Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Corporate Divestiture Activities Lead to Better Corporate Social Performance?

Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Prior research showed that corporate divestitures could help firms restore their strategic (versus financial) controls and long-term focus. This suggests that divestiture activities may have implications for firms’ commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR) following divestitures. Drawing from the attention-based view of the firm, we examine this underexplored yet important research question. We propose that firms’ divestiture scale is positively associated with their commitment to post-divestiture CSR. However, this relationship is weakened among firms facing pre-restructuring financial decline and selling more related businesses, but strengthened among divesting firms with a new CEO. Using a longitudinal dataset of U.S. firms, we found support for most of our hypotheses. These findings suggest that corporate divestitures may offer a meaningful path to stakeholder value creation through better CSR performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 4232(5), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, V. L., Patterson, P. W., & Mueller, G. C. (2001). Organizational causes and strategic consequences of the extent of top management team replacement during turnaround attempts. Journal of Management Studies, 38(2), 235–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1989). Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in multiproduct firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 310–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, D. D. (1995). Size and relatedness of units sold: An agency theory and resource–based perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 221–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, D. D., Johnson, R. A., & Dewitt, R. L. (2008). Restructuring through spin-off or sell-off: Transforming information asymmetries into financial gain. Strategic Management Journal, 29(2), 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, D. D., & Sharp, B. M. (2015). How far do owners reach into the divestiture process? Blockholders and the choice between spin–off and sell–off. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1155–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, Y., Godard, L., & Zouaoui, M. (2016). The effect of CEOs’ turnover on the corporate sustainability performance of French firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 1049–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinazzi, E. L., & Zollo, M. (2017). Stakeholder orientation and acquisition performance. Strategic Management Journal, 38(12), 2465–2485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 152–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouquet, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Weight versus voice: How foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of. Management Journal, 51(3), 577–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. (1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauer, M. (2006). What have we acquired and what should we acquire in divestiture research? A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 32(6), 751–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauer, M. F., & Wiersema, M. F. (2012). Industry divestiture waves: How a firm’s position influences investor returns. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1472–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunetta, F., & Peruffo, E. (2014). May parents inherit from heirs? Towards an understanding of the parent–spun–off relationship. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(6), 921–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., & Hambrick, D. C. (2012). CEO replacement in turnaround situations: Executive (mis) fit and its performance implications. Organization Science, 23(1), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Feldman, E. R. (2018). Activist–impelled divestitures and shareholder value. Strategic Management Journal, 39(10), 2726–2744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S. C. S., Johnson, R. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Pathak, S. (2016). The impact of CEO successor origin on corporate divestiture scale and scope change. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 617–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S. C. S., & Sharfman, M. (2016). Corporate social irresponsibility and executive succession: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(3), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S. C. S., & Walls, J. L. (2019). Leadership change and corporate social performance: The context of financial distress makes all the difference. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(5), 101–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., Han, S. H., Kim, H. J., & Kim, S. (2021). The valuation effects of corporate social responsibility on mergers and acquisitions: Evidence from US target firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 378–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., & Edwards, D., Jr. (2006). Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dranikoff, L., Koller, T., & Schneider, A. (2002). Divestiture: Strategy’s missing link. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, E. R., & McGrath, P. J. (2016). Divestitures. Journal of Organization Design, 5(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, K. A. (2000). Impact of a confounding variable on a regression coefficient. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(2), 147–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. D., & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate Strategy and the Search for Ethics. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. (2007). Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamache, D. L., & McNamara, G. (2019). Responding to bad press: How CEO temporal focus influences the sensitivity to negative media coverage of acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 918–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Corporate Divestment Study. (2018). How can divesting fuel your future growth? https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/tax/tax-pdfs/global-corporate-divestment-study-2018.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2021.

  • Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. (2004). The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. R. (1999). A bias toward short–term thinking in threat–related negative emotional states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty–five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Boivie, S., Sharp, N., & Gentry, R. (2018). Saving face: How exit in response to negative press and star analyst downgrades reflects reputation maintenance by directors. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1131–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Bosse, D. A. (2013). How much is too much? The limits to generous treatment of stakeholders. Business Horizons, 56(3), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Coombs, J. E. (2012). The moderating effects from corporate governance characteristics on the relationship between available slack and community-based firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Fiet, J. O. (1999). New CEOs pursue their own self-interests by sacrificing stakeholder value. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(3), 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2021). Harmful stakeholder strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(3), 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, T. A., & Sharfman, M. (2015). Assessing the concurrent validity of the revised Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini corporate social performance indicators. Business & Society, 54(5), 575–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6), 1251–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, M. L., & Shimizu, K. (2006). De-commitment to losing strategic action: Evidence from the divestiture of poorly performing acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 27(6), 541–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1996). The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1084–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross–sectional dependence. Stata Journal, 7(3), 281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., & Hill, C. W. (1991). Managerial risk taking in diversified firms: An evolutionary perspective. Organization Science, 2(3), 296–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. O., & Johnson, R. A. (1992). Corporate restructuring and strategic change: The effect on diversification strategy and r&d intensity. Strategic Management Journal, 13(8), 625–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, T. D., Christensen, D. M., & Graffin, S. D. (2017). Higher highs and lower lows: The role of corporate social responsibility in CEO dismissal. Strategic Management Journal, 38(11), 2255–2265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2015). The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1053–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayachandran, S., Kalaignanam, K., & Eilert, M. (2013). Product and environmental social performance: Varying effect on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34(10), 1255–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, J. (2013). The relationship between corporate diversification and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 94–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., & Henderson, R. (2005). Inertia and incentives: Bridging organizational economics and organizational theory. Organization Science, 16(5), 509–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. H., & Roh, T. (2014). Shackles of the past: Why firms divest too late and when they can free themselves. Academy of Management Proceedings, 24(1), 1292–1297.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 395–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. R., Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., & Covin, J. G. (2004). Meta-analyses of post-acquisition performance: Indications of unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal, 25(2), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. D., & Madhavan, R. (2010). Divestiture and firm performance: A meta–analysis. Journal of Management, 36(6), 1345–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Roh, T. (2020). Proactive divestiture and business innovation: R&D input and output performance. Sustainability, 12(9), 3874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M., & Chatterjee, S. (1994). Extending modern portfolio theory into the domain of corporate diversification: Does it apply? Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 109–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makni, R., Francoeur, C., & Bellavance, F. (2009). Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. C. (1992). Consequences of corporate refocusing: Ex ante evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 398–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. E., Kelley, K., & Rausch, J. R. (2008). Sample size planning for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource–based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1480–1495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J. (2006). Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 601–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (2001). Learning across the life cycle: Experimentation and performance among the Hollywood studio heads. Strategic Management Journal, 22(8), 725–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.P. Morgan. (2019). 2019 Global M&A outlook: Unlocking value in a dynamic market. https://www.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm/cib/complex/content/research/2019-ma-global-year-outlook/pdf-0.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2021.

  • Nadkarni, S., & Barr, P. S. (2008). Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1395–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention–based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22(5), 1286–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W., & Joseph, J. (2005). An attention–based theory of strategy formulation: Linking micro–and macro perspectives in strategy processes. Advances in Strategic Management, 22(18), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta–analytic review. Business & Society, 40(4), 369–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta–analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pathak, S., Hoskisson, R. E., & Johnson, R. A. (2014). Settling up in CEO compensation: The impact of divestiture intensity and contextual factors in refocusing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1124–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. A., & Robbins, K. (1993). Toward improved theory and research on business turnaround. Journal of Management, 19(3), 613–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2015). Achieving effective divestiture across the enterprise. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/deals/publications/assets/divestiture–management–office.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2021.

  • Rao, K., & Tilt, C. (2016). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rast, P., & Hofer, S. M. (2014). Longitudinal design considerations to optimize power to detect variances and covariances among rates of change: Simulation results based on actual longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rau, P. R., & Vermaelen, T. (1998). Glamour, value and the post–acquisition performance of acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 49(2), 223–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharfstein, D. S., & Stein, J. C. (2000). The dark side of internal capital markets: Divisional rent–seeking and inefficient investment. Journal of Finance, 55(6), 2537–2564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selig, J. P. , & Preacher, K. J. (2008,). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. http://www.quantpsy.org. Accessed 25 February 2021.

  • Shen, W., & Cannella, A. A. (2002). Revisiting the performance consequences of CEO succession: The impacts of successor type, post succession senior executive turnover, and departing CEO tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 717–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu, K. (2007). Prospect theory, behavioral theory, and the threat–rigidity thesis: Combinative effects on organizational decision to divest formerly acquired units. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1495–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout, L. A. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations, and the public. Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(6), 850–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S., & Graves, S. B. (2006). The impact of mergers and acquisitions on corporate stakeholder practices. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33(8), 885–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickert, C., Scherer, A. G., & Spence, L. J. (2016). Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational cost. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1169–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1207–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 60–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., Zhou, K. Z., & Du, F. (2019). Deviant versus aspirational risk taking: The effects of performance feedback on bribery expenditure and R&D intensity. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1226–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y. (2008). Information asymmetry and the dismissal of newly appointed CEOs: An empirical investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(8), 859–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., & Murrell, A. J. (2016). Revisiting the corporate social performance–financial performance link: A replication of Waddock and graves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2378–2388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no financial interest to report. We certify that the submission is original work and is not under review at any other publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management & Leadership, C.T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, Houston, USA

    Shih-chi (Sana) Chiu & Azadeh Sabz

Authors
  1. Shih-chi (Sana) Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Azadeh Sabz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shih-chi (Sana) Chiu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 2SRI First Stage Models Predicting Divestiture Scale and New CEO
Full size table
Table 5 Arellano–Bond Dynamic Panel Regressions Results Predicting Post-divestiture CSR Performance
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiu, Sc.(., Sabz, A. Can Corporate Divestiture Activities Lead to Better Corporate Social Performance?. J Bus Ethics 179, 849–866 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04869-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04869-2

Keywords

search

Navigation