No abstract

Management researchers have investigated how corporate governance mechanisms influence corporate social responsibility (CSR). The previous literature has been largely based on agency theory, which emphasizes the roles of effective monitoring and incentive alignment, but the empirical evidence has been mixed. This inconsistency may result from the assumption that each governance mechanism functions independently, even though they interact with one another to affect CSR. On the basis of a perspective of bundle of governance mechanisms, we examined whether multiple governance mechanisms act as complements or substitutes for each other in promoting CSR. Using a panel sample of U.S. firms for the years 2004 to 2010, we found that multiple governance mechanisms mainly act as substitutes to promote CSR. Our findings suggest that a similar level of CSR can be achieved with different combinations of governance mechanisms. Our study contributes to the fields of both corporate governance and CSR in theory and practice.

This paper examines the influence of CEO career horizon problems on corporate social responsibility (CSR). We assume that as CEOs are getting older, they tend to disengage in CSR due to their shorter career horizons. We further argue that high levels of industry-level discretion (ILD) and blockholder ownership amplify the negative effects of CEO age on CSR. Using a panel sample of US-based firms over 2004-2009, we do not find the main effect of CEO age on CSR, but find support for the moderating effects, such that CEO age is negatively associated with CSR when there are high levels of ILD and blockholder ownership. Therefore, results suggest that CEO career horizon problems matter for CSR when (1) CEOs have sufficient discretion over the firm's strategic decisions and (2) outside blockholders put more pressure on CEOs to engage in financial earning management.

No abstract

In this article, we review the literature on interfirm contracting in an effort to synthesize existing research and direct future scholarship. While transaction cost economics (TCE) is the most prominent perspective informing the “optimal governance” and “safeguarding” function of contracts, our review indicates other perspectives are necessary to understand how contracts are structured: relational capabilities (i.e., building cooperation, creating trust), firm capabilities, relational contracts, and the real option value of a contract. Our review also indicates that contract research is moving away from a narrow focus on contract structure and its safeguarding function toward a broader focus that also highlights adaptation and coordination. We end by noting the following research gaps: consequences of contracting, specifically outcome assessment; strategic options, decision rights, and the evolution of dynamic capabilities; contextual constraints of relational capabilities; contextual constraints of contracting capabilities; complements, substitutes, and bundles; and contract structure and social process.