaminacion-en-Chacabuco.html (accessed on 13 July 2018).

81. Cooperativa August 2016. Available online: https://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/pais/medioambiente/
contaminacion/codelco-provoco-nuevo-derrame-de-concentrado-de-cobre-en-los-andes/2016-08-24/
163051.html (accessed on 13 July 2018).

82. Pozas, M.D.C.S.; Lindsay, N.M.; du Monceau, M.I. Corporate social responsibility and extractives industries in Latin America and the Caribbean: Perspectives from the ground. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2015, 2, 93–103.

83. Weng, D.H.; Lin, Z.; Amason, A.; Croson, R.; Dess, G.; Jargowsky, P.; Lim, E.; Peng, M. Beyond CEO Tenure: The Effect of CEO Newness on Strategic Changes. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 2009–2032.