We investigate how independent directors view corporate social responsibility (CSR). Exploiting the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act and the associated exchange listing requirements as an exogenous regulatory shock, we document that independent directors view CSR activities unfavorably. In particular, firms forced to raise board independence reduce CSR engagement significantly relative to those not required to increase board independence. Our results are consistent with the risk-mitigation view and the agency cost hypothesis where managers over-invest in CSR to mitigate their own exposure to nonsystematic risk. The over-investments in CSR are curbed in the presence of a stronger, more independent, board of directors. Several robustness checks confirm the results, including fixed-effects and random-effects regressions, dynamic panel data analysis, instrumental-variable analysis, propensity score matching, Lewbel's heteroscedastic identification, and Oster's method for coefficient stability. We also confirm the risk-mitigation hypothesis by showing that CSR activities reduce firm risk significantly. Our research design is much less vulnerable to endogeneity and is therefore likely to show a causal effect of board independence on CSR.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. This paper discusses statistical analyses of the effect of reductions in opening hours on book issues of public library authorities (PLAs). Monthly issue statistics over a three-to four-year period for twentysix libraries in four PLAs (Sheffield, Ealing, Hereford and Worcester, and Lancashire) were analysed using graphic analysis and time series modelling. The results, with one or two exceptions, showed little, if any, significant relationship between reductions in hours and book issues. There were indications that other variables such as seasonality, patterns of opening hours and the accessibility of other libraries might be masking any impact. Annual issue and book fund statistics over a twenty-three year period for libraries in Sheffield PLA were also analysed. This latter investigation suggests that reductions in the level of issues, related to both opening hours and materials expenditure, are discernible after a period of about two years. One model showed that the impact of opening hours cuts may be discernible within a year, materials fund cuts after a lag of one to two years. The study demonstrates clearly the difficulties involved in using statistical data to make accurate predictions of the impact of individual reductions in opening hours on book issues. It identifies a number of variables which may affect the impact of reductions. 605 605

No abstract

No abstract

This paper examines and compares the dividend policies of American depository receipt (ADR) firms and U.S. firms and identifies the factors that determine these policies for both types of companies. We find that ADR firms have higher dividend yields than U.S. firms, while U.S. firms have higher stock repurchase ratios than ADR firms. Results from univariate comparisons and multivariate analysis show that the determining factors of dividend payout and stock repurchases differ between these two types of firms. This finding holds for the robustness check conducted in this study. This paper provides further evidence regarding dividend policies of ADR firms and sheds light on the differences in dividend policies between non-US firm and U.S. firms.