The Influence Of Ceo Power On Environmental, Social, Governance (Esg) Disclosure In Infrastructure Companies Listed On The Asian Stock Exchange In The 2019-2023 Period
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v10i1.159Keywords:
CEO Power, ESG, ESG Disclosure, Corporate Governance, Infrastructure Companies, Asian Stock ExchangesAbstract
This study focuses on analyzing the influence of CEO power on ESG disclosure in infrastructure companies listed on the Asian Stock Exchange from 2019 to 2023. Globally, the implementation of ESG principles is increasingly considered crucial as a manifestation of a company's commitment to sustainability, in line with the sustainable development goals supported by the G20 countries. CEO PowerCEO duality, including share ownership and dual roles as CEO and chairman of the board of directors, are important factors that can influence a company's strategic decisions. However, this study found that CEO duality significantly influences ESG disclosure in companies. Meanwhile, CEO ownership does not significantly influence ESG disclosure. This suggests that CEO leadership structure does not directly drive increased transparency in ESG disclosure. This study suggests that companies should not rely solely on CEO leadership structure to improve ESG disclosure, but should also consider other factors such as board composition and external regulations. This is expected to provide a deeper understanding of the factors influencing ESG disclosure and how this can support better and more sustainable corporate governance practices.
References
Alareeni, B. A., & Hamdan, A. (2020). ESG impact on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 20(7), 1409–1428.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505–538.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007). How to sustain the customer experience: European Management Journal, 25(5), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2007.08.005
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
Kothler, P. (2017). Marketing 4.0: Moving from traditional to digital. Wiley.
Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20(1–2), 293–315.
Ratajczak, P., & Mikołajewicz, G. (2021). The impact of environmental, social, and corporate governance responsibility on the cost of short- and long-term debt. Economics and Business Review, 7(2), 74–96.
Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 569-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2460-9
Winarto, J. (2022). Pengaruh pertumbuhan laba operasi, likuiditas, tingkat bunga kredit, dan inflasi terhadap return saham real-estate dalam LQ 45 periode 2020-2021. Prosiding Industrial Research Workshop and National Seminar, 13(1), 1292–1296.
MDPI. (2023). Sustainability in the Asian Infrastructure Sector: Regulatory Pressures and ESG Reporting. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com
Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 JHSS (JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL STUDIES)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
