Abstract
Although the composition of the board of directors has important implications for different aspects of firm performance, prior studies tend to focus on financial performance. The effects of board composition on corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance remain an under-researched area, particularly in the period following the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). This article specifically examines two important aspects of board composition (i.e., the presence of outside directors and the presence of women directors) and their relationship with CSR performance in the Post-SOX era. With data covering over 500 of the largest companies listed on the U.S. stock exchanges and spanning 64 different industries, we find empirical evidence showing that greater presence of outside and women directors is linked to better CSR performance within a firm’s industry. Treating CSR performance as the reflection of a firm’s moral legitimacy, our study suggests that deliberate structuring of corporate boards may be an effective approach to enhance a firm’s moral legitimacy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As an example of illustration, we first eliminated the least statistically significant control variable, Financial leverage (p = 0.96) in Model 1 (i.e., the full model), to arrive at an intermediate reduced model. Both AIC and SC statistics indicate that this reduced model is preferred (AICfull = 327.49 vs. AICreduced = 325.49; SCfull = 363.45 vs. SCreduced = 357.46). The likelihood ratio test also suggests that this reduced model is preferred because the exclusion of Financial leverage does not significantly worsen model goodness-of-fit (χ2 = 0.003, df = 1, p = 0.96). We continued the process as we selected the next variable to remove until model diagnostic criteria indicated otherwise.
Model 1 does not find a significant relationship between firm CSR performance and financial performance. This finding is documented in prior literature. McWilliams and Siegel (2000), with a specific focus on this issue, suggest that, after firm innovativeness is controlled for, the relationship between firm CSR performance and financial performance is “neutral” (i.e., statistically non-significant) (p. 603).
In addition to Models S1 and S2, we also conducted data analyses with CSR_KLD retained as a continuous variable. Results from these analyses (not reported for brevity) are not substantially different.
Pragmatic legitimacy is based on stakeholders’ calculation of self-interest. Cognitive legitimacy is based on taken-for-granted social assumptions. See more discussion in Suchman (1995).
The partitioning is done through using three variables to account for the four types of directors: the proportion of women outside directors, proportion of women inside directors, proportion of men outside directors, and proportion of men inside directors.
For instance, we found that among outside directors, women have greater effects on CSR performance than men. The difference (β = 2.96) is statistically significant at the 10 % level.
Abbreviations
- CSR:
-
Corporate social responsibility
- SOX:
-
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
References
Ayuso, S., & Argandona, A. (2009). Responsible corporate governance: Towards a stakeholder board of directors? Corporate Ownership & Control, 6(4), 9–19.
Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 207–221.
Beliveau, B., Cottrill, M., & O’Neill, H. M. (1994). Predicting corporate social responsiveness: A model drawn from three perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(9), 731–738.
Bilimoria, D. (2006). The relationship between women corporate directors and women corporate officers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(1), 47–61.
Boeker, W., & Goodstein, J. (1991). Organizational performance and adaptation: Effects of environment and performance on changes in board composition. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 805–826.
Boutin-Dufresne, F., & Savaria, P. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and financial risk. Journal of Investing, 13(1), 57–66.
Campbell, J. L. (2006). Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility. American Behavior Scientist, 49(7), 925–938.
Carroll, A. B. (1994). Social issues in management research: Experts’ views, analysis, and commentary. Business & Society, 33(1), 5–29.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.
Catalyst. (2005). 2005 catalyst census of women board directors of the fortune 500. New York: Catalyst.
Certo, S. T., Covin, J. G., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2001). Wealth and the effects of founder management among IPO-stage new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 641–658.
Chiu, S. C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.
Cho, H. J., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555–575.
Coffey, B., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1595–1603.
Cooper, S., Crowther, D., Davies, M., & Davis, E. (2001). Shareholder or stakeholder value: The development of indicators for the control and measurement of performance. London: CIMA Publishing.
Cottrill, M. T. (1990). Corporate social responsibility and the marketplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(9), 723–729.
Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2010). Women and corporate boards of directors: The promise of increased, and substantive, participation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Business Horizons, 53(3), 257–268.
de Graaf, F. J., & Herkströter, C. A. J. (2007). How corporate social performance is institutionalized within the governance structure: The Dutch corporate governance model. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(2), 581–597.
Dobson, A. (2002). An introduction to generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.
Filatotchev, I., & Bishop, K. (2002). Board composition, share ownership, and ‘underpricing’ of U.K. IPO firms. Strategic Management Journal, 23(10), 941–955.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.
Fortune. (2008). America’s most admired companies. (March 17), 65–67.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.
Goldschmidt, N. P., & Finkelstein, J. H. (2001). Academics on board: University presidents as corporate directors. Academe, 87(5), 33–37.
Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107–156.
Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional investors and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1035–1046.
Griffin, J., & Mahon, J. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: 25 years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5–31.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Harrigan, K. R. (1981). Numbers and positions of women elected to corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 619–625.
Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 7–18.
Higgins, M. C., & Gulati, R. (2003). Getting off to a good start: The effects of upper echelon affiliations on underwriter prestige. Organization Science, 14(3), 244–263.
Higgins, M. C., & Gulati, R. (2006). Stacking the deck: The effects of top management backgrounds on investor decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 1–25.
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.
Houston, M. B., & Johnson, S. A. (2000). Buyer–supplier contracts versus joint ventures: Determinants and consequences of transaction structure. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 1–15.
Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (1994). Effect of board members’ gender on corporate social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(1), 35–41.
Ibrahim, N. A., & Angelidis, J. P. (1995). The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members: Are there differences between inside and outside directors? Journal of Business Ethics, 14(5), 405–410.
Ibrahim, N. A., Howard, D. P., & Angelidis, J. P. (2003). Board members in the service industry: An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility orientation and directorial type. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(4), 393–401.
Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.
Kesner, I. F. (1988). Directors’ characteristics and committee membership: An investigation of type, occupation, tenure, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 66–84.
Leonard, H. B., & Rangan, V. K. (2006). Corporate social responsibility strategy and boards of directors. Directors & Boards, 3(4), 12–14.
Linck, J. S., Netter, J. M., & Yang, T. (2009). The effects and unintended consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on the supply and demand for directors. Review of Financial Studies, 22(8), 3287–3328.
Liston-Heyes, C., & Ceton, G. (2007). An investigation of real versus perceived CSP in S&P-500 firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 283–296.
Logsdon, J. M., & Yuthas, K. (1997). Corporate social performance, stakeholder orientation, and organizational moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(12–13), 1213–1226.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.
Mahoney, L., & Thorn, L. (2006). An examination of the structure of executive compensation and corporate social responsibility: A Canadian investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 149–162.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business & Society, 45(1), 20–46.
McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341–359.
McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.
McKendall, M., Samchez, C., & Sicilian, P. (1999). Corporate governance and corporate illegality: The effects of board structure on environmental violations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7(3), 201–223.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. Supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 299–315.
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 136–148.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(2), 71–88.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, democracy, and the politicization of the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 773–775.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1974). Organizational decision making as a political process: The case of the university budget. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(2), 135–151.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50(1), 189–213.
Saiia, D. H. (2007). Stakeholder salience, issues management and mapping new ways to sustainability. In S. Sharma, M. Starik, & B. Husted (Eds.), Organizations and the sustainability mosaic: Crafting long-term ecological and societal solutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.
Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The determinants of corporate social performance: An empirical examination. American Business Review, 16(1), 86–93.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 320–337.
Vaaland, T. I., Heide, M., & Grønhaug, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Investigating theory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 927–953.
Valenti, A. (2007). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Has it brought about changes in the boards of large U.S. Corporations? Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 7–18.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.
Wang, J., & Coffey, B. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771–778.
Wang, J., & Dewhirst, H. D. (1992). Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2), 115–123.
Webb, E. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8(3), 255–277.
Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10.
Zhang, J. Q., Craciun, G. C., & Shin, D. S. (2010). When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews. Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1336–1341.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, J.Q., Zhu, H. & Ding, Hb. Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility: An Empirical Investigation in the Post Sarbanes-Oxley Era. J Bus Ethics 114, 381–392 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1352-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1352-0