Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 405–410 | Cite as

The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members: Are there differences between inside and outside directors?

  • Nabil A. Ibrahim
  • John P. Angelidis
Article

Abstract

Differences and similarities between inside and outside board members with regard to their attitudes toward corporate social responsibility are examined. The results indicate that outside directors exhibit greater concern about the discretionary component of corporate responsibility and a weaker orientation toward economic performance. No significant differences between the two groups were observed with respect to the legal and ethical dimensions of corporate social responsibility. Some explanations as well as limited generalizations and implications are developed.

Keywords

Economic Growth Corporate Social Responsibility Social Responsibility Economic Performance Board Member 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, K. R.: 1984, ‘Difficulties in Overseeing Ethical Policy’,California Management Review 26, 133–137.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, K. R.: 1980, ‘Directors' Responsibility for Corporate Strategy’,Harvard Business Review 30.Google Scholar
  3. Angelidis, J. and N. Ibrahim: 1991, ‘Toward a Contingency Model of Corporate Social Responsibility’,Proceedings of The Institute of Management Sciences Southeastern Chapter 24–26.Google Scholar
  4. Aupperle, K., A. B. Carroll, and J. Hatfield: 1985, ‘An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability’,Academy of Management Journal 28, 446–465.Google Scholar
  5. Barron's: 1986, ‘A Plague of Lawyers’, (Nov. 17), 38–39.Google Scholar
  6. Berenbeim, R.: 1988, ‘An Outbreak of Ethics’,Across the Board, 14–19.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, A. B.: 1989,Business and Society (South-Western, Cincinnati, OH).Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, A. A.: 1979, ‘A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance’,Academy of Management Review 4, 497–505.Google Scholar
  9. Firstenberg, P. and B. Malkiel: 1980, ‘Why Corporate Boards Need Independent Directors’,Management Review 69, 26–38.Google Scholar
  10. Ford, R. and F. McLaughlin: 1980, ‘Perceptions of Social Responsible Activities and Attitudes: A Comparison of Business School Deans and Corporate Chief Executives’,Academy of Management Journal 27, 658–676.Google Scholar
  11. Frederick, W.: 1983, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in the Reagan Era and Beyond’,California Management Review 25, 145–156.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, R. E.: 1984,Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pittman, Boston, MA).Google Scholar
  13. Galen, M.: 1992, ‘Guilty! Too Many Lawyers and Too Much Litigation’,Business Week (Apr. 13), 60–65.Google Scholar
  14. Geneen, H.: 1984,Managing (Doubleday & Co., Inc., New York, NY).Google Scholar
  15. Geneen, H.: 1984, ‘Why Directors Can't Protect the Shareholders’,Fortune (Sept. 17), 28.Google Scholar
  16. Hambrick, D. and P. Mason: 1984, ‘Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of its Top Managers’,Academy of Management Review 9, 193–206.Google Scholar
  17. Holmes, S.: 1976, ‘Executive Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility’,Business Horizons 19, 34–40.Google Scholar
  18. Ibrahim, N. and J. Angelidis: 1991, ‘Effects of Board Members' Gender on Level of Involvement in Strategic Management and Corporate Social Responsiveness Orientation’,Proceedings of the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute, 208–210.Google Scholar
  19. Janjigian, V. and P. Bolster: 1990, ‘The Elimination of Director Liability and Stakeholder Returns: An Empirical Investigation’,Journal of Financial Research 13, 53–60.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, T. and L. Goldberg: 1982, ‘Governing the Large Corporation: More Arguments for Public Directors’,Academy of Management Review 7, 603–611.Google Scholar
  21. Kelley, L. and A. Whatley: 1987, ‘Assessing the Effects of Culture on Managerial Attitudes: A Three-Culture Test’,Journal of International Business Studies, 17–31.Google Scholar
  22. Kesner, I. F. and R. Johnson: 1990, ‘An Investigation of the Relationship Between Board Composition and Stockholder Suits’,Strategic Management Journal 11, 327–336.Google Scholar
  23. Kesner, I. F.: 1988, ‘Directors' Characteristics and Committee Membership: An Investigation of Type, Occupation, Tenure, and Gender’,Academy of Management Journal 13, 66–84.Google Scholar
  24. Kesner, I. F., B. Victor and B. 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
  25. McGuire, J., A. Sundgreen and T. Schneeweis: 1988, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance’,Academy of Management Journal 31, 854–872.Google Scholar
  26. McMahon, T.: 1986, ‘Models of Relationship of the Firm to Society’,Journal of Business Ethics, 181–191.Google Scholar
  27. Nader, R.: 1984, ‘Reforming Corporate Governance’,California Management Review 26, 126–132.Google Scholar
  28. National Association of Corporate Directors: 1982,Proxy Disclosures and Stockholders' Attitudes Survey (National Association of Corporate Directors, Washington, D.C.).Google Scholar
  29. O'Neill, H., C. Saunders and A. McCarthy: 1989, ‘Board Members' Background Characteristics and Their Level of Corporate Social Responsiveness: A Multivariate Investigation’,Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 32–36.Google Scholar
  30. Rechner, P. and D. Dalton: 1991, ‘Board Composition and Shareholders' Wealth: An Empirical Assessment’,Strategic Management Journal, 12.Google Scholar
  31. Samuelson, Samuelson, S.: 1990, ‘The Changing Relationship Between Managers and Lawyers’,Business Horizons (Sept.–Oct.), 21–27.Google Scholar
  32. Securities and Exchange Commission: 1980,Staff Report on Corporate Accountability (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
  33. Sherman, S.: 1987, ‘The Gambler Who Refused $2 Billion’,Fortune (May 11), 50.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, W. and R. Blackburn: 1988, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Psychometric Examination of A management Instrument’,Proceedings of the Southern Management Association, 293–295.Google Scholar
  35. Sonnenfeld, J.: 1981, ‘Executive Apologies for Price Fixing: Role Biased Perceptions of Causality’,Academy of Management Journal, 192–198.Google Scholar
  36. Steiner, G. and J. Miner: 1986,Management Policy and Strategy (Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, NY).Google Scholar
  37. The Center for Business Ethics: 1986, ‘Are Corporations Institutionalizing Ethics?’,Journal of Business Ethics (Apr.), 85–91.Google Scholar
  38. Ullman, A.: 1985, ‘Data in Search of a Theory: A critical Examination of the Relationship Among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance’,Academy of Management Review, 540–577.Google Scholar
  39. Vance, S.: 1983,Corporate Leadership: Boards, Directors, and Strategy (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY).Google Scholar
  40. Vance, S.: 1975, ‘Are Socially Responsible Corporations Good Investment Risks?’,Management Review, 19–24.Google Scholar
  41. Whitehill, A.: 1989, ‘American Executives Through Foreign Eyes’,Business Horizons (May–June), 42–48.Google Scholar
  42. Williams, H. and I. Shapiro: 1978,Power and Accountability: The Changing Role of the Corporate Board of Directors (Carnegie-Mellon University Press, New York, NY).Google Scholar
  43. Zahra, S. and W. Stanton: 1988, ‘The Implications of Board of Directors' Composition for Corporate Strategy and Performance’,International Journal of Management 5, 261–272.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nabil A. Ibrahim
    • 1
  • John P. Angelidis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ManagementAugusta CollegeAugustaU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of ManagementSt. John's UniversityJamaicaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations