Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility
- 4k Downloads
This study examines the impact of board diversity on firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance. Using seven different measures of board diversity across 1,489 U.S. firms from 1999 to 2011, the study finds that board diversity is positively associated with CSR performance. Board diversity is associated with a greater number of areas in which CSR is strong and a fewer number of areas in which CSR is a concern. These findings support the stakeholder theory and are consistent with the view that board diversity enhances firms’ ability to satisfy the needs of their broader groups of stakeholders. We find that gender, tenure, and expertise diversities seem to be the driving factors of firms’ CSR activities. Furthermore, we find that board diversity significantly increases CSR performance by increasing CSR strengths and reducing CSR concerns for firms producing consumer-oriented products and firms operating in more competitive industries. Our results remain robust using different measures of CSR performance, different estimation methods, and different samples.
KeywordsDiversity Corporate social responsibility Board of Directors Stakeholders
JEL ClassificationsM14 G34 G39
We are grateful for the helpful comments and suggestions of two anonymous referees. Harjoto acknowledges Julian Virtue Professorship endowment and Rothschild awards for financial support and release time for this research. Lee acknowledges Julian Virtue Professorship endowment for financial support and release time for this research.
- Baron, D. P. (2009). Credence standards and social pressure. In Aseem Prakash & Matthew Potoski (Eds.), Voluntary programs: A club theory perspective (pp. 41–66). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.Google Scholar
- Davidson, R., & MacKinnon, J. G. (1993). Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Fisman, R., Heal, G., & Nair, V. (2005). A model of corporate philanthropy. Working Paper. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
- Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach (p. 46). Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
- Gillan, S., Hartzell, J., Koch, A., & Starks, L. (2010). Firms’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) choices, performance and managerial motivation. Working Paper. http://www.business.pitt.edu/faculty/papers/koch3.pdf. Accessed Nov 10 2010.
- Kotchen, M., & Moon, J. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility for irresponsibility. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 12. doi:10.3386/w17254.
- Larcker, D., & Tayan, B. (2013). Corporate governance matters: A closer look at organizational choices and their consequences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. (FT Press).Google Scholar
- McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
- Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategy, profit performance and entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 239–255.Google Scholar