Empirical findings12/1/2023 Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Contingency hypotheses in strategic management research: Use, disuse, or misuse? Journal of Management, 38(1), 278–313.īrammer, S., & Millington, A. Social responsibilities of the businessman (series on ethics and economic life) (1st ed.). Academy of Management Review, published ahead of print December 10, 2014.īowen, H. Corporate social responsibility in large family and founder firms (ERIM report series research in management ERS-2010-027-ORG). Family management, family ownership, and downsizing: Evidence from S&P 500 firms. A stakeholder identity orientation approach to corporate social performance in family firms. Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113.īingham, J. New York: Macmillan.īerrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. The modern corporation and private property. Organizing corporate social responsibility in small and large firms: Size matters. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(2), 200–207.īaumann-Pauly, D., Wickert, C., Spence, L. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.īarrell, R., & Pain, N. Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Market imperfections, agency problems, and capital structure: A review. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 82–100.īarnea, A., Haugen, R. ![]() Stock ownership and company contributions to charity. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(2), 136–152.Ītkinson, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 19(5), 406–414.Īrora, P., & Dharwadkar, R. Relationship of firm attributes, ownership structure and business network on climate change efforts: Evidence from Malaysia. The effects of firm size and industry on corporate giving. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(3), 147–158.Īguinis, H., & Glavas, A. Corporate governance and social responsibility: A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.Īguilera, R. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. ![]() A contingency approach is suggested in future research, as this can help resolve the problem of contradictory empirical findings and theoretical arguments.Īguilera, R. Given the ambiguous and partially contradictory findings of prior research, this study identifies potential moderating influences that help clarify empirical evidence. Based on a literature sample of 146 publications, this review demonstrates central problems inherent in previous analyses. The perceived value of these CSR benefits varies among different types of shareholders, as they assign unequal values to short-term financial or to rather long-term CSR benefits. This study provides a comprehensive review and systematic assessment of theoretical considerations and approaches regarding different forms of equity ownership and their relationships to CSR, and it discusses the relevant benefits and motivations of shareholders. In contrast, research analyzing the connections between the equity ownership structure of a company and its level of CSR engagement suggests that CSR offers benefits to shareholders that go beyond direct financial returns from investments. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is often regarded as an investment that comes at the expense of shareholders. Based on the concept of shareholder primacy, many scholars have argued that it is more important for businesses to earn profits for their shareholders than to provide benefits to society at large.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |