Skip to main content
Log in

Board composition and corporate philanthropy

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using agency theory, this study empirically examined the relationship between board composition and corporate philanthropy. Generally, the ratio of insiders to outsiders, the percentage of insider stock ownership, and the proportion of female and minority board members were found to be positively and significantly associated with firms' charitable contributions.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, G. and R. Bucholtz: 1978, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance’,Academy of Management Journal 21, 479–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arlow, P. and M. Gannon: 1982, ‘Social Responsiveness, Corporate Structure, and Economic Performance’,Academy of Management Review 7, 235–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, L. and J. Galaskiewicz: 1988, ‘Stock Ownership and Company Contributions to Charity’,Administrative Science Quarterly 33, 82–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, J. and J. F. Brown: 1973,Corporate Directorship Prices: Role, Selection, and Legal Status of the Board (New York: The Conference Board, Inc.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B. D. and H. D. Butler: 1985, ‘Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors: Performance Effects of Changes in Board Composition’,Journal of Law Economics and Organizations 1, 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B. D. and R. E. Hoskisson: 1990, ‘The Composition of Boards of Directors and Srategic Control: Effects on Corporate Strategy’,Academy of Management Review 15, 72–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaganti, R. S., V. Mahajan and S. Sharma: 1985, ‘Corporate Board Size, Composition, and Corporate Failures in Retailing Industry’,Journal of Management Studies 22, 400–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, P. L., R. A. Wood and T. B. Jones: 1985, ‘The Composition of Boards of Directors and Incidence of Golden Parachutes’,Academy of Management Journal 28, 664–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, B. and A. Shapiro: 1987, ‘Corporate Stakeholder and Corporate Finance’,Financial Management 16, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. E.: 1973,Management: Tasks, Responsibility, Practices (New York, Harper & Row Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M.: 1989, ‘Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review’,Academy of Management Review 14, 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgart, L. D.: 1983, ‘Women on Fortune 500 boards’,California Management Review 24, 121–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F.: 1980, ‘Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm’,Journal of Political Economy 88, 288–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F. and M. C. Jensen: 1983a, ‘Agency Problems and Residual Claims’,Journal of Law and Economics 26, 327–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F. and M. C. Jensen: 1983b, ‘Separation of Ownership and Control’,Journal of Law and Economics 26, 301–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E.: 1984,Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Boston: Ballinger).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R.: 1981, ‘Numbers and Positions of Women Elected to Corporate Boards’,Academy of Management Journal 24, 619–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C.: 1986, ‘Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance and Takeovers’,American Economic Review 76, 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. and W. H. Meckling: 1976, ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure’,Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. W.: 1990, ‘An Insider's Call for Outside Direction’,Harvard Business Review 68(2), 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesner, I. F.: 1988, ‘Directors' Characteristics and Committee Membership: An Investigation of Type, Occupation, Tenure, and Gender’,Academy of Management Journal 31, 66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesner, I. F., B. Victor and B. T. 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 

  • Kosnik, R. D.: 1987, ‘Greenmail: A Study of Board Performance in Corporate Governance’,Administrative Science Quarterly 32, 163–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, R. A., D. F. Larcker and T. Lys: 1985, ‘Takeover resistance, managerial incentives, and shareholder wealth’ (unpublished manuscript, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania).

  • Lorsch, J. W. and E. MacIver: 1990,Pawns or potentates: The reality of America's corporate boards (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, M. L.: 1972, ‘The President and the Board of Directors’,Harvard Business Review 50(12), 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance’,Academy of Management Journal 31, 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, T.: 1989, ‘Let Directors be Directors’,Wall Street Journal, December 11, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neter, J., W. Wasserman and M. H. Kutner: 1985,Applied Linear Statistical Models (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parket, R. and H. Eibert: 1975, ‘Social Responsibility: The Underlying Factors,Business Horizons 18, 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J.: 1972, ‘Size and Composition of Corporate Boards of Directors: The Organization and its Environment,Administrative Science Quarterly 17, 218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, F. N.: 1980, ‘“Invisible’ Resource: Women for Boards’,Harvard Business Review 58, 6–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H. and F. Harianto: 1989, ‘Management-board Relationships, Takeover Risk, and the Adoption of Golden Parachutes’,Academy of Management Journal 32, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stultz, J. E.: 1979, ‘Madam Director’,Directors and Boards 3(4), 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann, A.: 1985, ‘Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance’,Academy of Management Review 10, 540–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance, S. C.: 1964,Boards of directors: Structure and Performance (Eugene, Or: University of Oregon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance, S. C.: 1983,Corporate Leadership: Boards, Directors, and Strategy (New York: McGraw-Hill).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, H. M. and I. S. Shapiro: 1979,Power and Accountability: The Changing Role of the Corporate Boards of Directors (New York: Carnegie-Mellon University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. and J. A. Pearce II: 1989, ‘Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance: A Review and Integration Model’,Journal of Management 15, 291–334.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Jia Wang received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He is an associate professor of management at California State University at Fresno. His current research interests include corporate governance and corporate social performance.

Betty S. Coffey is an assistant professor of management at Appalachian State University. Her research interests are in the area of corporate social performance and functional level strategic management.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, J., Coffey, B.S. Board composition and corporate philanthropy. J Bus Ethics 11, 771–778 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872309

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872309

Keywords

Navigation