The Impact of Family Firms and Supervisory Boards on Corporate Environmental Quality

This paper examines the impact of family ownership and supervisory board characteristics on carbon emission disclosure. It uses balanced panel data and a matched-pair design of 124 non-financial firms listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2017 to 2019. This study finds that family firms and larger boards improve, while female board members harm carbon emission performance. Further analyses reveal non-linear relationships between family ownership and carbon performance. When control rights are limited, family firms prioritize controlling managers and improving carbon quality. Conversely, they prioritize personal objectives over environmental concerns when there are high control rights, resulting in decreased carbon emission performance. Additionally, family board members generate more carbon information, indicating the family owners effectively utilize their position on the supervisory boards to influence the company’s carbon emission performance. Finally, the study reports that more faculty member boards seem to hurt carbon emission reduction efforts. This result suggests that the diversity of their professional experiences does not affect the environmental effectiveness of supervisory boards. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding SEW principles and their connection to families in comprehending Indonesian corporate carbon emissions disclosures. The findings of this study enrich the worldwide literature by exploring the potential benefits of family business environmental performance. This study also adds to the literature on corporate governance, especially the role played by supervisory boards. Our findings align with the resource dependence theory, emphasizing the central function of supervisory boards as a monitoring tool. This study is constrained by its reliance on carbon emission data extracted from the annual reports of public firms, with a particular emphasis on pre-COVID-19 data. Future research should focus on sustainability reports and explore the time frame encompassing COVID-19 (2020–2022 datasets) to determine any differences in the findings.