Skip to main content
Log in

Board Diversity and Managerial Control as Predictors of Corporate Social Performance

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While it is widely assumed that greater diversity in corporate governance will enhance a firm’s corporate social performance, this study considers an alternative thesis which relates managerial control to corporate philanthropy. The study empirically evaluates both board diversity and managerial control of the board as possible predictors of corporate philanthropy. The demonstration of a positive relationship between managerial control and corporate philanthropy contributes to our understanding that corporate social performance results from a complex set of economic and social motives. Possible future research and managerial implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bilimoria, D. and S. K. Piderit: 1994, ‘Board Committee Membership: Effects of Sex-Based Bias’, Academy of Management Journal 37, 1453–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1996, Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 3rd edn. (South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, P. L., R. A. Wood and T. B. Jones: 1985,’ The Composition of Boards of Directors and Incidence of Golden Parachutes’, Academy of Management Journal 28, 664–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, B. S. and G. E. Fryxell: 1991, ‘Institutional Ownership of Stock and Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance’, Journal of Business Ethics 10, 437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M. and D. R. Dalton: 1994, ‘Bankruptcy and Corporate Governance: The Impact of Board Composition and Structure’, Academy of Management Journal 37, 1603–1617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H.: 1969, Group Performance (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. E.: 1973, Management: Tasks, Responsibility, Practices (Harper and Row Publishers, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman Publishing, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, L. W., G. D. Keim and R. R. Meiners: 1982, ‘Corporate Contributions: Altruistic or For Profit?’, Academy of Management Journal 25, 94–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J.: 1985, Social Organization of an Urban Grants Economy: A Study of Business Philanthropy and Nonprofit Organizations (Academic Press, Orlando, FL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J.: 1980, Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL).

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L.: 1972, Victims of Groupthink (Houghton-Mifflin, Boston).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling: 1976, ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure’, Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. W.: 1990, ‘An Insider's Call for Outside Direction’, Harvard Business Review 68, 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesner, I. F.: 1988, ‘Directors' Characteristics and Committee Membership: An Investigation of Type, Occupation, Tenure, and Gender’, Academy of Management Journal 31, 66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesner, I. F., B. Victor and B. T. Lamont: 1986, ‘Board Composition and the Commission of Illegal Acts: An Investigation of Fortune 500 Companies’, Academy of Management Journal 29, 789–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosnik, R. D.: 1987, ‘Greenmail: A Study of Board Performance in Corporate Governance’, Administrative Science Quarterly 32, 163–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lydenberg, S. D., A. T. Marlin and S. O. Strub: 1986, Rating America's Corporate Conscience (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, M. L.: 1972, ‘The President and the Board of Directors’, Harvard Business Review 50, 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, T. G.: 1985, Business and Society: Economic, Moral, and Political Foundations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 31, 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. S.: 1996, ‘Corporate Social Investments: Do They Pay?’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 309–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H.: 1983, Power In and Around Organizations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Molz, R.: 1995, ‘The Theory of Pluralism in Corporate Governance: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Test’, Journal of Business Ethics 14, 789–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, T.: 1989, ‘Let Directors Be Directors’, Wall Street Journal (December 11), 14.

  • Pava, M. L. and J. Krausz: 1996, ‘The Association Between Corporate Social-Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 321–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J.: 1972, ‘Size and Composition of Corporate Boards of Directors: The Organization and Its Environment’, Administrative Science Quarterly 17, 218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellhardt, T. D.: 1994, ‘More Directors are Recruited from Outside’, Wall Street Journal (March 20), B1.

  • Singh, H. and F. Harianto: 1989, ‘Management-Board Relationships, Takeover Risk, and the Adoption of Golden Parachutes’, Academy of Management Journal 32, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. W.: 1983, A Profile of Corporate Contributions (Council for Financial Aid to Education, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C.: 1994, ‘The New Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review (May-June), 105–116.

  • Ullmann, A.: 1985, ‘Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance’, Academy of Management Review 10, 540–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance, S. C.: 1955, Functional Control and Corporate Performance in Large Scale Industrial Enterprises (The University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance, S. C.:1964, Boards of Directors: Structure and Performance (University of Oregon Press, Eugene, OR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L. and P. L. Cochran: 1985, ‘The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance Model’, Academy of Management Review 10, 758– 769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wokutch, R. E. and B. A. Spencer: 1987, ‘Corporate Saints and Sinners: The Effects of Philanthropic and Illegal Activity on Organizational Performance’, California Management Review 29, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16, 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coffey, B.S., Wang, J. Board Diversity and Managerial Control as Predictors of Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 1595–1603 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005748230228

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005748230228

Keywords

Navigation