Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relationship between CSR and corporate governance moderated by performance and board of directors’ characteristics

  • Published:
Journal of Management and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies the relationships among corporate governance (CG), ethical practices, and corporate social responsibility (CSR). In particular, the mediating effect of ethical practices on the relationship between CG and CSR is examined. Moreover, the moderating effects of financial performance, as well as board of directors characteristics on both the direct relationship between CG and CSR and the one mediated by ethical practices. Data were collected through a questionnaire distributed to employees working in private corporations operating in Lebanon and in various countries in the MENA region. The structural relationships among CG, ethical practices and CSR are analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 3. The findings indicate that ethical practices fully mediate the relationship between the audit committee component of corporate governance and the three corporate social responsibility initiatives towards stakeholders, customers and employees. No such results were found for the corporate governance component of board of directors. Furthermore, multi-group analysis deployed to determine the moderating effects of performance and board of directors on these relationships identified differences in the relationships due to board characteristics and corporate performance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (1996). Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,31(3), 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alas, R. (2006). Ethics in countries with different cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics,69(3), 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • André, K. (2013). The ethics of care as a determinant for stakeholder inclusion and CSR perception in business education. Society and Business Review,8(1), 32–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argandona, A. (2011). Stakeholder theory and value creation (No. D/922). Barcelona: IESE Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics,97(1), 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M. (1995). Ownership and control: Rethinking corporate governance for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadbury, A. (1992). Report of the committee on the financial aspects of corporate governance. Gee, 1.

  • Callaghan, M., & Wood, G. (2014). The engagement with business ethics: An Australian journey 1995-2010. European Business Review,26(4), 286–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons,34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society,38(3), 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. X., Lu, H., & Sougiannis, T. (2012). The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of selling, general, and administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research,29(1), 252–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., & Yurtoglu, B. B. (2013). Corporate governance in emerging markets: A survey. Emerging Markets Review,15(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2002). Communication from the commission concerning corporate social responsibility: A business contribution to sustainable development. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,15(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Hitt, M. A., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, C. M. (2007). The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation. Academy of Management Annals,1(1), 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demise, N. (2005). Business ethics and corporate governance in Japan. Business and Society,44(2), 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denis, D. K., & McConnell, J. J. (2003). International corporate governance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,38(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review,20(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehikioya, B. I. (2009). Corporate governance structure and firm performance in developing economies: Evidence from Nigeria. Corporate Governance,9(3), 231–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ElGammal, W., El-Kassar, A. N., & Messarra, L. (2018). Corporate ethics, governance and social responsibility in MENA countries. Management Decision,56(1), 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Kassar, A. N., Elgammal, W., & Bayoud, M. M. (2014). Effect of internal audit function on corporate governance quality: Evidence from Lebanon. International Journal of Corporate Governance,5(1/2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Kassar, A. N., Messarra, L., & ElGammal, W. (2015). Effects of ethical practices on corporate governance in developing countries. Corporate Ownership & Control,12(3), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Massachusetts: Pitman Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.

  • Gaur, A. S., & Delios, A. (2015). International diversification of emerging market firms: The role of ownership structure and group affiliation. Management International Review,55, 235–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., & Kumar, M. (2018). A systematic approach to conducting review studies: An assessment of content analysis in 25 years of IB research. Journal of World Business,53(2), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., Ma, X., & Ding, Z. (2018). Perceived home country supportiveness/unfavorableness and outward foreign direct investment from China. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0136-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebba, T. R. (2015). Corporate governance mechanisms adopted by UAE national commercial banks. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking,5(5), 23–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,118(1), 107–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, G. H. (2003). The evolution of corporate governance and its impact on modern corporate America. Management Decision,41(9), 923–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. P., Ainscough, T., Shank, T., & Manullang, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing: A global perspective. Journal of Business Ethics,70(2), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Safieddine, A. M., & Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review,16(5), 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly,12(02), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,106(1), 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, W. Q., Gaur, A. S., & Muller, M. K. (2016). Antecedents of shareholder activism: Evidence from a multi-country study. Corporate Governance: An International Review,24(3), 258–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.-H., & Gaur, A. S. (2013). Managing multi-business firms: A comparison between Korean Chaebols and diversified US firms. Journal of World Business,48(4), 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2003). Negotiation. Boston: MacGraw-Hill International Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitnick, B. (2013). Origin of the theory of agency: An account by one of the theory’s originators. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1020378; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1020378.

  • Pae, J., & Choi, T. (2011). Corporate governance, commitment to business ethics, and firm valuation: Evidence from the Korean stock market. Journal of Business Ethics,100(2), 323–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business and Society,50(1), 189–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, S. (2011). Evaluation of definitions: Ten dimensions of corporate social responsibility. World Review of Business Research,1(1), 166–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisberg, A. (2015). The UK Stewardship code: On a road to nowhere. The Journal of Corporate Law Studies,15, 217–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaee, Z. (2009). Corporate governance and ethics. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossouw, G. J. (2005). Business ethics and corporate governance in Africa. Business & Society, 44(1), 94–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. (2000). Decades ahead of her time: Advancing stakeholder theory through the ideas of Mary Parker Follett. Journal of Management History, 6(5), 224–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D., & Delios, A. (2017). Corporate governance, board networks and growth in domestic and international markets: Evidence from India. Journal of World Business, Elsevier,52(5), 615–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. A., & Gaur, A. S. (2009). Business group affiliation, firm governance and firm performance: Evidence from China and India. Corporate Governance: An International Review,17(4), 411–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D., & Gaur, A. S. (2013). Governance Structure, innovation and internationalization: Evidence from India. Journal of International Management,19(3), 300–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, R. N., & Barley, S. R. (1996). Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly,41(1), 146–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications,14(2), 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timberlake, L. (2002). The business case for sustainable development: Making a difference toward the Earth Summit 2002 and beyond. WBSCD Executive Committee. Corporate Environment Strategy, 9(3).

  • Tuan, L. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, ethics, and corporate governance. Social Responsibility Journal,8(4), 547–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics,85(4), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Votaw, D. (1972). Genius becomes rare: A comment on the doctrine of social responsibility Pt. I. California Management Review,15(2), 25–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeckhauser, R. J., & Pratt, J. W. (1985). Principals and agents: The structure of business. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon

    Walid El Gammal, Khodr Fakih & Abdul-Nasser El-Kassar

  2. Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon

    Noura Yassine

Authors
  1. Walid El Gammal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noura Yassine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Khodr Fakih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdul-Nasser El-Kassar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdul-Nasser El-Kassar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El Gammal, W., Yassine, N., Fakih, K. et al. The relationship between CSR and corporate governance moderated by performance and board of directors’ characteristics. J Manag Gov 24, 411–430 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9417-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9417-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation