

































 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

27 

Social pillar score and the CSR Committee: An empirical 
analysis of corporate governance mechanisms 

Adriana Bruno1*, Matteo Pozzoli2, Sabrina Pisano3, Elbano De Nuccio4 

 

1 Contact Author University of Naples Parthenope, via Generale Parisi 13, 80132, Napoli (Italy)  
adriana.bruno@uniparthenope.it 
 

2 University of Naples Parthenope, via Generale Parisi 13, 80132, Napoli (Italy)  
matteo.pozzoli@uniparthenope.it 
 

3 University of Naples Parthenope, via Generale Parisi 13, 80132, Napoli (Italy)  
sabrina.pisano@uniparthenope.it 

 

4 LUM University – Giuseppe Degennaro, S.S 100 Km 18 - 70010 Casamassima, Bari (Italy)  
denuccio@lum.it 

 
 
Received: 22/02/2023 
Accepted for publication: 20/04/2023 
Published: 21/04/2023 
 
 

Abstract 

This empirical study on corporate governance mechanisms addresses the potential impact of the corporate social 
responsibility committee (CSRc) on the social pillar score (SP). Based on a sample of 457 listed European companies from 
the Refinitiv Thomson-Eikon database over a one-year period (2021), this paper examines the effect of a corporate social 
responsibility (CSR) committee and the moderating effect of gender diversity on the social pillar score. Our analysis shows 
that the more firms have CSR committees, the more likely they are to adopt “socially responsible policies and practices”. In 
addition, female directors on the board positively moderate the previous relationship. Therefore, this research stresses that 
gender diversity and CSR committees significantly predict a firm's social initiatives. Thus, our findings show that CSR 
committees and gender diversity are socially sensitive variables. Finally, the analysis demonstrates a positive relation 
between firm size, board size, role duality, board independence variables, and the social pillar score. 

 

Keywords: Social pillar; corporate and social responsibility; CSR committee; gender diversity 

 

1. Introduction 

Although there is yet to be a clear definition of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) approach (Li et al., 2021), 
it is quite sure that ESG focuses on three pillars: the environmental, social, and governance pillars. The social pillar includes 
health and safety, diversity and opportunity, training and development, employment quality, product responsibility, 
community, and human rights. (Marsat & Williams 2014). It also represents a major component of corporate reputation 
(Bruno A. et al. 2015). 

Currently, stakeholders are focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) behaviour and disclosures to prevent 
firm misconduct, obtain higher assurance of corporate reputation (Arayssi et al., 2020) and comprehend management plans to 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

28 

produce value in the medium and long term (Escrig-Olmedo et al., 2010; Zumente and Bistrova, 2021). The main element of 
a profound change is good corporate governance, and scholars have recently concentrated their attention on seeking means 
that enhance the social performance of firms (Urmanaviciene A. 2020). 

In this context, corporate boards (CBs) are key in corporate governance (John K. & Senbet L.W. 1998). They can 
considerably influence firms’ engagement and disclosure of social activities in business reporting (Francoeur, C et al. 2019). 
Firms must have a strong social commitment to establish value-creating stakeholder relationships to build sustainability 
(Secinaro S. et al 2020). The linkage between companies and the community is specifically founded on the decisions made by 
the CB, which traditionally aligns the interests of stakeholders and shareholders with day-to-day managerial operations 
(Belkhir, 2009). 

Accordingly, the sensitivity and qualitative characteristics of CB can (positively or negatively) impact CSR 
(Urmanaviciene A. & Udara S. A. (2020) and ESG performance. At present, academia and practitioners seem more attracted 
by environmental issues, while social and governance features appear less investigated (Leopizzi et al., 2020). Even if the 
social pillar (SP) should be interpreted by a more general approach that a company uses to act sustainably, it can also be 
separately addressed to consider how it promotes a better quality of life for all involved parties. The SP area involves human 
rights, gender equality and diversity, social assistance, educational programmes, investments, and involvement in social 
protection programs (Murphy, 2012). 

This paper moves from the perspective that, thanks to the operation of CSR committees and a wider diversity on the board, 
a specialized focus on ESG issues can support policies in favour of more socially sustainable development within and outside 
the firm (Stevens, 2010). 

This research explores whether the presence of CSR committees can enhance social performance and whether the 
combined presence of higher diversity and CSR committees can further support the sustainable development of practices in 
the SP area. This perspective has been generated by the expectation that a CSR committee pays particular attention to ESG 
features (Baraibar-Diez and Odriozola, 2019), and contextually, the combination of board diversity and CSR committee 
operations can produce a “leverage” effect. 

In addition, women have different leadership styles because they are more concerned with organizational needs and focus 
on community welfare and service organizations (Arayssi et al., 2016). Women directors possess characteristics that are more 
aligned with social issues since they have more communal characteristics, such as being supportive, gentle, and emphatic 
(Monteiro et al., 2022; Uyar et al., 2022). Consequently, women are more concerned with corporate social performance since 
they tend to address stakeholders’ interests better. Women’s presence in board rooms encourages firms to become socially 
responsible and adopt environmentally friendly practices (Arayssi et al., 2016). 

Therefore, this research aims to show that the presence of CSR committees, combined with gender diversity, could support 
a new competitive environment for behaviour that can be addressed as socially responsible (René et al. 2021). 

To achieve this objective, the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a literature review of the relationship 
between the social pillar, CSR committees, and gender diversity. Section 3 details the dataset and methodology. Section 4 
provides the results and discusses the influence of the different components of the social pillar. Section 5 concludes the paper. 
 

2. Literature review  

 
The literature investigates the global relationship between CSR and financial performance (Bird et al., 2007). Specifically, 

the literature on human capital reinforces the idea that social expenses on employees should be linked with financial goodwill 
because motivating employees should increase productivity (Becker 1962). Specifically, a study from Marsat & Williams, 
2014, shows a strong positive relationship between the social pillar and firm value. Interestingly, in this paper, even if not all 
the components of the social pillar are positively related to the overall results of global financial goodwill, this finding is 
consistent with the idea that the social pillar is an intangible asset producing firm market value and taking part in corporate 
social responsibility (Scholtens 2006). 

Most other studies are focused on the complete measure of CSR and its main components or more specific issues such as 
human capital, religiosity (Shahid A. et al., 2022), legitimation, behaviour, and a good reputation among local communities 
(Marsat, S., Williams, B., 2013). Other studies have focused on the link between stakeholder welfare (including the 
environment) and firm value. (Jiao 2010). 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

29 

Moreover, previous research examined board gender diversity (BGD), concluding that a CSR committee could also 
emphasize its effectiveness. BGD plays a crucial role in prioritising CSR-related issues (Eberhardt-Tot et al., 2019) and tends 
to improve responsible management and social performance. It has been shown that board gender diversity (i.e., the 
proportion of female directors) is positively associated with firms' social commitment to human rights, product responsibility, 
and, consequently, their contribution to firm sustainability (Beji et al., 2021; Arayakarnkul P. et al. 2022). 

Martínez-Ferrero et al. (2020) examine the effect of gender diversity and the moderating effect of the existence of a CSR 
committee. Specifically, this study aimed to improve the understanding of the factors determining a firm’s affiliation with the 
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) as the largest voluntary corporate responsibility initiative worldwide. The results 
suggest that female directors on the board significantly encourage the firm’s affiliation with the UNGC and support the 
mediating effect of the existence of a CSR committee. Therefore, the positive impact of female directors on UNGC 
signatories appears to be mediated by the existence of a CSR committee. 

However, a few studies (sectoral and limited to some specific period) have tried to investigate the opposite relationship 
between the existence of CSR committees on the social pillar and the moderating effect of board gender diversity. 
Specifically, Uyar et al. (2021) showed that CSR committees and BGD positively enhanced CSR performance. Govindan et 
al. (2021) show that firms operating in the logistics sector with a sustainability committee are more likely to have greater 
corporate social responsibility performance (both overall and social) in 2018 than those that do not. Therefore, these authors 
confirm that logistics companies listed on the stock exchange will likely disclose a broader range of CSR aspects within their 
reports, implying an impact from stakeholder pressures on their CSR practices. 

The presence of a CSR committee also plays a significant role in improving corporate social performance strengths, even 
though it cannot reduce public concerns (Burke et al., 2019). 

Other research found a positive relationship between CSR performance and the presence of a CSR committee. 
Specifically, Spitzeck (2009) found that companies with a CSR committee have better corporate sustainability performance in 
the Corporate Responsibility Index. These committees can successfully improve corporate social performance strengths. 

Baraibar-Diez and Odriozola (2019) also analysed the influence of a CSR committee on CSR performance, specifically 
ESG performance in the UK, France, Germany, and Spain. They found that companies with a CSR committee have different 
ESG scores than firms without one. A CSR committee is related to better performance when considering the four scores 
(environmental, social, governance, and economic) and the four countries independently (except for economic scores in 
Spain). 

 The social pillar in the literature is mostly studied about environmental reporting and is not studied “per se” (Ashfaq, K. & 
Rui, Z. 2018). Studies focus on specific contexts such as Europe (Baraibar-Diez, E. & Odriozola, M.D. 2019) and Italy 
(Cucari et al. 2017). The literature has explored the relationship between a firm’s social performance and reporting while also 
considering board gender diversity; however, these studies focused mainly on developed countries and paid less attention to 
emerging countries that require special consideration (Arayssi et al., 2020; Khwaja N. C.L. 2021; Yadav P. & Prashar A. 
2022). 

Other authors have concluded that board characteristics influence the presence of CSR committees. In detail, they found 
that independent directors promote the creation of specialized committees to make decisions related to CSR strategies. 
Moreover, in this specific situation, the CSR committee is a mediator between independent directors and the adoption of the 
Global Reporting Initiative – International Finance Corporation (GRI-IFC) strategy. (García-Sanchez et al. 2017), 

A body of literature has documented a positive relationship between board gender diversity and sustainability performance 
(Uson et al. 2022) across a broad spectrum of sustainability indicators (Amran, A et al. 2014; Eberhardt-Toth, E. 2017). Other 
authors have considered culture in the relationship between corporate social performance and firm performance (Wei S. & 
Veenstra K. 2021). Moreover, other researchers confirm that ‘structural’ gender diversity is a significant predictor of a firm's 
environmental sustainability initiatives, so gender diversity is also a sustainability issue (Kassinis G. et al. 2016). 

Regarding the social pillar in the national literature, we have discovered that some Italian authors have already shown that 
CB diversity, proxied by director independence (a demographic diversity in boards and gender diversity), affects corporate 
social performance (CSP). In this research, CSP concepts were presented, including those that evolved from the concept of 
corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is a static concept emphasizing accountability. At the same time, CSP is a 
bottom-line concept emphasizing sustainable outcomes (Veltri et al. 2020). The sample in this research is the most capitalized 
firms. 

In this stream, apart from very specific points of view, our approach is innovative since we investigate the link between 
gender diversity and the social pillar related to CSR. 

 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

30 

3. Theoretical framework and hypothesis development 

Stakeholder theory (Cummings, L. & Patel, C. 2009) and agency theory are common theories used to understand the link 
between corporate governance and sustainability performance. Specifically, stakeholder theory argues that it is important for 
companies to establish strong relations with stakeholders to maintain and improve corporate legitimacy; thus, according to 
this theory, effective corporate governance can convey to society that the firm is well managed and that the interests of 
stakeholders are considered (Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012). In contrast, agency theory predicts that companies protect 
investors and reduce agency conflicts by using control mechanisms, such as corporate governance structures (Jensen and 
Meckling, 1976). 

From this perspective, CSR is crucial for fulfilling stakeholders’ expectations (Khan et al., 2013). Drawing on stakeholder 
and agency theories, this study examines the association between a CSR committee and social pillar performance, adopting 
board gender diversity as a moderating variable. 

Based on the findings illustrated in the literature review, this paper aims to test whether the presence of a CSR committee, 
as found in some previous research (Jorge 2020), is positively related to social and environmental performance. This should 
confirm that ESG issues deserve specialized attention and a dedicated workforce. More specifically, this research investigates 
whether the presence of a CSR committee can support the SP score. 

 
Hp 1: The presence of a CSR committee positively influences the social pillar score. 
 
In contrast, we observed that some studies had illustrated the positive reaction that CB diversity could have on ESG 

performance with a moderating effect from the operation of a CSR committee (Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2020), even if there is 
no evidence of the opposite effect, that is, a positive impact of a CSR committee on ESG performance with a moderating 
effect from CB diversity. We based our hypothesis on the consideration that CB diversity can offer different points of view 
and support a more conscious decision-making process. 

 
Hp 2: The level of board gender diversity positively moderates the relationship between the presence of a CSR committee 

and the social pillar score. 
 

4. Methodology 

4.1 Dataset 
 
The sample comprises 457 European listed companies collected from the Refinitiv Thomson-Eikon, a database that several 

scholars have already applied to analyse CB characteristics in connection with ESG performance (Del Giudice & Rigamonti, 
2020; Dorfleitner et al., 2020). The Refinitiv Thomson-Eikon database applies a consolidated methodology that attributes an 
ESG score to the investigated companies (Refinitiv, 2022). The analysis is organized by determining a complex score, 
articulated on the sum of the three single pillar scores. 

The choice of the European context arises from the “hard low approach” adopted here, i.e., ad hoc regulatory measures 
have been applied that aim at "imposing" the presence of women on boards. A further peculiarity that concerns Europe (Italy, 
Norway, Holland, France, Iceland, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Slovenia, Austria, Spain, and Germany) is the different 
degree of effectiveness of the rules depending on whether they are companies with listed or publicly controlled shares. In this 
regard, the European Commission and the European Parliament have started harmonising the different gender equality 
approaches (Callegari et al. 2021). 

Each pillar includes a few ESG themes, with the related data points evaluated as proxies of ESG magnitude per industry 
group. The themes for the social pillar are workforce, human rights, community, and product responsibility. 

 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 1: The Refinitiv Thomson-Eikon methodology  
 

 
 
Source: Author´s elaboration 

 
The score is measured on 186 metrics (54 in the social pillar). The points are then weighted based on the industry sector in 

relation to the theme's importance in that specific context. 
 
Table 1: ESG themes in the social pillar category 

Pillars Categories Themes Data points Weight method 
 

 

 

 

 

Social 

Community Equally important to all industry groups, 
hence a median weight of five is assigned to 

all 

 Equally important to all 
industry groups 

Human rights Human rights TR.PolicyHumanRights Transparency weights 
 

Product 
responsibility 

Responsible marketing TR.PolicyResponsibleMarketing Transparency weights 
Product quality TR.ProductQualityMonitoring Transparency weights 
Data privacy TR.PolicyDataPrivacy Transparency weights 

 

Workforce 

Diversity and inclusion TR.WomenEmployees Quant industry median 
Career development and training TR.AvgTrainingHours Transparency weights 

Working conditions TR.TradeUnionRep Quant industry median 
Health and safety TR.AnalyticLostDays Transparency weights 

Source: Author´s elaboration 
 

The sample in this study comprises companies from the European economic area, as represented in the following table. 
 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

32 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

Table 2: Country composition of the sample 
 

 N° companies % 

Austria 15 3,3% 

Belgium 14 3,1% 
Cyprus 2 0,4% 

Czech Republic 1 0,2% 
Denmark 11 2,4% 

Finland 37 8,1% 
France 72 15,8% 

Germany 86 18,8% 
Greece 2 0,4% 

Hungary 1 0,2% 
Ireland 11 2,4% 

Italy 44 9,6% 
Luxembourg 3 0,7% 

Malta 1 0,2% 
Netherlands 22 4,8% 

Poland 2 0,4% 
Portugal 12 2,6% 

Spain 34 7,4% 
Sweden 87 19,0% 

Total 457 100,0% 
Source: Author´s elaboration 

 
The European economic context has already been widely analysed in investigations of the impact of board characteristics 

on ESG performance (Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2021; Nicolò et al., 2021; Rossi et al., 2021; Gurol and Lagasio, 2022). The 
European Union has a strongly supportive attitude towards ESG issues, representing—especially since the beginning of the 
2000s—a benchmark worldwide (EC, 2001; EU, 2011). 

The industry composition is subsequently reproduced. The whole sample needs to consider the banking and financial 
services sector. We preferred to leave the financial sector out of the investigation, as some countries propose ad hoc 
legislation for board composition. Accordingly, we focused our attention on nonfinancial companies. Almost half of the 
companies belong to the “Manufacturing” sector (47%). The other half represented industry segments, such as “Information” 
(9.6%), “Real estate and rentals and leasing” (7.9%), “Utilities” and “Construction” (5.3%), “Professional, scientific, and 
technical services” and “Retail trade” (5%); the other sectors are more specialized, and each is below 5% of the sample.  

 
 
 
 
 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

33 

 
 
 

 
 

Table 3: Sector composition of the sample 
 

TRBC Sector Name Number of 
companies % 

Accommodation and Food Services 7 1,5% 
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and 
Remediation Services 10 2,2% 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 2 0,4% 
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 4 0,9% 
Construction 24 5,3% 
Educational Services 1 0,2% 
Health Care and Social Assistance 4 0,9% 
Information 44 9,6% 
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1 0,2% 
Manufacturing 215 47,0% 
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 6 1,3% 
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 23 5,0% 
Real Estate and Rentals and Leasing 36 7,9% 
Retail Trade 23 5,0% 
Transportation and Warehousing 21 4,6% 
Utilities 24 5,3% 
Wholesale Trade 10 2,2% 
Other Services (except Public Administration) 2 0,4% 
   
Total 457 100,00% 

Source: Author´s elaboration 
 

We tested our hypotheses on 457 companies with a linear regression generated by Stata software. The final number of 
observations used in the regression analysis is 448, as the software identified the data of 10 companies as incomplete or 
inapplicable. All data refer to the 2021 period, representing our objective's most recent financial and nonfinancial 
information. Considering that we have considered a single period, the number of examined companies is equivalent to the 
number of applied observations. 

 
4.2 Model specification and variables  
 
Our dependent variable is Refinitiv’s Social Pillar Score (SocialScore). This is a weighted score computed by Refinitiv for 

each company based on the social information recovered in the four social categories identified: workforce, human rights, 
community, and product responsibility. 

Our dependent variable is the existence of a CSR committee (CSRComm). We measured this variable using a dummy 
equal to 1 when the company has a CSR committee within the board and 0 otherwise. 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

34 

Moreover, to test the moderating role of the presence of female directors in the relationship between CSR committees and 
the social pillar, we inserted an interaction term (CSRCommxGenDiv) into our regression. We obtained the interaction term 
by multiplying the CSRComm variable with board gender diversity (GenDiv). 

We inserted different control variables in the regression to control for endogeneity and reduce possible bias. More 
specifically, we inserted both other CB and firm-specific characteristics as follows: 

• Board size (BoSize) measured as the number of board members 
• Role Duality (RoleDual) computed using a dummy equal to 1 when the CEO is also the chairman of the board 

and 0 otherwise 
• Board Independence (BoInd) measured as the percentage of independent directors sitting on the board 
• Board Meeting (BoMeet) computed as the number of meetings held during the year 
• Firm Size (Size) computed as the natural logarithm of total assets 
• Leverage (Lev) measured as the long-term debt divided by total assets 
• Profitability (Profit) computed using the return on total assets 

 
To test the hypotheses, we developed the following regressions: 
 

𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 	𝛼 + 𝛽!CSRComm+ 𝛽"𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐷𝑖𝑣 + 𝛽#𝐵𝑜𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 + 𝛽$𝑅𝑜𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑢𝑎𝑙 + 𝛽%𝐵𝑜𝐼𝑛𝑑 + 𝛽&𝐵𝑜𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑡 + 𝛽'𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒
+ 𝛽(𝐿𝑒𝑣 + 𝛽)Profit + 𝜀 

 
(1) 
 

𝑆𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 	𝛼 + 𝛽!CSRComm+ 𝛽"𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐷𝑖𝑣 + 𝛽#𝐶𝑆𝑅𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑥𝐺𝑒𝑛𝐷𝑖𝑣 + 𝛽$𝐵𝑜𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 + 𝛽%𝑅𝑜𝑙𝑒𝐷𝑢𝑎𝑙
+ 𝛽&𝐵𝑜𝐼𝑛𝑑 + 𝛽'𝐵𝑜𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑡 + 𝛽(𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 + 𝛽)𝐿𝑒𝑣 + 𝛽!*Profit + 𝜀 

 
(2) 

 

5. Results 

5.1 Descriptive analysis 
 

The following table reports the descriptive statistics of all the variables. 
 

Table 4: Descriptive analysis 
 

Variable |        Obs        Mean    Std. Dev.       Min        Max 
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------- 
SocialScore |        457    73.55954    15.43326   23.00668   98.22132 
CSRComm |        457    .9037199    .2952982          0          1 
GenDiv  |        457    34.96473     11.7173          0   69.23077 
BoSize  |        457    10.91466    4.112367          2         28 
RoleDual |        457    .2691466    .4440023          0          1 
BoInd  |        457    59.19293    24.84083          0        100 
BoMeet  |        449    11.00445    5.827887          3         56 
Size   |        457    22.44632     1.60134   18.00879   26.99351 
Lev   |        456    .2284475    .1356608          0   .9066298 
Profit  |        457    .0510317    .0657023  -.2163655    .433664 

 
Source: Author´s elaboration 

 
The average Social Score recorded by sampled companies in 2021 is 73.55, revealing discreet attention to social issues. 

The minimum value is 23, and the maximum is 98.22. 
A CSR committee is present in 90% of the sampled companies. The average percentage of women on the board is 34.96. 

Considering that the average board size is 10, previous data reveal that approximately 3 or 4 directors are women on average. 
A total of 26.91 companies have a CEO who is also the board's chairman. The average percentage of independent directors 
sitting on the board is higher than that of women and is almost equal to 60%. Finally, board members meet approximately 
once a month. Before performing the regression analysis, the next table shows the correlation between all the variables.  



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5: Correlation matrix 
 

| SocialScore   BoSize RoleDual CSRComm    BoInd   BoMeet GenDiv 
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------------- 
SocialScore |   1.0000 
BoSize  |   0.3459*  1.0000 
RoleDual  |   0.1520*  0.1411*  1.0000 
CSRComm  |   0.3378*  0.1919*  0.0643   1.0000 
BoInd   |   0.0687  -0.2542* -0.1391*  0.0613   1.0000 
BoMeet  |  -0.1096* -0.1874* -0.0856   0.0067   0.1461*  1.0000 
GenDiv  |   0.1383*  0.0946*  0.1551*  0.1469*  0.0520  -0.0354   1.0000 
Size   |   0.4985*  0.5429*  0.1416*  0.2412*  0.0695  -0.0657   0.1195* 
Profit  |   0.0053  -0.1210*  0.0507   0.0403   0.0416  -0.1039*  0.0060 
Lev   |   0.0080   0.0252  -0.0300   0.0543   0.0513   0.1395*  0.0119 
 
|  Size  Profit      Lev 
-------------+--------------------------- 
Size   |   1.0000 
Profit  |  -0.0520   1.0000 
Lev   |   0.1267* -0.2733*  1.0000 
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1 

 
Source: Author´s elaboration 

 
Both CSRComm and GenDiv are positively correlated with SocialScore. Moreover, BoSize, RoleDual and Size are also 

positively correlated with SocialScore. BoMeet, instead, presents a negative correlation with SocialScore. 
 
5.2 Regression results 
 
The subsequent table shows the results of the regression analyses performed using Stata software. 
 

Table 6: Regression Results (Dependent variable SocialScore) 
 

Variables Model 1 Model 2 
CSRComm 

 
GenDiv 

 
CSRComm*GenDiv 

 
BoSize 

 
RoleDual 

 
BoInd 

 
BoMeet 

 

11.5791*** 
(2.167769) 
.0372033   

(.0534431) 
 
 

.3392589*   
(.1924118) 
2.606915* 
(1.420351) 
.0449805* 
(.02663) 

-.1623585   
(.1117212) 

3.804429   
(5.307205) 
-.1894688    
(.151023) 
.2582784* 
(.1609875) 
.3601894*   
(.1925096) 
2.670899*   
(1.418367) 
.0477557*   
(.0266385) 
-.1637325   
(.1115243) 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

36 

Size 
 

Profit 
 

Lev 
 

Constant 

3.659373***   
(.4813271) 
-1.238915 
(9.849703) 
-5.642679 
(4.753141) 

-24.3959*** 
(9.487964) 

3.571471***   
(.4835786) 
-1.277033   
(9.832082) 
-5.475304   
(4.745771) 
-16.19662   
(10.76189) 

Observations 448 448 
Adjusted R-Squared 0.3046*** 0.3071*** 

 
Source: Author´s elaboration 

 
Model 1 reports the results of the regression testing Hypothesis H1 to understand the direct influence of CSRComm on 

SocialScore. It shows a positive and statistically significant association between the presence of a CSR committee and social 
pillar score (β = 11.5791, p < 0.01), meaning that the decision of the company to create a CSR committee within the board 
brings greater attention to the social aspects of sustainability. Concerning gender diversity, Model 1 shows no significant 
relationship between the presence of women sitting on the board and the social pillar score. Regarding the control variables, 
Model 1 also shows that board size, role duality, board independence and firm size positively and significantly influence the 
social pillar score. 

Model 2 shows the findings of the regression developed to test Hypothesis H2, that is, the moderating effect of GenDiv on 
the relationship between CSRComm and SocialScore. The coefficient of the interaction term CSRComm*GenDiv is positive 
and statistically significant (β =.2582784, p < 0.1), meaning that the presence of women sitting on the board positively 
moderates the relationship between the CSR committee and the social pillar score. In other words, companies with a greater 
number of female directors present a stronger positive relationship between the existence of a CSR committee and the social 
pillar score. 

 

6. Discussion and conclusions 

This paper focuses its attention on the impact that the presence of CSR committees can have and the moderating role of 
board gender diversity in pursuing social objectives. The disaggregation of the effect that these variables can have on social 
performance has allowed us to consider a specific aspect of the ESG approach that is critical for companies’ financial and 
nonfinancial health: a shared vision and modus operandi that can determine a positive relationship with stakeholders and 
create a common strategic and operational perspective. 

This motivation for this research derives from a gap in the research on the relationship between social performance and the 
related determinants that can be found in company governance. 

In this context, the research concludes that the presence of a CSR committee contributes to greater efficacy in pursuing 
social matters. This supports the idea that ESG issues require a specialized structure to assist the board of directors with social 
issues. This conclusion appears consistent with a body of literature examining CSR and ESG more generally (Baraibar-Diez e 
Odriozola, 2019). Structured governance can improve the ESG approach of companies by enabling better control of delicate 
themes such as those included in the SP. It can consequently contribute to creating value in the medium and long term. 

The research also stresses that the presence of board diversity supports SP performance. This work suggests that 
companies with a more diversified Board conduct aboard have better social performance. These results are also consistent 
with the previous literature (Alijifri K & Moustafa M., 2007) that has demonstrated how gender diversity enhances the 
tendency of corporate culture to integrate sustainability values (Jizi et al., 2022). It has been confirmed that the diversity of 
perspectives and sensitivity a company uses in decision-making is significant for stakeholders’ engagement. 

Moderation analysis shows that CSR committees and boards are not replacements for one another, as both benefit the 
corporate pursuit of social themes (Uyar et al., 2021). 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

37 

This work confirms the adoption of agency theory and stakeholder theory. Companies that apply control mechanisms that 
can protect people directly or indirectly involved in company management reduce agency conflicts and enhance stakeholder 
relations. 

There are many implications arising from this research. From a professional and practical point of view, companies should 
pay close attention to creating and managing CSR committees, especially if we consider that they are mostly voluntary 
bodies. These results reflect the importance of promoting these instruments to enhance company attitudes towards 
sustainability. 

From an institutional perspective, regulators could consider amending their legislation, addressing the contribution 
provided by studies that demonstrate good practices and fair corporate behaviours. CSR committees can provide greater 
assurance to stakeholders, especially in those contexts where there is a need to provide greater certainty about the company's 
ethical behaviour. At the same time, technical bodies have some additional data on which to base their codes and 
requirements. 

There are some limitations in this study. We considered only the European context. The enlargement of the sample could 
demonstrate if these results apply to other regional zones or are typical of only the European environment. 

We also considered the composition of CSR committees and boards without investigating the skills of the component 
members. It seems that this variable can be crucial in analysing the collected data. It could highlight if the people involved are 
equally and highly qualified or if creating these conditions can always lead to better social performance. 

Last, it must be stressed that the Thomson Reuters ESG data, even if largely applied in these studies, reflect only the firm’s 
actual social improvements and not the company efforts produced to obtain social objectives. It could be interesting to 
reproduce this research by adopting other databases addressing ESG efforts, such as Bloomberg’s ESG database, to test if the 
results are confirmed. 

 

References 

Alijifri K & Moustafa M., (2007) “The Impact of Corporate Governance Mechanisms on the Performance of UAE Firms: 
An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Vol 23, n. 2, pp. 71-93, 
https://doi.org/10.1108/10264116200700008. 

Amran, A.; Lee, S.P.; Devi, S.S. (2014), “The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social 
responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality”. Business Strategy Environmental, Vol 23, pp. 217–235. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1767 

Arayakarnkul, P. Chatjuthamard, P. Treepongkarun S. (2022) “Board gender diversity, corporate social commitment and 
sustainability”, Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management, Vol, 29, Issue 5, pp. 1706-1721. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2320 

Arayssi, M., Dah, M. and Jizi, M. (2016), “Women on boards, sustainability reporting and firm performance”, 
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 376-401. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-
2015-0055 

Arayssi, M., Jizi, M. and Tabaja, H. (2020), “The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC 
countries”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 137-
161.https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0136 

Ashfaq, K.; Rui, Z. (2018), “Revisiting the relationship between corporate governance and corporate social and 
environmental disclosure practices in Pakistan” Social Responsibility Journal, Vol 15, pp. 90–119. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2017-0001 

Baraibar-Diez, E.; Odriozola, M.D. (2019)”CSR committees and their effect on ESG performance in UK, France, 
Germany and Spain” Sustainability, Vol 11, 5077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185077 

Becker, G.S., (1962). “Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis”. Journal of Political Economy Vol 70, pp. 9-
49 https://doi.org/10.1086/258724 

Beji, R., Yousfi, O., Loukil, N., & Omri, A. (2021). “Board diversity and corporate social responsibility: Empirical 
evidence from France”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 173, pp.133-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04522-4 

Bird, R., Hall, A.D., Momentè, F., Reggiani, F., (2007.) “What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the 
market?” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 76, pp. 189-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9268-1 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

38 

Bruno A., Lombardi  R.,  Mainolfi  G.,  Moretta  Tartaglione  A.,  (2015) “Reaserch  Perspective  on  Corporate Reputation 
and Company’s Performance Measurement, “Management Control Journal”, Vol 3. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2015-003004 

Burke, J. J., Hoitash, R., & Hoitash, U. (2019). “The heterogeneity of board-level sustainability committees and corporate 
social performance”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 154, pp. 1161–1186. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-017-3453-2 

Callegari M., Desana E.R., Sarale M., (2021). “Speriamo che sia femmina: l’equilibrio fra i generi nelle società quotate e a 
controllo pubblico nell’esperienza italiana e comparata”, Quaderni di Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di 
Torino, Vol. 21, Rubbettino Editore. 

Cucari, N.; De Falco, S.E.; Orlando, B. (2017) “Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: 
Evidence from Italian listed companies” Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management, Vol 25, pp. 250–266. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1452 

Cummings, L. and Patel, C. (2009), "Chapter 2 Stakeholder literature review", Cummings, L. and Patel, C. (Ed.) 
Managerial Attitudes toward a Stakeholder Prominence within a Southeast Asia Context (Studies in Managerial and Financial 
Accounting, Vol. 19), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 17-51. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
3512(2009)0000019006 

Dorfleitner, G., Kreuzer, C., Sparrer, C, (2020) “ESG controversies and controversial ESG: about silent saints and small 
sinners) “, Journal of Asset Management, Vol 21 Issue 5, pp. 393-412. DOI:10.1057/s41260-020-00178-x 

Eberhardt-Toth, E. (2017) “Who should be on a board corporate social responsibility committee? Journal Cleaning 
Production, Vol 140, pp. 1926–1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.127 

Eberhardt-Toth, E.; Caby, J.; Gendron, C.; Ramboarisata, L. (2019), “Determinants of the presence of CSR committees 
within European boards of directors”. E. Responsib. Organ. Rev. Vol 14, pp. 33–49. https://doi.org/10.3917/ror.141.0033 

EC (2001), Green paper (COM(2001)366) - Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. 
Retrieved fromhttps://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vikqhjet6py6  

EU (2011), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. 
Brussels, Belgium: Author. Retrieved from https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF  

Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Balti, S. and Bouzaidi, S. (2019), “To what extent do gender diverse boards enhance corporate 
social performance?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 155 No. 2, pp. 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3529-z 

Garcia, A. S., Mendes-Da-Silva, W., & Orsato, R. J. (2017) “Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: 
Evidence from emerging markets” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 150, pp. 135-147 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180 

Gurol, B., & Lagasio, V. (2022). “Women board members’ impact on ESG disclosure with environment and social 
dimensions: evidence from the European banking sector. Social Responsibility Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-08-2020-
0308 

Govindana K, Kilicc. M, Uyard A, Karamane A. S. (2021) “Drivers and value-relevance of CSR performance in the 
logistics sector: A cross-country firm-level investigation” International Journal of Production Economics, Vol 231. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107835 

John K, Senbet L. W., (1998) “Corporate governance and board effectiveness“, Journal of Banking & Finance,  Vol 22, 
Issue 4, pp. 371-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(98)00005-3 

Hussain, N., Rigoni U., & Orij, R. P. (2018) “Corporate Governance and Sustainability Performance: Analysis of triple 
bottom line performance”. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol 149, pp. 411-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3099-5 

Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H., (1976). “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. 
Economic Analysis of the Law Vol 3, Issue 4, pp. 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470752135.ch17. 

Jiao, Y., (2010).” Stakeholder welfare and firm value”. Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol 34, pp. 2549- 2561 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.04.013 

Jizi, M., Nehme, R., & Melhem, C. (2022). “Board gender diversity and firms' social engagement in the Gulf Cooperation 
Council (GCC) countries”. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol 41Issue 2, pp. 186-206. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2021-0041 

Kassinis, G., Panayiotou A, Dimou A. Katsifaraki G. (2016) “Gender and Environmental Sustainability: A Longitudinal 
Analysis”, Corporate Social Responsibility and environmental management, Vol 23, Issue 6, pp. 399-412. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1386 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

39 

Khan, A., Muttakin, M.B., Siddiqui, J., (2013). “Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: 
evidence from an emerging economy”. J. Bus. Ethics, Vol 114 Issue 2, pp. 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-
1336-0. 

Khwaja N. C.L. Voinea Z. Ali, Fawad R. Cosmin F., (2021), “Board Gender Diversity and Corporate Social Performance 
in Different Industry Groups: Evidence from China”, Sustainability, Vol 13, Issue 6, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063142. 

Leopizzi, R., Iazzi, A., Venturelli, A., & Principale, S. (2020). “Nonfinancial risk disclosure: The “state of the art” of 
Italian companies”. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol 27, Issue 1, pp. 358-368. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1810 

Li, T. T., Wang, K., Sueyoshi, T., & Wang, D. D. (2021). “ESG: Research progress and future prospects”. Sustainability, 
Vol 13, Issue 21, 11663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111663 

Marsat, S., Williams, B., (2013). “CSR and Market Valuation: International Evidence”. Bankers, Markets & Investors 
Vol., 123, pp. 29-42. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1833581 

Martínez-Ferrero J. Eryilmaz M. and Colakoglu N. (2020) “How Does Board Gender Diversity Influence the Likelihood 
of Becoming a UN Global Compact Signatory? The Mediating Effect of the CSR Committee”, Sustainability Vol 12, Issue 
10, 4329, pp- 1-19. 

Marsat S., Williams B., (2014) “Does the Market Value Social Pillar?” http://ssrn.com/abstract=2419387 
Martínez-Ferrero J., Lozano M.B., Vivas M. (2021) “The impact of board cultural diversity on a firm’s commitment 

toward the sustainability issues of emerging countries: The mediating effect of a CSR committee”. Corporate Social 
Responsibility and Environmental Management. Vol 28 Isue 2, pp. 675-685. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2080 

Michelon, G., Parbonetti, A., (2012). “The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure”. J. Manag. Govern. 
Vol 16, Issue 3, pp. 477–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997- 010-9160-3. 

Monteiro, A. P., García-Sánchez, I. M., & Aibar-Guzmán, B. (2022). “Labour practice, decent work and human rights 
performance and reporting: The impact of women managers”. Journal of Business ethics, Vol. 180, Issue 2, pp. 523-542. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04913-1 

Murphy K. (2012). “The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis, 
Sustainability: Science”, Practice and Policy, Vol 8, Issue 1, pp.15-29, DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2012.11908081. 

Nicolò G., Zampone G., Sannino G., de Iorio S. (2022) “Sustainable corporate governance, and non-financial disclosure in 
Europe: Does the gender diversity matter?” Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol 23 Issue 1, pp. 227-249. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR04-2021-0100 

Refinitiv (2022), Environmental, Social and Governance scores. Retrieved 
https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/methodology/refinitiv-esg-scores-methodology.pdf. 

René P. O., Rehman S., Hashim K., Khan F., (2021) “Is CSR the new competitive environment for CEOs? The association 
between CEO turnover, corporate social responsibility and board gender diversity: Asian evidence”, Corporate Social 
Responsibility and environmental management, Vol.28, Issue2, pp. 731-747. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2084 

Rossi, M., Chouaibi, J., Chouaibi, S., Jilani, W., & Chouaibi, Y. (2021). Does a board characteristic moderate the 
relationship between CSR practices and financial performance? Evidence from European ESG firms. Journal of Risk and 
Financial Management, Vol 14, Issue 8, 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14080354 

Scholtens, B., (2006). “Finance as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 68, pp. 
19-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9037-1 

Secinaro S., Brescia V., Calandra D., Buerahn Saiti, (2020) “Impact of climate change mitigation policies on corporate 
financial performance: Evidence-based on European publicly listed firms”, Corporate Social Responsibility and 
Environmental Management, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1971.  

Shahid A.U., Patel C., Peipei P. (2022) “Corporate social responsibility, intrinsic religiosity, and investment decisions” 
Journal of behavioural and experimental finance, Vol, 34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2022.100650 

Spitzeck, H. (2009). “Organizational structures and processes: The development of governance structures for corporate 
responsibility”. Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society. Vol 9 Issue 4, pp.  495-505. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700910985034 

Stevens, C. (2010). Are women the key to sustainable development. Sustainable development insights, Vol 3, Issue 11, pp. 
1-8. 

Uyar, A., Kilic, M., Koseoglu, M. A., Kuzey, C., & Karaman, A. S. (2020). “The link among board characteristics, 
corporate social responsibility performance, and financial performance: Evidence from the hospitality and tourism industry.” 
Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol 35, 100714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100714 



 
 

 
European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/7425 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

40 

Uyar, A., Kuzey, C., Kilic, M., & Karaman, A. S. (2021). B”oard structure, financial performance, corporate social 
responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: Disentangling the connection in healthcare”. Corporate Social 
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol 28, Issue 6, pp. 1730-1748. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2141 

Veltri S., Mazzotta R., Rubino F.E., (2021) “Board diversity and corporate social performance: Does the family firm status 
matter?” Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management, Vol 28, pp. 1664–1679. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2136 

Wei S.,  Veenstra K., (2021) “The Moderating Effect of Cultural Values on the Relationship Between Corporate Social 
Performance and Firm Performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 174, pp. 89–107 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-
04555-9 

Zumente, I., & Bistrova, J. (2021). “ESG importance for long-term shareholder value creation: Literature vs. practice”. 
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol 7, Issue 2, 127. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020127 

Yadav, P. and Prashar, A. (2022), "Board gender diversity: implications for environment, social, and governance (ESG) 
performance of Indian firms", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2021-0689. 

Usón A.A,. Moneva J.M., Scarpellini S. (2022) “Sustainability accounting and the introduction of the circular economy 
principles in businesses“, European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy Vol 3, n. 3. 
https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-9906/6817 

Urmanaviciene A. Udara S. A. (2020) “The Effective   Methods and   Practices for Accelerating   Social   
Entrepreneurship   Through Corporate Social Responsibility“, European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy, Vol 
1, Issue 2, pp. 27-47. https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-9906/5085 

Urmanaviciene A. (2020) “WISEs’ Social Impact Measurement in the Baltic States”, European Journal of Social Impact 
and Circular Economy, Vol 1, Issue 2, pp. 48-75. https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-9906/5091 


