Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 141, Issue 2, pp 393–409 | Cite as

Professors on the Board: Do They Contribute to Society Outside the Classroom?

  • Charles H. Cho
  • Jay Heon Jung
  • Byungjin Kwak
  • Jaywon Lee
  • Choong-Yuel Yoo
Article

Abstract

According to our data, 38.5 % of S&P 1500 firms have at least one professor on their boards. Given the lack of research examining the roles and effects of academic faculty as members of boards of directors (professor–directors) on corporate outcomes, this study investigates whether firms with professor–directors are more likely to exhibit higher corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance ratings. Results indicate that firms with professor–directors do exhibit higher CSR performance ratings than those without. However, the influence of professor–directors on firm CSR performance ratings depends on their academic background—the positive association between the presence of professor–directors and firm CSR performance ratings is significant only when their academic background is specialized (e.g., science, engineering, and medicine). Finally, this positive association weakens when professor–directors hold an administrative position at their universities.

Keywords

Academic Board of directors Corporate governance Corporate social responsibility Professor Social performance ratings 

References

  1. Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20, 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amato, L. H., & Amato, C. H. (2007). The effects of firm size and industry on corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, R. C., Reeb, D. M., Upadhyay, A., & Zhao, W. (2011). The economics of director heterogeneity. Financial Management, 40(1), 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. (2006). Entrepreneurial access and absorption of knowledge spillovers: strategic board and managerial composition for competitive advantage. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 641–652.Google Scholar
  7. Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumgarten, E. (1982). Ethics in the academic profession: A Socratic view. The Journal of Higher Education, 53(3), 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baysinger, B. D., Kosnik, R. D., & Turk, T. A. (1991). Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business school lost their way. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 7, 2014 from http://hbr.org/2005/05/how-business-schools-lost-their-way/ar/1.
  11. Bowman, R. F. (2005). Teacher as servant leader. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(6), 257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnov, B. H. (1987). The academician as good citizen. In S. L. Payne & B. H. Charnov (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas for academic professionals. P.3-20. Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, J. C., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2008). Corporate charitable contributions: a corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1999). Development and adaptations of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, L., Frazzini, A., & Malloy, C. J. (2012). Hiring cheerleaders: board appointments of “independent” directors. Management Science, 58(6), 1039–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duchin, R., Matsusaka, J. G., & Ozbas, O. (2010). When are outside directors effective? Journal of Financial Economics, 96(2), 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fich, E. M. (2005). Are some outsider directors better than others? Evidence from director appointments by Fortune 1000 firms. The Journal of Business, 78(5), 1943–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Francis, B., Hasan, I., & Wu, Q. (2014). Professors in the boardroom and their impact on corporate governance and firm performance. Financial Management (Forthcoming). Google Scholar
  20. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonin, M. (2007). Business research, self-fulfilling prophecy, and the inherent responsibility of scholars. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5(1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Güner, A. B., Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2008). Financial expertise of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(2), 323–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill, C. W. L., & Snell, S. A. (1988). External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in research-intensive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Luce, R. A. (2001). Board composition and stakeholder performance: Do stakeholder directors make a difference? Business and Society, 40(3), 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jiang, B., & Murphy, P. J. (2007). Do business school professors make good executive managers? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: a critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(3), 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. LaFond, R., & Watts, R. L. (2008). The information role of conservatism. The Accounting Review, 83(2), 447–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Masulis, R. W., Wang, C., & Xie, F. (2012). Globalizing the boardroom—the effects of foreign directors on corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(3), 527–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I., & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitroff, I. (2004). An open letter to the deans and the faculties of American business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 185–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Connell, D. M. (1998). From the universities to the marketplace: The business ethics journey. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(15), 1617–1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Martynov, A. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Owen, D. (2005). CSR after Enron: A role for the academic accounting profession? European Accounting Review, 14(2), 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rekker, S. A. C., Benson, K. L., & Faff, R. W. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and CEO compensation revisited: disaggregation, market stress and gender do matter. Working Paper, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  37. Roy Morgan Research. (2013). Roy Morgan image of professions survey 2013 nurses still most highly regardedclosely followed by doctors & pharmacists. Retrieved September 1, 2014, from http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/image-of-professions-2013-201305020534.
  38. Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valentine, S., & Fleishman, G. (2008). Professional ethical standards, corporate social responsibility, and the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White, J. T., Woidtke, T., Black, H. A., & Schweitzer, R. L. (2013). Appointments of academic directors. Journal of Corporate Finance (Forthcoming). Google Scholar
  42. Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles H. Cho
    • 1
  • Jay Heon Jung
    • 2
  • Byungjin Kwak
    • 2
  • Jaywon Lee
    • 2
  • Choong-Yuel Yoo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Accounting and Management ControlESSEC Business SchoolCergy Pontoise CedexFrance
  2. 2.KAIST College of BusinessKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations