Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 154, Issue 4, pp 1161–1186 | Cite as

The Heterogeneity of Board-Level Sustainability Committees and Corporate Social Performance

  • Jenna J. BurkeEmail author
  • Rani Hoitash
  • Udi Hoitash
Original Paper


This paper explores an increasingly prevalent element of board-level commitment to sustainability. We propose a theoretical framework under which the existence and associated actions of board-level sustainability committees are motivated by shared value creation, where the interests of a diverse group of stakeholders are satisfied and sufficient profit is achieved. Using hand-collected data, we find that sustainability committees are heterogeneous in focus and vary in their effectiveness. Specifically, we disaggregate the sustainability committee construct based on stakeholder group focus (i.e., community, employee, environment, and consumer/supplier) and find that associations between sustainability committees and performance outcomes are stronger when committees focused on a specific stakeholder group are paired with relevant performance outcomes. We generally find that sustainability committees are effective at impacting relevant strengths, but do not mitigate relevant concerns. These results are consistent with the shared value framework, where committees both generate value by pursuing sustainability-related opportunities and protect value by monitoring, but not necessarily mitigating sustainability-related risks. Univariate tests suggest that effective committees are also larger, more independent, and meet more frequently. Finally, we propose a new method to classify industries based on their sensitivity to certain stakeholder groups and find that the effectiveness of committees focused on specific stakeholders is more pronounced in industries that are sensitive to these stakeholders.


Sustainability governance Environmental committee Corporate social performance Voluntary accountability Shared value creation Sustainability risk management 



Corporate social performance




Ordinary least squares


Return on assets


Standard industrial classification



We thank seminar participants at Bentley University for their insightful comments. Jenna Burke is also grateful for financial support from the Harold S. Geneen Institute of Corporate Governance at Bentley University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Jenna J. Burke, Rani Hoitash and Udi Hoitash declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate social performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 507–525.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Tuwaijiri, S. A., Christensen, T. E., & Hughes, K. E., II. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 447–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ameer, R., & Othman, A. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J., & Smith, G. (2006). A great company can be a great investment. Financial Analysts Journal, 62, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter, R., Bedard, J. C., Hoitash, R., & Yezegel, A. (2013). Enterprise risk management program quality: Determinants, value relevance, and the financial crisis. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30, 1264–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beasley, M. S. (1996). An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. The Accounting Review, 71, 443–465.Google Scholar
  7. Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Lapides, P. D. (2000). Fraudulent financial reporting: Consideration of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting Horizons, 14, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beasley, M. S., Clune, R., & Hermanson, D. R. (2005). Enterprise risk management: An empirical analysis of factors associated with the extent of implementation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y., & Young, G. J. (1998). Board characteristics, managerial controls and corporate strategy: A study of US hospitals. Journal of Management, 24, 3–19.Google Scholar
  10. Berliner, D., & Prakash, A. (2014). “Bluewashing” the firm?: Voluntary regulations, program design and member compliance with the United Nations Global Compact. Policy Studies Journal, 43, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488–506.Google Scholar
  12. Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bettis, R. A., Ethirag, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2016). Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management: A call for a broad and deep conversation among authors, referees, and editors. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bouslah, K., Kryzanowski, L., & M’Zali, B. (2013). The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37, 1258–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18, 125–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cho, C. H., Patten, D. M., & Roberts, R. W. (2006). Corporate political strategy: An examination of the relation between political expenditures, environmental performance, and environmental disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2004). COSO report: Internal control—An integrated framework. New York: AICPA.Google Scholar
  21. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2013). COSO report: Demystifying sustainability risk. Accessed July 30, 2016.
  22. Conyon, M., & Peck, S. I. (1998). Board control, remuneration committees, and top management compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 146–157.Google Scholar
  23. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & van Studen, C. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37, 1636–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dubnick, N. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance. Public Performance and Management Review, 28, 376–417.Google Scholar
  27. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60, 1526–5501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ertimur, Y., Ferri, F., & Maber, D. A. (2012). Reputation penalties for poor monitoring of executive pay: Evidence from option backdating. Journal of Financial Economics, 104, 118–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Filbeck, G., Gorman, R., & Preece, D. (1997). Fortune’s best 100 companies to work for in America: Do they work for shareholders? Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 30, 771–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flammer, C. (2015). Does product market competition foster corporate social responsibility? Evidence from trade liberalization. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1469–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Freelon, D. G. (2010). ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a web service. International Journal of Internet Science, 5, 20–33.Google Scholar
  32. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Stamford, CT: Issue Action Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Gal-Or, R., Hoitash, R., & Hoitash, U. (2016). The efficacy of shareholder voting in staggered and non-staggered boards: The case of audit committees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 35, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gilson, S. C. (1990). Bankruptcy, boards, banks, and bondholders: Evidence on changes in corporate ownership and control when firms default. Journal of Financial Economics, 27, 355–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grewel, J., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Shareholder activism and sustainability issues. Working paper, Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  37. Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36, 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jayachandran, S., Kalaignanam, K., & Eilert, M. (2013). Product and environmental social performance: Varying effect on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1255–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kabongo, J. D., Chang, K., & Li, Y. (2013). The impact of operational diversity on corporate philanthropy: An empirical study of U.S. companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kleffner, A. E., Lee, R. B., & McGannon, B. (2003). The effect of corporate governance on the use of enterprise risk management: Evidence from Canada. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 6, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Klein, A. (1998). Firm performance and board committee structure. Journal of Law and Economics, 41, 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koh, P., Qian, C., & Wang, H. (2014). Firm litigation risk and the insurance value of corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1464–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Laine, M. (2010). Towards sustaining the status quo: Business talk of sustainability in Finnish corporate disclosures 1987–2005. European Accounting Review, 19, 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Locke, E. A., Chah, D., Harrison, S., & Lustgarten, N. (1989). Separating the effects of goal specificity from goal level. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 43, 270–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  49. Lopez, V. M., Garcia, A., & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lorsch, J. W. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  51. Luoma, P., & Goodstein, J. (1999). Stakeholders and corporate boards: Institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 553–563.Google Scholar
  52. Madsen, P. M., & Rodgers, Z. J. (2015). Looking good by doing good: The antecedents and consequences of stakeholder attention to corporate disaster relief. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 776–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mallin, C., Michelon, G., & Raggi, D. (2013). Monitoring intensity and stakeholders’ orientation: How does governance affect social and environmental disclosure? Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Manner, M. (2010). The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lyndenburg Domini ratings data. Business and Society, 45, 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or missepecificaiton. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peters, G. F., & Romi, A. M. (2014). Does the voluntary adoption of corporate governance mechanism improve environmental risk disclosures? Evidence from greenhouse gas emission accounting. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 637–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. January–February.Google Scholar
  60. Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Board of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 50, 189–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Cho, C. H. (2013). Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Russell, K., Gates, G., Keller, J., & Watkins, D. (2016). How Volkswagen got away with diesel deception. The New York Times (January 5).Google Scholar
  63. Ryan, T. A., & Smith, P. C. (1954). Principles of Industrial Psychology. New York: Ronald.Google Scholar
  64. Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59, 1045–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sharfman, M. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Singh, H., & Harianto, F. (1989). Top management tenure, corporate ownership structure and the magnitude of golden parachutes. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Srinivasan, S. (2005). Consequences of financial reporting failure for outside directors: Evidence from accounting restatements and audit committee members. Journal of Accounting Research, 43, 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (2007). Introduction to econometrics (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  69. Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the International diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 850–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Surowiecki, J. (2015). Can Chipotle recover from food poisoning? The New Yorker (December 10).Google Scholar
  71. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and the complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tetlock, P. E. (1991). An alternative metaphor in the study of judgment and choice: People as politicians. Theory and Pychology, I, 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. The Conference Board. (2010). Director Notes: The role of the board in sustainability oversight. Accessed January 13, 2016.
  74. The Corporate Library. (2010). Board oversight of environmental and social issues: An analysis of current North American practice. Accessed January 13, 2016.
  75. Uzun, H., Szewczyk, S. H., & Varma, R. (2004). Board composition and corporate fraud. Financial Analysts Journal, 60, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vafeas, N. (1999). Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 53, 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vlasic, B., & Chapman, M. M. (2016). Volkswagen starts down difficult road of winning back Americans. The New York Times (January 10).Google Scholar
  78. Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Walls, J. L., & Hoffman, A. J. (2013). Exceptional boards: Environmental experience and positive deviance from institutional norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Bentley UniversityWalthamUSA
  3. 3.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations