Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link?

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 33, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 885-913

  Walls, Judith L ^a   Berrone, Pascual ^b   Phan, Phillip H ^c  

^a Canada   (Canada)

^b IESE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Spain)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

corporate governance; environmental performance; fact based research; KLD database; multilevel analysis

Indexed keywords

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS; CORPORATE GOVERNANCE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE; MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS; RESEARCH APPROACH;

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; INDUSTRY; RESEARCH;

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84862862025     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.1952     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Aguilera RV, Filatotchev I, Gospel H, Jackson G,. 2008. An organizational approach to comparative governance: costs, contingencies and complementarities. Organization Science 19: 475-493.
2. Aguilera RV, Williams CA, Conley JM, Rupp DE,. 2006. Corporate governance and social responsibility: a comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance 14 (3): 147-158.
3. Aiken LS, West SG,. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.
4. Bansal P, Clelland I,. 2004. Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal 47 (1): 93-103.
5. Bansal P, Gao J,. 2008. Dual mechanisms of business sustainability: unique effects and simultaneous effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
6. 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: 207-221.
7. Bebchuk LA, Fried JM,. 2005. Pay without performance: overview of the issues. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 17 (4): 8-23.
8. Berman SL, Wicks AC, Kotha S, Jones TM,. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42: 488-508.
9. Berrone P, Cruz C, Gomez-Mejia LR, Larraza-Kintana M,. 2010. Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly 55: 82-113.
10. Berrone P, Gomez-Mejia LR,. 2008. Beyond financial performance: is there something missing in executive compensation schemes? In Global Compensation: Foundations and Perspectives., Gomez-Mejia L, Werner S, (eds). Routledge: New York; 206-217.
11. Berrone P, Gomez-Mejia LR,. 2009a. Environmental performance and executive compensation: an integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal 52 (1): 103-126.
12. Berrone P, Gomez-Mejia LR,. 2009b. The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top. Human Resource Management 48 (6): 957-969.
13. Blesener S, Cruz-Osorio J, Gardiner L, Germanova R,. 2009. Stakeholder engagement and the board: integrating best governance practices. Global Corporate Governance Forum: Washington, DC.
14. Brown WO, Helland E, Smith JK,. 2006. Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance 12 (5): 855-877.
15. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK,. 1998. Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press: New York.
16. Chatterji AK, Levine DI, Toffel MW,. 2009. How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 18 (1): 125-169.
17. Coffey BS, Fryxell GE,. 1991. Institutional ownership of stock and dimensions of corporate social performance: an empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (6): 437-444.
18. Coffey BS, Wang J,. 1998. Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (14): 1595-1603.
19. Coombs JE, Gilley KM,. 2005. Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 26 (9): 827-840.
20. Daft RL, Lewin AY,. 1990. Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay. Organization Science 1 (1): 1-9.
21. Daily CM, Dalton DR,. 1994. Bankruptcy and corporate governance: the impact of board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal 37 (6): 1603-1617.
22. Daily CM, Dalton DR, Rajagopalan N,. 2003. Governance through ownership: centuries of practice, decades of research. Academy of Management Journal 46 (2): 151-158.
23. Dalton DR, Daily CM, Certo ST, Roengpitya R,. 2003. Meta-analyzes of financial performance and equity: fusion or confusion? Academy of Management Journal 46 (1): 13-26.
24. Dalton DR, Daily CM, Ellstrand AE, Johnson JL,. 1998. Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 19 (3): 269-290.
25. Dalton DR, Hitt MA, Certo ST, Dalton CM,. 2007. The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation. Academy of Management Annals 1 (1): 1-64.
26. David P, Bloom M, Hillman AJ,. 2007. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal 28 (1): 91-100.
27. Deckop JR, Merriman KK, Gupta S,. 2006. The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. Journal of Management 32 (3): 329-342.
28. Demsetz H, Lehn K,. 1985. The structure of ownership: causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy 93 (6): 1155-1177.
29. Dodd EM Jr,. 1932. For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review 45 (7): 1145-1163.
30. Escudero M, Power G, Waddock SA, Beamish P, Cruse S,. 2010. Moving Upwards: The Involvement of Boards of Directors in the UN Global Compact. United Nations Global Compact Office: New York.
31. Freeman RE,. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pittman: Boston, MA.
32. Gaspar JM, Massa M, Matos P,. 2005. Shareholder investment horizons and the market for corporate control. Journal of Financial Economics 76: 135-165.
33. Graves SB, Waddock SA,. 1994. Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal 37 (4): 1034-1046.
34. Greening DW, Gray B,. 1994. Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal 37 (3): 467-498.
35. Hambrick DC,. 2007. The field of management's devotion to theory: too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal 50 (6): 1346-1352.
36. Hambrick DC, Werder A, Zajac EJ,. 2008. New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science 19: 381-385.
37. Hart SL,. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review 20 (4): 986-1014.
38. Hart SL, Ahuja G,. 1996. Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between pollution prevention and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 5 (1): 30-37.
39. Helfat CE,. 2007. Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization 5 (2): 185-192.
40. Hill CWL, Jones TM,. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies 29 (2): 131-154.
41. Hillman AJ, Keim GD, Luce RA,. 2001. Board composition and stakeholder performance: do stakeholder directors make a difference? Business & Society 40 (3): 295-314.
42. Hoetker G,. 2007. The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: critical issues. Strategic Management Journal 28 (4): 331-343.
43. Huang C, Shields TG,. 2000. Interpretation of interaction effects in logit and probit analyses: reconsidering the relationship between registration laws, education, and voter turnout. American Politics Research 28 (1): 80-95.
44. Ibrahim NA, Howard DP, Angelidis JP,. 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.
45. Johnson RA, Greening DW,. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 564-576.
46. Kassinis G, Vafeas N,. 2002. Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal 23 (5): 399-415.
47. Kell G, Lacy P,. 2010. Sustainability a priority for CEOs. Business Week 25 June. (1 October 2010).
48. King A, Lenox M,. 2002. Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science 48: 289-299.
49. Lan LL, Heracleous L,. 2010. Rethinking agency theory: the view from law. Academy of Management Review 35 (2): 294-314.
50. Lubatkin M,. 2007. One more time: what is a realistic theory of corporate governance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28: 59-67.
51. Lublin JS,. 2008. Environmentalism sprouts up on corporate boards. Wall Street Journal 11 August. (1 October 2010).
52. Luoma P, Goodstein J,. 1999. Stakeholders and corporate boards: institutional influences on board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5): 553-563.
53. Mackenzie C, Hodgson S,. 2005. Rewarding Virtue: Effective Board Action on Corporate Responsibility. Insight Investment, Business in the Community and the FTSE Group: London, UK.
54. Mahoney LS, Thorne L,. 2005. Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation: evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics 57: 241-253.
55. Marcus A, Geffen D,. 1998. The dialectics of competency acquisition: pollution prevention in electric generation. Strategic Management Journal 19 (12): 1145-1168.
56. Margolis JD, Walsh JP,. 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 265-305.
57. Mattingly JE, Berman SL,. 2006. Measurement of corporate social action. Business & Society 45 (1): 20-46.
58. McGuire J, Dow S, Argheyd K,. 2003. CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics 45: 341-359.
59. McKendall M, Sánchez 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.
60. McNulty S,. 2010. Investors increasingly concerned about climate change. Financial Times Energy Source 4 March.
61. McWilliams A, Siegel D,. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification. Strategic Management Journal 21 (5): 603-609.
62. Miller D,. 2007. Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research. Strategic Organization 5 (2): 177-184.
63. Minichilli A, Zattoni A, Nielsen S, Huse M,. 2011. Board task performance: an exploration of micro- and macro-level determinants of board effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi: 10.1002/job.743.
64. Neubaum DO, Zahra SA,. 2006. Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: the moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management 32 (1): 108-131.
65. O'Connor JP Jr, Priem RL, Coombs JE, Gilley KM,. 2006. Do CEO stock options prevent or promote fraudulent financial reporting? Academy of Management Journal 49 (3): 483-500.
66. Oxley JE, Rivkin JW, Ryall MD,. 2010. The strategy research initiative: recognizing and encouraging high-quality research in strategy. Strategic Organization 8 (4): 377-386.
67. Parmar BL, Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Purnell L, de Colle S,. 2010. Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Academy of Management Annals 4 (1): 403-445.
68. Roome N,. 1992. Developing environmental management strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment 1 (1): 11-24.
69. Schnatterly K,. 2003. Increasing firm value through detection and prevention of white-collar crime. Strategic Management Journal 24 (7): 587-614.
70. Shapiro SP,. 2005. Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology 31: 263-284.
71. Stanwick PA, Stanwick SD,. 1998. The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance and environmental performance: an empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (2): 195-204.
72. Stanwick PA, Stanwick SD,. 2001. CEO compensation: does it pay to be green? Business, Strategy and the Environment 10 (3): 176-182.
73. Strike VM, Gao J, Bansal P,. 2006. Being good while being bad: social responsibility and the international diversification of U.S. firms. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (6): 850-862.
74. Tonello M,. 2010. Sustainability in the boardroom. Director's Notes: The Role of the Board in Sustainability Oversight. The Conference Board: New York.
75. Torchia M, Calabrà A, Huse M,. 2011. Women directors on corporate boards: from tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics 102 (2): 299-317.
76. Tosi HL, Werner S, Katz J, Gomez-Mejia LR,. 2000. How much does performance matter? A meta-analysis of CEO pay studies. Journal of Management 26 (2): 301-339.
77. Waddock SA, Graves SB,. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal 18 (4): 303-319.
78. Walls JL, Phan PH, Berrone P,. 2011. Measuring environmental strategy: construct development, reliability and validity. Business & Society 50 (1): 71-115.
79. Walsh JP,. 2005. Taking stock of shareholder management. Academy of Management Review 30 (2): 426-438.
80. Wang J, Dewhirst HD,. 1992. Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics 11: 115-123.
81. Webb E,. 2004. An examination of socially responsible board structure. Journal of Management and Governance 8 (3): 255-277.
82. Westphal JD, Gulati R, Shortell SM,. 1997. Customization or conformity: an institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 366-394.
83. White AL,. 2006. The Stakeholder Fiduciary: CSR, Governance and the Future of Boards. Business for Social Responsibility: San Francisco: CA.
84. Williams A,. 2010. The case for greening executive bonus packages. Business Green 18 May. (1 October 2010).
85. Zhang X, Bartol KM, Smith KG, Pfarrer MD, Khanin DM,. 2008. CEOs on the edge: earnings manipulation and stock-based incentive misalignment. Academy of Management Journal 51 (2): 241-258.