SpringerLink
Log in

When do Board and Management Resources Complement Each Other? A Study of Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility

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

Abstract

Following resource-based and complementary asset perspectives, this paper examines the effects of board and management resources on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a sample of large Australian public firms. Specifically, this study posits that outside directors and women on boards are complementary in that their multiplicative effect incrementally influences CSR above their individual, independent effects. The hypothesis is confirmed. Further, the study tests the interactive effect of a senior CSR manager, determining the independent and complementary effects of managerial resources upon board resources. The results suggest that a senior CSR manager has both an independent and complementary effect, offering support for the hypotheses. The findings offer some confirmation of resource-based theory, demonstrating that board resources can be complementary within the boardroom context and complementary to management in positively affecting firm outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that numerous studies do examine the CEO–board relationship. While CEOs represent management interests, such studies generally consider the interactions and effects at the board level only.

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, 42, 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, 836–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahrens, T., Filatotchev, I., & Thomsen, S. (2011). The research frontier in corporate governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 15, 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ameer, R., & Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. L., & Hong, Y. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: Exploring the impact of industry. Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy, 13, 325–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 42, 1231–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1990). The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, 15, 72–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagat, S., Bolton, B., & Romano, R. (2008). The promise and peril of corporate governance indices. Columbia Law Review, 108, 1803–1882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilimoria, D., & Wheeler, J. (2000). Women corporate directors: Current research and future directions. In M. Davidson & R. Burke (Eds.), Women in management: Current issues (Vol. II, pp. 138–163). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brealey, R. A., & Myers, S. C. (1996). Principles of corporate finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. A. H., & Brown, D. L. (2001). Canadian directorship practices 2001. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarty, S., & Wang, L. (2012). The long-term sustenance of sustainability practices in MNCs: A dynamic capabilities perspective of the role of R&D and internationalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumptions of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & van Staden, C. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37, 1636–1663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte., (2011). The sustainable board. London: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56, 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and the sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 327–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finegold, D., Benson, G. S., & Hecht, D. (2007). Corporate boards and company performance: Review of research in light of recent reforms. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 865–878.

    Article  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, 489–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J. (1998). The resource-based perspective: An assessment and diagnosis of problems. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14, 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2005). Which resources matter to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation, 25, 979–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2009). Addressing sustainability: A strategy development framework. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 1, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2010). How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia. European Business Review, 22 (Special Issue), 411–431.

  • Galbreath, J. (2011a). To what extent is business responding to climate change? Evidence from a global wine producer. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2011b). Are there gender-related influences on corporate sustainability? A study of women on boards of directors. Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2012). Are boards on board? A model of corporate board influence on sustainability performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 18, 445–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J., & Galvin, P. (2008). Firm factors, industry structure and performance variation: New empirical evidence to a classic debate. Journal of Business Research, 61, 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J., Singh, I., & Van der Zahn, J.-L.W. (2008). The link between corporate governance and sustainability: Evidence from the oil and gas industry. Curtin Graduate School of Business Working Paper Series 72, Perth, WA.

  • Graafland, J. J., Eijffinger, S. C. W., & Smid, H. (2004). Benchmarking of corporate social responsibility: Methodological problems and robustness. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. (1988). Strategy, organizational culture and symbolism. Long Range Planning, 21, 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinske, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haniffa, R. M., & Cooke, T. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 391–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1145–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, K. P., Kiel, G. C., & Nicholson, G. J. (2010). How boards strategize: A strategy as practice view. Long Range Planning, 43, 33–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2003). Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review, 9, 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A, Jr, & Harris, I. C. (2002). Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28, 747–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A., & Keim, G. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. (1984). The woman entrepreneur: Management skills and business problems. Journal of Small Business Management, 22, 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N., & Angelidis, J. (1995). The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 405–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, N. A., Howard, D. P., & Angelidis, J. P. (2003). Board members in the service industry: An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility orientation and directorial types. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Finance, 3, 305–350.

    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, 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, A., Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., & Martinuzzi, A. (2006). Empirical findings on business-society relations in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C. (2007). Boards, incentives, and corporate social responsibility: The case for a change of emphasis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 935–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, E. J., & Davis, R. (2010). Should the C-suite have a “green” seat? Harvard Business Review, 88, 133–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, T., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Strategists on the board. Organization Studies, 20, 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1994). Complementarities and systems: Understanding Japanese economic organization. Estudios Economicos, 9, 3–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., & Triana, M. del C. (2013). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 755–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., & Modi, S. B. (2013). Positive and negative corporate social responsibility, financial leverage, and idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, L. E. (2009). The board as a path toward corporate social responsibility. In D. McBarnet, A. Voiculescu, & T. Campbell (Eds.), The new corporate accountability: Corporate social responsibility and the law (pp. 279–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monks, R., & Minow, N. (Eds.). (1995). Corporate governance. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsing, M., & Oswald, D. (2009). Sustainable leadership: Management control systems and organizational culture in Novo Nordisk A/S. Corporate Governance, 9, 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, O. D. (1992). Organizational slack and risk-taking behavior: Tests of product pricing strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 5, 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller-Kahle, M. I., & Lewellyn, K. B. (2011). Did board configuration matter? The case of US subprime lenders. Corporate Governance: An International Journal, 19, 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18, 136–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parisi, C. (2013). The impact of organizational alignment on the effectiveness of firms’ sustainability strategic performance measurement systems: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management and Governance, 17(1), 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 50, 189–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby, C. C. (2000). From male locker room to coed board room: A twenty-five year perspective. In R. Burke & M. Mattis (Eds.), Women on corporate boards of directors (pp. 239–251). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Semenova, N. (2010). Corporate environmental performance: Consistency of metrics and identification of drivers. In Proceedings of the PRI Academic Conference 2010. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School.

  • Shrivastava, P., & Hart, S. (1995). Creating sustainable corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 4, 154–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebenhüner, B., & Arnold, M. (2007). Organizational learning to manage sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V., Terjesen, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008). Newly appointed directors in the boardroom: How do women and men differ? European Management Journal, 26, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand, R. (2013). The chief officer of corporate social responsibility: A study of its presence in top management teams. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 721–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28, 397–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 463–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terjesen, S., Sealy, R., & Singh, V. (2009). Women directors on corporate boards: A review and agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 320–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. (2008, January 19). Just good business: A special report on corporate social responsibility. The Economist, p. 4.

  • Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., & Seward, J. K. (1990). On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15, 421–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Dewhirst, H. D. (1992). Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, E. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. D. (1999). Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P. M., Kroll, M., & Elenkov, D. (2002). Acquisition returns, increase in firm size, and chief executive officer compensation: The moderating role of monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 599–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin Graduate School of Business, Curtin University, 78 Murray Street, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia

    Jeremy Galbreath

Authors
  1. Jeremy Galbreath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Galbreath.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galbreath, J. When do Board and Management Resources Complement Each Other? A Study of Effects on Corporate Social Responsibility. J Bus Ethics 136, 281–292 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2519-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2519-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation