The impact of gender diversity on

corporate social responsibility knowledge:

empirical analysis in European context
Paola Paoloni, Rosa Lombardi and Salvatore Principale

Abstract Paola Paoloni, Rosa

Purpose – The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated social risks around the world, highlighting inequalities Lombardi and Salvatore
and eroding social cohesion in and between nations. The challenges posed by this global crisis to world Principale are all based at
governments can be overcome with cooperation between the public and private sectors. Several studies the Department of Law and
support the importance of external corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in sharing knowledge with Economics of Production
citizens and external stakeholders, with benefits for the company and for society. Few studies have investigated
Activities, Sapienza
the relationship between knowledge management (KM) and sustainability. This work aims to investigate the
University of Rome, Rome,
influence of the gender variable in the sharing of CSR knowledge, focusing on the area of human rights.
Italy.
Design/methodology/approach – The panel regression analysis was performed on a sample of 660
European companies listed over the years 2017–2020. The hypotheses tested in panel regression were
then corroborated by a further test.
Findings – The results show a positive influence of women directors in the external disclosure of human
rights. Evidence would assign a positive role to gender in sharing knowledge.
Practical implications – The findings offer new insights into the role of gender on KM and sharing. The
results show that gender can be a factor that stimulates CSR knowledge. The presence of women
directors can be a useful tool to increase the relational capital of the companies and to share knowledge
outside the company.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the poor literature between knowledge sharing and
sustainability. Evidence would assign a positive role to gender in sharing knowledge.
Keywords Governance, Knowledge management, Gender diversity, CSR knowledge,
Gender disclosure, Human rights
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The role of sustainable practices and business ethics in business strategy has grown in
importance over the past decade (Abhayawansa et al., 2021; Cammarano et al., 2022; Caputo
et al., 2021; Luca Casali and Perano, 2021). Policymakers’ progressive attention to sustainable
development issues characterised the international scenario (Carayannis et al., 2017). Recent Received 3 July 2022
Revised 17 October 2022
events such as climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic have highlighted even more the 28 December 2022
existing criticalities and the need to guide the economy towards sustainable attitudes (Cosma Accepted 20 January 2023

et al., 2022). The policymakers, therefore, have listened to the needs of the various categories The investigation conducted in
this paper is connected to the
of stakeholders, who are increasingly interested in and sensitive for organisations to adopt wide research path actived by
behaviours in line with the sustainable development paradigm (Leopizzi et al., 2020). the project financed by
Sapienza University of Rome
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) themes fit within the corporate value creation “Tornado or Sunshine? Mixing
Accounting Regulation and
models (Adams, 2017). Recent studies have highlighted both the benefits for those who Corporate Accountability in the
Era of Non-Financial
adopt sustainable practices and the negative externalities in terms of reputation for those Information, Intangibles and
who do not adopt them (Sadiq et al., 2020). For several companies, therefore, sustainability Digitalization”.

DOI 10.1108/JKM-07-2022-0512 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
 has become a tool for improving their performance (Russo et al., 2022). For sustainable
practices to be transformed into medium- to long-term benefits, it is necessary, on the one
hand, for the company to integrate sustainability into corporate strategies. On the other,
stakeholders must be aware of company practices (Cammarano et al., 2022). Hence, there is
a need for companies to communicate externally what they did during the year and conduct
stakeholder engagement practices (Gomez-Carrasco et al., 2021). Over the years, companies
have voluntarily initiated information relating to ESG areas to seek the approval of stakeholders
to obtain competitive advantages over their competitors (Leopizzi et al., 2020).
Some scholars have analysed the relationship between sustainability and KM. Corporate
social responsibility (CSR) is a process of accumulating knowledge that companies can
manage (Tang et al., 2012). KM is a strategic resource for companies of all types to obtain
or maintain a competitive advantage (Rossi et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing plays a
facilitating role in achieving company objectives. However, scholars have shown that in
spite of the multidisciplinary of both elements, there are still unexplored areas (Martins et al.,
2019). Scholars refer above all to knowledge sharing and the factors that can facilitate
information sharing (Martins et al., 2019).
In this work, we focus on the S dimension of ESG issues, referring to human rights. Companies
have often shown that they do not give equal weight to ESG issues. Thus, there is empirical
evidence of how often companies pay attention to environmental rather than social issues
(Leopizzi et al., 2020). Businesses and multinational companies play a fundamental social role
because they are in close contact with the environment in which they operate (Kim, 2019). The
close link with the territory, employees and suppliers makes human rights issues material for
companies belonging to any sector (Ullah et al., 2021). Therefore, to protect their image,
companies should consider these issues in their policies and practices and formulate
strategies aimed at protecting the rights of all (Baudot et al., 2021). While ESG practices and
communication legitimise the company in the stakeholders’ eyes, they are also useful for
sharing CSR knowledge (Gangi et al., 2019). In a social context aggravated by the
pandemic’s effects, private companies’ social communication can be an important tool for
raising stakeholders’ awareness about human rights (Casadei and Amadei, 2010).
This work aims to evaluate the relationship between gender and CSR knowledge. Specifically,
because the gender literature emphasises some specific characteristics of women compared
with men, this work investigates women directors’ influence on external information sharing
relating to human rights. The results of this work suggest that companies with a greater
presence of women at decision-making levels conduct better human rights communication. To
the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work is among the first to investigate the effect of board
diversity on sharing CSR knowledge. The board’s role is increasingly crucial so that it can guide
and promote a corporate culture that integrates sustainability values (Cillo et al., 2022). This
contribution’s motivation derives from a gap in the research on the relation between CSR and
knowledge sharing. This work mainly contributes to the literature on gender diversity and to CSR
knowledge. We used human rights communication as a proxy for external CSR. Nevertheless, to
the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous studies that have investigated this phenomenon
have interpreted the results from a knowledge perspective. The results are directed to
academics, policymakers and companies, suggesting greater diversification of governance.
The next section reviews and discusses the literature. Section 3 describes the sample and
method, while the results are presented in Section 4. Section 5 shows findings,
contributions and implications.

2. Background and hypotheses development

Scholars have analysed CSR knowledge based on internal and external perspectives
(Gangi et al., 2019). The first refers to the company’s social responsibility towards
employees (Jamali et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2010). External CSR refers to the relationship

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

between the company and the stakeholders. Kim (2019) defined CSR knowledge as “awareness
and understanding of a corporation’s CSR activities that are obtained through both direct and
indirect experience with the corporation”. Matten and Moon (2008) argue that explicit CSR refers
to communication of sustainable practices to stakeholders. Scholars who have studied CSR
communication support the motivations of moral legitimacy linked to companies’ choices to
publish CSR information (Gomez-Carrasco et al., 2021; Sorour et al., 2021). CSR communication
would represent a useful tool to strengthen the link with the different categories of stakeholders.
Thus, the importance of sharing CSR knowledge increased. The knowledge-sharing
concept refers to the exchange or transfer process that makes knowledge available to other
subjects (Lee et al., 2020). To obtain competitive advantages, knowledge must not only be
used but also be shared (Shahzad et al., 2020). Sharing knowledge allows us to trigger
virtuous circles that foster growth and innovation processes (Shahzad et al., 2020; Yasin,
2020). Companies have started sharing CSR knowledge to preserve or improve their image
in users’ eyes. This is aimed at acting on the company’s relational capital because it is not a
closed system but interacts with environmental actors (Melloni, 2015). To preserve the corporate
image and reputation, the company needs to obtain the stakeholders’ trust. Corporate reputation
is increasingly a necessary element to preserve corporate value in the long term (Adams, 2017).
The adoption of sustainable behaviour represents a business strategy to maintain or increase a
company’s reputation (Zhang et al., 2020). However, stakeholders’ lack of knowledge of these
practices could compromise the benefits expected by companies that adopt sustainable
behaviours (Cillo et al., 2019; Luo and Du, 2015). This shows the binding link between CSR and
knowledge management (KM; Gangi et al., 2019) as well as the latter’s importance in extracting
value from the organisation’s external environment (Del Giudice and Maggioni, 2014). Good
practices and CSR strategies can influence consumer behaviour and contribute to a virtuous
circle in favour of socially responsible behaviour (Stella et al., 2022). Sharing CSR information
could help raise awareness and educate users about sustainable practices. A recent study
highlighted how the disclosure of CSR information facilitates the sharing of CSR knowledge (Liu
and He, 2022). On the other hand, increasing stakeholders’ CSR knowledge can represent a
fundamental element to guarantee the reputational benefits deriving from companies’
sustainable behaviour (Gangi et al., 2019). Furthermore, sharing CSR knowledge could
represent a stimulus to other organisations to improve CSR performance. Businesses can use
different channels and exploit the potential of the internet and social media. A company that
shares its sustainable attitudes externally encourages users to align themselves with corporate
values and to act in a socially responsible manner (Rao Jada et al., 2019).
Scholars have also highlighted management’s crucial role in the implementation of CSR
practices (Kim et al., 2012; Stella et al., 2022). Management decides whether to plan and
invest resources in CSR strategies or whether to conduct symbolic practices to encourage
good investors’ opinion (Stella et al., 2022). Virtuous companies that effectively communicate
CSR information are those that establish direct relationships with their stakeholders (Carroll
and Olegario, 2020; Rossi et al., 2021). Thanks to stakeholder engagement, companies
establish direct communication with stakeholders with positive effects on CSR disclosure and
CSR knowledge sharing (Kim, 2019). In addition, international organisations have intervened
to support companies and have produced reporting standards in the CSR field. These
standards (e.g. GRI, IR, SASB) provide guidelines for effectively and transparently
communicating CSR information in line with stakeholders needs. Standards have also been
published that guide companies in dealing with specific topics, such as in the case of
information relating to climate (TCFD) or human rights (UN Guidelines). Specific reference is
made to the communication of human rights, one of the CSR macro-themes (Kim, 2019).

2.1 Gender and knowledge sharing

Scholars widely debate knowledge sharing (Nguyen et al., 2019). They argue the relevance of
such elements of business success (Ferreira et al., 2020; Del Giudice and Maggioni, 2014).

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 The literature on the topic has emphasised the relevance of knowledge sharing for business
development. Especially in times of crisis, such as the recent Covid-19 pandemic, knowledge-
sharing processes favour better adaptation to the environmental context (Lee et al., 2020) as
well as obtaining a competitive and sustainable advantage (Cillo et al., 2022). A recent report
by Deloitte (2021) has also embraced this thesis, defining knowledge sharing as a critical
success factor.
Some scholars have classified the sharing of knowledge into explicit and tacit (Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998). Unlike explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge is characterised by its being
“inarticulable” (Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011). It is not easily transferable and is based on
experience and action (Denise and Byosiere, 2007) and is closely related to social capital
(Sharif et al., 2021). The value of this knowledge makes it necessary for organisations to share
it (Nikas et al., 2017). Having this knowledge aims to transform individual knowledge into
collective knowledge (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).
Studies have recently investigated the implications of gender diversity in several fields, from
management to organisation. Gender studies argue that the gender variable must be considered
in knowledge-sharing processes, as gender can influence organisational structures and corporate
behaviours (Paoloni and Lombardi, 2018; Scuotto et al., 2022). However, concerning the KM, the
gender issue has not been extensively investigated. Scholars noted the lack of studies on the
relationship between KM and gender (Heisig and Kannan, 2020). Most of the studies investigated
gender diversity’s impact on a dimension of knowledge and sharing. Several scholars have found
that gender diversity has positive influence on knowledge sharing. Gender can be a moderating
factor in KM culture (Jayasingam et al., 2016). Similarly, under certain conditions, women are
more likely to share knowledge than men (Nguyen et al., 2019). Furthermore, diversity
emphasises more transparent internal communication processes (Lee et al., 2020).
Even fewer contributions have investigated the relationship between gender and tacit
knowledge sharing (Heisig and Kannan, 2020). Scholars have highlighted how women
spend more time on tacitly known socialisation variables than men (Denise and Byosiere,
2007). Others have shown evidence of the strong motivational component that would lead
women managers to share knowledge with individuals within and outside the organisation
(Sheerin et al., 2020). Recent research has revealed that in the post-pandemic period,
women have engaged more in sharing external digital knowledge than men, due their
propensity to create stronger social connections than men do (Tønnessen et al., 2021). Our
study aims to contribute to this topic by investigating the effects of diversity on the board of
directors. We believe that the board is a governance mechanism which, because of the
centrality of the role held in the company, can promote a knowledge-sharing system.

2.2 Female directors and corporate social responsibility communication

The board of directors has control over the company’s published information as well as the
company’s relationship capital (Ltifi and Hichri, 2022). Scholars have studied the
relationship between corporate governance and ESG communication (Sadiq et al., 2020).
The major studies underline the board of directors’ impact on the level of CSR disclosure
(Khan et al., 2019).
These scholars have conducted their research based on different theoretical frameworks.
The most used include the stakeholder theory and the legitimacy theory. The first is based
on the dependent relationship between value creation and stakeholders with whom the
company has direct or indirect links (Freeman, 1984). According to this approach, to
continue to operate and survive within the competitive environment, companies try to satisfy
the various stakeholders’ needs. Because ESG issues are now included in the category of
relevant information for stakeholders, governance is increasingly committed to addressing
these issues. Diversified governance is one of the levers to ensure that ESG issues are dealt
with (Tingbani et al., 2020). On the other hand, the legitimacy theory starts from the

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

postulate of a social contract existing between organisations and society. Firms tend to
communicate ESG information to legitimise their existence in the stakeholders’ eyes
(Deegan et al., 2002). Mixed governance can be a governance mechanism to legitimise
businesses and enable businesses to be sustainable (Tremblay et al., 2016). There are
several points of contact between the approaches.
Among the governance studies, recent literature shows a strong interest in mixed governance
(Paoloni and Lombardi, 2022; Tingbani et al., 2020). Scholars who have approached the topic
have highlighted female directors’ distinctive characteristics compared with male directors
and strongly suggest companies have a board with broad respect for gender diversity if
oriented towards socially responsible strategies (Ben-Amar et al., 2017). These studies would
suggest that women’s greater presence in corporate governance may favour the external
sharing of CSR knowledge. Furthermore, the increased number of women at the company’s
top levels would bring about diversification of visions and opinions (Daily and Dalton, 2003).
Numerous studies have shown positive impacts on ESG performance and disclosure (Paoloni
and Lombardi, 2018; Tingbani et al., 2020).
An adequate presence of women on the board could sensitise the board to ESG initiatives
(Bear et al., 2010). Women are more oriented towards CSR issues (Ben-Amar et al., 2021).
Women are more altruistic than men and more inclined to form relationships (Glass et al.,
2016). Women directors increase corporate disclosure transparency. From an analysis
conducted from 2002 to 2016 on a sample of European companies, scholars found that the
percentage of women board members is a variable that positively influences the substantial
disclosure of ESG information (Haque and Jones, 2020).
Some studies have highlighted women’s social orientation. In a sample of Asian companies,
women directors are more sensitive to the social component than to ESG issues (Alazzani
et al., 2017). For example, a study suggests that the companies named the most ethical in
the world are also those with the highest number of female directors (Bernardi et al., 2009).
Even if the promotion of initiatives and policies aimed at respecting social values and
human rights make organisational changes in company management, the presence of
women at decision-making levels could promote and facilitate these changes (Martinez-
Leon et al., 2020).
Based on previous literature, we hypothesise that women on the board can increase the entire
board’s awareness towards human rights issues. Because women are more oriented towards
stakeholder engagement and relationship capital, a greater board presence could represent
an incentive to share CSR knowledge on the subject of human rights. Therefore, we assume:
H1. Women directors positively influence the communication of human rights information.

3. Method
We adopted a quantitative methodology to test H1. Particularly, we applied the statistics
analysis through Stata. Our sample consists of 660 large European listed companies. Europe
represents an interesting context for study as it has proven to be at the forefront of ESG issues
by introducing a series of reforms all geared towards achieving sustainable development
goals (Lombardi et al., 2021). Furthermore, the organisations included in the sample are all
companies falling within the scope of Directive 95/2014/EU. Therefore, they are required to
publish information relating to human rights issues. To ensure a high degree of homogeneity
within the sample, we have chosen not to include banking companies (Pizzi et al., 2022). We
used the Thompson Reuters EIKON database to select the sample and for data extraction.
Asset 4 is a database widely used by academics and non-academics and provides several
CSR performance indicators commonly regarded as reliable (Gangi et al., 2019).
The sample is made up of large European companies, chosen for several reasons. First,
Europe is trying to raise awareness of social issues in society and private companies

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 (Matuszak and Ro
za
_ n
ska, 2021). In compliance with the commitment it made to achieve the
sustainable development goals, Europe has declared that it strives to achieve Goal 5 –
gender equality – and Goal 3 – good health and well-being, among others. Being aware that
the achievement of these ambitious goals involves a strong commitment from private
companies, the European Commission has introduced some reforms aimed at improving
companies’ accountability regarding these issues (Lombardi et al., 2021). Second, it was
decided to analyse the public interest entities because they are the companies that fall
within the scope of Directive 95/2014/EU. The Directive on non-financial reporting requires
public interest entities to inform stakeholders about issues related to respect for human
rights (Leopizzi et al., 2020). The law demands communication of this information, as the
various stakeholders must be informed and made aware of the sustainable practices
conducted during the year. Third, large enterprises have more experience than small and
medium-sized enterprises in disclosing ESG information.
We used the Thompson Reuters EIKON database to select the sample and for data extraction.
Asset 4 is a database widely used by academics and non-academics as it provides several
CSR performance indicators commonly regarded as reliable (Gangi et al., 2019). All the
European listed companies larger than those indicated by Directive 95/2014/EU have been
selected. The search returned 1,065 businesses. Banks and insurance companies were
excluded from these selected companies. To ensure a high degree of homogeneity within the
sample, we have chosen not to include banking companies (Pizzi et al., 2022). Companies for
which all data were not available were also excluded from the sample. The final sample is
made up of 660 companies. To analyse the data, a panel data analysis was performed, one of
the quantitative methodologies most used by management, accounting and organisational
scholars (Ben-Amar et al., 2021). We used the Stata 14 software to conduct the analyses.
Stata is one of the most widely used software by management and accounting scholars.
Through the Hausman test, it was possible to select the most suitable approach to avoid
heteroskedasticity events during the analysis (Hausman et al., 1984). The test identified the
fixed-effects method as the most fitting for the analysis. We adopted a panel regression
analysis on data relating to 2017–2020, to evaluate the relationship between the corporate
governance characteristic and human rights information. This period was chosen because
2017 was the first year in which the Directive on non-financial reporting came into force. In
addition, a further test was performed to corroborate the results.
An indicator extracted from Asset 4 was used to measure human rights communication. It
measures the disclosure’s adherence to UN or ILO reporting standards. This variable can take
values from 1 to 100. Following the literature, in addition to the independent variable, which
measures the percentage of women on the board (Wom), other governance characteristics
were considered within the model as control variables (Orazalin, 2019). In the model, the
variables Board of directors (Bod) (Cosma et al., 2022; Orazalin, 2019), independent directors
(Ind) (Cosma et al., 2022) and CSR committee (CsrC) (Cosma et al., 2022) were considered.
Sustainability compensation incentives (SC) (Derchi et al., 2020) were also considered as
proxies of the board’s functions. Finally, other control variables frequently used by previous
studies were considered (Orazalin, 2019; Venturelli et al., 2020). Several studies have
highlighted how CSR size and performance can influence ESG communication (Cosma et al.,
2022; Derchi et al., 2020). Therefore, to control these dimensions’ effects, we have included
the following control variables in the model: the logarithm of total assets (Size), market value
(MCV), profitability indicator (Roe) (Cosma et al., 2022) and an indicator that measures ESG
performance (ESGscore) (Minutolo et al., 2019). Table 1 summarises the dependent,
independent and control variables used in the regression model.

4. Results
This section is directed to show our results achieving research aims and demonstrating H1. In
this direction, Table 2 summarises the analysed sample’s descriptive statistics. First, no

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Table 1 Dependent, independent and control variables
Code Variable Measure

HRindex Human right index 0–100 (Asset 4)

HRdummy Human right dummy 0–1
Bod Board of directors Number of directors
Wom Board gender diversity Percentage of women directors
Ind Independent directors Percentage of independent directors
CsrC CSR committee 0–1
SC Sustainability compensation policy 0–1
Roe Return of equity Net income/shareholder’s equity
MVC Market value Current market price (per share)
Size Company size Log of total asset
ESGscore ESG score 0–100

Table 2 Descriptive statistics

Variable Obs Mean SD Min Max

HRindex 3,930 54.673 42.24 0 97.107

HRdummy 3,930 0.628 0.483 0 1
BoD 3,955 10.55 3.762 1 26
Gen 3,954 27.34 12.877 0 71.429
Ind 3,948 57.991 22.743 0 100
CsrC 3,960 0.744 0.436 0 1
SC 3,960 0.264 0.441 0 1
ROE 3,817 0.116 0.84 28.311 24.099
Size 3,952 22.483 1.515 15.98 27.132
MVC 3,955 1.696e þ 10 3.423e þ 10 1328604 4.035e þ 11
ESGscore 3,960 56.462 17.591 0.627 93.511

company examined obtained the maximum score in the treatment of social issues. The
dependent variable also has an average of about 97 and a standard deviation of about 42.24.
Regarding the independent variable, on average, the company boards are made up of about
one-fourth of female directors. On the other hand, 74% of companies have a CSR committee
to which they delegate ESG matters.
A correlation analysis was performed before the regression analysis (Cohen et al., 2014) to
check for the presence of multicollinearity. Table 3 excludes the presence of strong
relationships among the variables. It was therefore possible to continue with the subsequent
analyses.
Table 4 shows the results of the panel regression. The independent variable positively
influences the dependent variable (b = 0.137, p < 0.01). The result confirms H1 and agrees
with previous studies that emphasised women directors’ orientation to social issues in
comparison with male directors (Orazalin and Mahmood, 2021). Among the other
governance variables, the presence of a CSR committee (b = 5.378, p < 0.01) and the
board size (b = 4.854, p < 0.01) also positively influence the dependent variable. The CSR
committee data is consistent with the literature, which emphasises this internal and
voluntary body’s role in increasing company transparency (Tingbani et al., 2020). Control
variables MVC and ESGscore also positively affect the dependent variable.

4.1 Robustness test

A logit panel regression was performed to corroborate the result. The dependent variable is
therefore a binary variable that acquires a value of 0 if the HRscore score is less than 0.6

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Table 3 Matrix of correlations
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

(1) HRindex 1.000

(2) HRdummy 0.997 1.000
(3) BoD 0.253 0.258 1.000
(4) Gen 0.230 0.232 0.115 1.000
(5) Ind 0.125 0.129 0.221 0.164 1.000
(6) CsrC 0.342 0.345 0.191 0.167 0.102 1.000
(7) CS 0.109 0.119 0.054 0.131 0.111 0.144 1.000
(8) ROE 0.025 0.026 0.009 0.020 0.004 0.014 0.013 1.000
(9) Size 0.356 0.364 0.537 0.248 0.132 0.316 0.173 0.048 1.000
(10) MCV 0.233 0.242 0.260 0.175 0.141 0.185 0.117 0.035 0.544 1.000
(11) ESGscore 0.473 0.474 0.245 0.327 0.268 0.453 0.201 0.012 0.403 0.201 1.000

Table 4 Regression results

[95% Conf.
HRindex Coef. St. err. t-Value p-Value interval] Sig

Bod 0.189 0.241 0.79 0.432 0.283 0.661


Gen 0.137 0.043 3.17 0.002 0.052 0.221
Ind 0.027 0.033 0.81 0.42 0.038 0.092

CsrC 5.378 1.415 3.80 0 2.605 8.15
SC 0.881 0.896 0.98 0.325 2.637 0.874
ROE 0.717 0.495 1.45 0.148 0.253 1.687

Size 4.854 0.847 5.73 0 3.194 6.514

MVC 0 0 1.88 0.06 0 0

ESGscore 0.618 0.037 16.57 0 0.545 0.692

Constant 102.021 17.827 5.72 0 136.962 67.081
Mean dependent var 55.178 SD dependent var 42.102
Overall R-squared 0.268 Number of obs 3,777
R-squared within 0.097 R-squared between 0.306
Notes:  p < 0.01;  p < 0.1

while 1 in the other cases. The Table 5 results confirm and reinforce those identified in the
previous table. The gender variable (b = 0.29, p < 0.01) positively influences the dichotomous
dependent variable. As previously highlighted, the relationships between the variables CSR
committee, size, MVC, ESCscore and the dependent variable also remain unchanged.

5. Discussion
Our research aims to evaluate whether gender can influence CSR knowledge. This paper
focuses on human rights, a dimension of CSR knowledge, identifying, in line with previous
studies (Brennan et al., 2016), a relevant role in governance as a guide and bearer of
corporate values and knowledge. The results confirm H1 and highlight how women
directors’ actions influence external communication on human rights issues.
On the one hand, the findings provide further contributions to the relationship between
women and CSR knowledge (Heisig and Kannan, 2020). Women’s presence is an element
that positively contributes to the conviction of CSR knowledge. Women’s greater presence
can represent a useful help in spreading good CSR practices with the economic system’s
various actors. By sharing CSR externally, women directors contribute to improving the
corporate image. The latter is an expression of the organisation’s feelings, experiences and

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Table 5 Logit regression
[95% Conf.
HRdummy Coef. St. err. t-Value p-Value interval] Sig

Bod 0.017 0.043 0.39 0.698 0.1 0.067


Gen 0.029 0.008 3.62 0 0.013 0.045
Ind 0.005 0.005 0.88 0.376 0.006 0.016

CsrC 0.896 0.293 3.05 0.002 0.321 1.471
SC 0.025 0.183 0.14 0.89 0.384 0.333
ROE 0.028 0.112 0.25 0.803 0.192 0.248

Size 1.12 0.18 6.21 0 0.766 1.473

MVC 0 0 2.38 0.017 0 0

ESGscore 0.104 0.008 12.81 0 0.088 0.12

Constant 30.903 3.844 8.04 0 38.436 23.37
Constant 3.31 0.143 b b 3.029 3.591

Mean dependent var 0.634 SD dependent var 0.482

Number of obs 3,777 Chi-square 0.354
Prob > Chi2 0.00 Akaike crit. (AIC) 1,810.628
Notes:  p < 0.01;  p < 0.05

knowledge (Yasin, 2020). By focusing on social issues, the results are in agreement
with that part of the literature that suggested women’s orientation towards social and
ethical issues (Glass et al., 2016; Tingbani et al., 2020). According to previous studies,
women can be more attentive to stakeholders (Glass et al., 2016). Therefore, they are
more able than men to combine the various parties’ interests with those interested in the
business practices and performance. Gender diversity would therefore have
repercussions on relational capital (Ferreira et al., 2020), bringing reputational benefits.
Furthermore, communication aligned with CSR guidelines is a proxy of internal
knowledge of these issues. To provide transparent information consistent with the
stakeholders’ expectations, there must be internal knowledge within the organisation.
Thus, the presence of women directors represents an external guarantee for more
transparent information (Ben-Amar et al., 2017).
On the other hand, the results are in line with the governance literature. The results
confirm the evidence highlighting that good governance is crucial for corporate
success. Governance directs relations with different groups of stakeholders (Ltifi and
Hichri, 2022). Therefore, the company could reduce reputational risks through good
governance, paying attention to issues deemed relevant by internal employees as well
as by groups of external stakeholders (Alazzani et al., 2017). This is also reflected in the
CSR committee result which, in line with previous studies, is a stakeholder-oriented
body (Cosma et al., 2022).
Furthermore, the work provides further evidence of social information disclosure. The
results provide further contributions to the relationship between company size and
performance and CSR communication. The companies with the largest size and
resources invest the most in CSR practices and communications. The data reported in
the European context are not to be considered positive. In spite of the European
Commission’s various proposed actions to raise awareness of corporate disclosure, the
data show that several companies still tend to neglect these issues. This data is to be
considered more negative if we consider the latest risk report from the World Economic
Forum. It is clear that social risks have undergone the greatest exacerbation because of
the Covid-19 pandemic (World Economic Forum, 2022). Therefore, they are to be
considered increasingly important and placed under careful attention by governments
and by companies to protect their reputation.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 5.1 Theoretical and practical implications
This paper extends the literature on knowledge sharing. Our findings offer new insights into
the role of gender in KM and knowledge sharing, providing theoretical and practical
implications. This study fits into an area little explored by KM scholars (Martins et al., 2019).
We provide new contributions to the relationship between sustainability and KM. The study
indicates that gender can be a governance tool that can be functional in the sharing of CSR
knowledge. The presence of mixed governance can be a useful tool to increase the
companies’ relational capital and to share knowledge outside the company. Extending the
scant literature on the relationship between tacit knowledge sharing and gender, we
suggest that gender affects this dimension. The importance that women attach to sociability
and the society could lead them to devote greater efforts to sharing knowledge (Denise and
Byosiere, 2007). With the attention to stakeholders, this could increase the company’s CSR
knowledge and create conditions for knowledge to increase also among external subjects.
The general increase in CSR knowledge would benefit the company, which, in reputational
terms, would have a return on all the efforts and investments made for sustainable practices
and communication.
Additionally, this study provides practical contributions for businesses and policymakers as
it shows the fragility of social topic disclosure. It could also stimulate gender balance within
the board. Although governance is an internal variable within the firm, it has profound
external implications for the firm. These external effects could influence the company’s
economic, patrimonial and financial equilibrium and also its relational capital. Thus, CSR
represents an element, no longer secondary, on which to invest resources and attention.
Companies that want to follow paths oriented towards sustainable development goals and
who believe in stakeholder engagement could consider the female representation at
decision-making levels. Governance diversified by gender would imply better sharing of
CSR knowledge and protection against reputational risks.
It may also be useful for policymakers. Considering recent initiatives, which include
sustainable corporate governance and updating of the non-financial reporting directive, this
study provides connected evidence. The low level of human rights disclosure in a mandatory
disclosure context could be reversed in the coming years. Furthermore, by showing women
directors’ new contributions to the positive influence on corporate transparency, policymakers
could consider implementing further policies.

6. Conclusions
Sustainability is becoming increasingly important for organisations around the world. The
2030 agenda has set goals to which companies must actively contribute: reduction of
emissions, gender equality, etc. Respect for human rights is a relevant element within a
society that wants to define itself as civil (Ullah et al., 2021). All businesses produce social
impacts (Baudot et al., 2021). Private companies play a fundamental role in the social
context in value creation and sharing (Schultz et al., 2013). Therefore, importance must be
given both to practical actions and reporting of these issues to provide comprehensive
information for stakeholders.
As for sustainability, KM is now considered a key resource for obtaining company results. KM
can represent the basis for sustainable development practices to align the company with the
guidelines (Martins et al., 2019). Furthermore, the exchange of knowledge between companies
and between stakeholders is crucial to ensure sustainable development (Yasin, 2020). To pursue
the long-term value creation goal, companies should also increase their information transparency
and responsibility. In addition to strengthening the relationship with the different categories of
stakeholders, transparent CSR communication has the effect of sharing knowledge and good
practices in terms of human rights and increasing CSR knowledge (Gangi et al., 2019).
Furthermore, CSR communication produces positive reputational effects even when companies

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

do not have loyal customers (Kim, 2019). A greater presence of women on the board could
represent an external guarantee of attention to issues relating to human rights and stakeholders’
needs. Ensuring representation of women could support knowledge sharing with all those who
interact with the organisation.

6.1 Limitations and future lines of research

This work has some limitations. The study focuses on the issue of human rights. Future studies
could analyse the contribution of governance to other aspects of CSR knowledge.
Furthermore, the sample analysed is made up of European listed companies. Future studies
could conduct further analyses on SMEs that have fewer constraints than large firms.
Additionally, we did not consider potential endogeneity issues as well as we considered
sustainability reports as an external sharing tool. Future studies could consider also analysing
the communication conducted for other channels, such as that of social media. These tools
allow easier and faster iteration between the company and the various stakeholders. Some
governance characteristics most used in the literature have been considered in the present
study. Future studies are directed to investigate other types of variables such as ability and
background or consider the gender balance within other internal board bodies.

References
Abhayawansa, S., Adams, C.A. and Neesham, C. (2021), “Accountability and governance in pursuit of
sustainable development goals: conceptualising how governments create value”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 923-945.
Adams, C.A. (2017), “Conceptualising the contemporary corporate value creation process”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 906-931.

Alazzani, A., Hassanein, A. and Aljanadi, Y. (2017), “Impact of gender diversity on social and
environmental performance: evidence from Malaysia”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal
of Business in Society, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 266-283.
Baudot, L., Huang, Z. and Wallace, ·D. (2021), “Stakeholder perceptions of risk in mandatory corporate
responsibility disclosure”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 172 No. 1, pp. 151-174.
Bear, S., Rahman, N. and Post, C. (2010), “The impact of board diversity and gender composition on
corporate social responsibility and firm reputation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97 No. 2,
pp. 207-221.

Ben-Amar, W., Bujaki, M., McConomy, B. and McIlkenny, P. (2021), “Gendering merit: how the discourse
of merit in diversity disclosures supports the gendered status quo on Canadian corporate boards”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 75, doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102170.
Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M. and McIlkenny, P. (2017), “Board gender diversity and corporate response to
sustainability initiatives: evidence from the carbon disclosure project”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 369-383.
Bernardi, R.A., Bosco, S.M. and Columb, V.L. (2009), “Does female representation on boards of directors
associate with the most ethical companies list”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 270-280.
Brennan, N.M., Kirwan, C.E. and Redmond, J. (2016), “Accountability processes in boardrooms a
conceptual model of manager-non-executive director information asymmetry”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 135-164.

Cammarano, A., Perano, M., Michelino, F., Del Regno, C. and Caputo, M. (2022), “SDG-oriented supply
chains: business practices for procurement and distribution”, Sustainability 2022, Vol. 14 No. 3, p. 1325.
Caputo, F., Scuotto, V., Papa, A. and Del Giudice, M. (2021), “From sustainability coercion to social
engagement: the turning role of corporate social responsibility”, Corporate Governance and Research &
Development Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 15-31.
Carayannis, E.G., Grigoroudis, E., Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M.R. and Sindakis, S. (2017), “An
exploration of contemporary organizational artifacts and routines in a sustainable excellence context”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35-56.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Carroll, C.E. and Olegario, R. (2020), “Pathways to corporate accountability: corporate reputation and its
alternatives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 163 No. 2, pp. 173-181.
Casadei, A. and Amadei, F. (2010), “The competitive influence of corporate social responsibility and
corporate social disclosure in Italian small and medium sized companies: focus on disclosure and
competitive drivers”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
Cillo, V., Gregori, G.L., Daniele, L.M., Caputo, F. and Bitbol-Saba, N. (2022), “Rethinking companies’
culture through knowledge management lens during industry 5.0 transition”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 2485-2498.
Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A.M., Ardito, L. and Del Giudice, M. (2019), “Understanding sustainable innovation: a
systematic literature review”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 1012-1025.
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2014), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences Psychology Press, doi: 10.4324/9781410606266.
Cosma, S., Principale, S. and Venturelli, A. (2022), “Sustainable governance and climate-change
disclosure in European banking: the role of the corporate social responsibility committee”, Corporate
Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1345-1369.
Daily, C.M. and Dalton, D.R. (2003), “Women in the boardroom: a business imperative”, Journal of
Business Strategy, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 205-209.
Deegan, C., Rankin, M. and Tobin, J. (2002), “An examination of the corporate social and environmental
disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 312-343.
Del Giudice, M. and Maggioni, V. (2014), “Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge
management within inter-firm networks: a global view”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 841-846.
Denise, J.L. and Byosiere, P. (2007), “Japanese corporations: gender differences in re-defining tacit
knowledge”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
Derchi, G.-B., Zoni, L. and Dossi, A. (2020), “Corporate social responsibility performance, incentives, and
learning effects”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 173 No. 3, pp. 617-641.
Ferreira, J., Mueller, J. and Papa, A. (2020), “Strategic knowledge management: theory, practice and
future challenges”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 121-126.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston.
Gangi, F., Mustilli, M. and Varrone, N. (2019), “The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
knowledge on corporate financial performance: evidence from the European banking industry”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 110-134.

Glass, C., Cook, A. and Ingersoll, A.R. (2016), “Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the
effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 495-511.
Gomez-Carrasco, P., Guillamon-Saorin, E. and Garcia Osma, B. (2021), “Stakeholders versus firm
communication in social media: the case of twitter and corporate social responsibility information”,
European Accounting Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 31-62.

Haque, F. and Jones, M.J. (2020), “European firms’ corporate biodiversity disclosures and board gender
diversity from 2002 to 2016”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 52 No. 2, doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2020.100893.
Hausman, J., Hall, B. and Griliches, Z. (1984), “Econometric models for count data with an application to
the Patents-R&D relationship”, National Bureau of Economic Research, doi: 10.3386/t0017.
Heisig, P. and Kannan, S. (2020), “Knowledge management: does gender matter? A systematic review of
literature”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1315-1342.
Jamali, D., Samara, G., Zollo, L. and Ciappei, C. (2019), “Is internal CSR really less impactful in individualist
and masculine cultures? A multilevel approach”, Management Decision, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 362-375.
Jayasingam, S., Govindasamy, M. and Garib Singh, S.K. (2016), “Instilling affective commitment: insights
on what makes knowledge workers want to stay”, Management Research Review, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 266-288.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

Khan, I., Khan, I. and Senturk, I. (2019), “Board diversity and quality of CSR disclosure: evidence from
Pakistan”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 1187-1203.
Kim, S. (2019), “The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR
communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation
perception”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 154 No. 4, pp. 1143-1159.
Kim, H.R., Lee, M., Lee, H.T. and Kim, N.M. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility and employee-
company identification”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 557-569.
Kim, Y., Park, M.S. and Wier, B. (2012), “Is earnings quality associated with corporate social
responsibility?”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 761-796.

Lee, Y., Tao, W., Li, J.Y.Q. and Sun, R. (2020), “Enhancing employees’ knowledge sharing through
diversity-oriented leadership and strategic internal communication during the COVID-19 outbreak”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1526-1549.
Leopizzi, R., Iazzi, A., Venturelli, A. and Principale, S. (2020), “Nonfinancial risk disclosure: the ‘state of
the art’ of Italian companies”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 358-368.

Liu, X. and He, H. (2022), “How do CSR disclosures facilitate knowledge-sharing behaviors?”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 328-343.

Lombardi, R., Cosentino, A., Sura, A. and Galeotti, M. (2021), “The impact of the EU directive on non-
financial information: novel features of the Italian case”, Meditari Accountancy Research, doi: 10.1108/
MEDAR-06-2019-0507.
Lombardi, R., Schimperna, F., Paoloni, P. and Galeotti, M. (2021), “The climate-related information in the
changing EU directive on non-financial reporting and disclosure: first evidence by Italian large
companies”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, doi: 10.1108/jaar-04-2021-0117.

Ltifi, M. and Hichri, A. (2022), “The effects of corporate governance on the customer’s recommendations:
a study of the banking sector at the time of COVID-19”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 165-191.
Luca Casali, G. and Perano, M. (2021), “Forty years of research on factors influencing ethical decision
making: establishing a future research agenda”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 132, pp. 614-630.
Luo, X. and Du, S. (2015), “Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm
innovation”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 703-714.
Martinez-Leon, I.M., Olmedo-Cifuentes, I., Martı́nez-Victoria, M. and Arcas-Lario, N. (2020), “Leadership
style and gender: a study of Spanish cooperatives”, Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12-5107.

Martins, V.W.B., Rampasso, I.S., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O.L.G. and Leal Filho, W. (2019), “Knowledge
management in the context of sustainability: literature review and opportunities for future research”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 229, pp. 489-500.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008), “Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative
understanding of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 404-424.
Matuszak, Ł. and Ro
za
_ n
ska, E. (2021), “Towards 2014/95/EU directive compliance: the case of Poland”,
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 1052-1076.
Melloni, G. (2015), “Intellectual capital disclosure in integrated reporting: an impression management
analysis”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 661-680.
Minutolo, M.C., Kristjanpoller, W.D. and Stakeley, J. (2019), “Exploring environmental, social, and
governance disclosure effects on the S&P 500 financial performance”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 1083-1095.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nguyen, T.M., Nham, T.P., Froese, F.J. and Malik, A. (2019), “Motivation and knowledge sharing: a meta-
analysis of main and moderating effects”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 998-1016.
Nikas, A., Doukas, H., Lieu, J., Alvarez Tinoco, R., Charisopoulos, V. and van der Gaast, W. (2017),
“Managing stakeholder knowledge for the evaluation of innovation systems in the face of climate
change”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1013-1034.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Orazalin, N. (2019), “Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in an
emerging economy: evidence from commercial banks of Kazakhstan”, “Corporate”, Corporate
Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 490-507.
Orazalin, N. and Mahmood, M. (2021), “Toward sustainable development: board characteristics, country
governance quality, and environmental performance”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30
No. 8, pp. 3569-3588, doi: 10.1002/BSE.2820.

Paoloni, P. and Lombardi, R. (2018), “Advances in gender and cultural research in business and
economics (4th ipazia workshop)”, Springer, available at: www.springer.com/series/11960 (accessed 24
January 2022).
Paoloni, P. and Lombardi, R. (2022), “Organizational resilience and female entrepreneurship during
crises j SpringerLink”, 1st ed., Vol. Sidrea, Springer, available at: https://link.springer.com/book/
9783030894115 (accessed 19 January 2022).
Pizzi, S., Del Baldo, M., Caputo, F. and Venturelli, A. (2022), “Voluntary disclosure of sustainable
development goals in mandatory non-financial reports: the moderating role of cultural dimension”,
Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 83-106.
Rao Jada, U., Mukhopadhyay, S. and Titiyal, R. (2019), “Empowering leadership and innovative work behavior:
a moderated mediation examination”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol23 No. 5, pp. 915-930.

Rossi, M., Festa, G., Chouaibi, S., Fait, M. and Papa, A. (2021), “The effects of business ethics and
corporate social responsibility on intellectual capital voluntary disclosure”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1-23.

Rossi, M., Festa, G., Papa, A., Kolte, A. and Piccolo, R. (2020), “Knowledge management behaviors in
venture capital crossroads: a comparison between IVC and CVC ambidexterity”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 2431-2454.
Russo, S., Schimperna, F., Lombardi, R. and Ruggiero, P. (2022), “Sustainability performance and social
media: an explorative analysis”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1118-1140.
Sadiq, M., Singh, J., Raza, M. and Mohamad, S. (2020), “The impact of environmental, social and
governance index on firm value: evidence from Malaysia”, International Journal of Energy Economics and
Policy, Econjournals, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 555-562.

, I. and Morsing, M. (2013), “The construction of corporate social responsibility in
Schultz, F., Castello
network societies: a communication view”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115 No. 4, pp. 681-692.
Scuotto, V., Le Loarne Lemaire, S., Magni, D. and Maalaoui, A. (2022), “Extending knowledge-based
view: future trends of corporate social entrepreneurship to fight the gig economy challenges”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 139, pp. 1111-1122.
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Zafar, A.U., Rehman, S.U. and Islam, T. (2020), “Exploring the influence of
knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 2079-2106.
Sharif, S., Lodhi, R.N., Iqbal, K. and Saddique, F. (2021), “Gender disparity in leadership boosts affective
commitment and tacit knowledge sharing about libraries”, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-12-2020-2549.
Sheerin, C., Hughes, C. and Garavan, T. (2020), “Gendered practices and tacit knowledge
sharing in organizations: a structuration perspective”, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 542-568, doi: 10.1080/
13678868.2020.1769402.

Sorour, M.K., Shrives, P.J., El-Sakhawy, A.A. and Soobaroyen, T. (2021), “Exploring the evolving motives
underlying corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures in developing countries: the case of ‘political
CSR’ reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 1051-1079.
Stella, G.P., Cervellati, E.M., Magni, D., Cillo, V. and Papa, A. (2022), “Shedding light on the impact of
financial literacy for corporate social responsibility during the COVID-19 crisis: managerial and financial
perspectives”, Management Decision, Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 2801-2823.
Suppiah, V. and Sandhu, M.S. (2011), “Organisational culture’s influence on tacit knowledge-sharing
behaviour”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 462-477.
Tang, Z., Hull, C.E. and Rothenberg, S. (2012), “How corporate social responsibility engagement
strategy moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 1274-1303.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

Tingbani, I., Chithambo, L., Tauringana, V. and Papanikolaou, N. (2020), “Board gender diversity,
environmental committee and greenhouse gas voluntary disclosures”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 29 No. 6, doi: 10.1002/bse.2495.
Tønnessen, Ø., Dhir, A. and Flåten, B.T. (2021), “Digital knowledge sharing and creative performance:
work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 170, p. 120866.
Tremblay, M.-S., Gendron, Y. and Malsch, B. (2016), “Gender on board: deconstructing the ‘legitimate’
female director”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol29 No. 1, pp. 165-190.

Ullah, S., Adams, K., Adams, D. and Attah-Boakye, R. (2021), “Multinational corporations and human
right violations in emerging economies: do commitment to social and environmental responsibility
matter?”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 280, doi: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2020.111689.

Venturelli, A., Principale, S., Ligorio, L. and Cosma, S. (2020), “Walking the talk in family firms. An
empirical investigation of CSR communication and practices”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, p. 2064.

World Economic Forum (2022), The Global Risks Report 2022, 17th ed.
Yasin, R. (2020), “Responsible leadership and employees’ turnover intention. explore the mediating roles
of ethical climate and corporate image”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Emerald Group Holdings
Ltd, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1760-1781.
Zhang, L., Yuan, ·, Shan, G. and Chang, M. (2020), “Can CSR disclosure protect firm reputation during
financial restatements?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 173 No. 1, p. 3.

Corresponding author
Salvatore Principale can be contacted at: salvatore.principale@uniroma1.it

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j