Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?

Researchers have reported a positive, negative, and neutral impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on financial performance. This inconsistency may be due to flawed empirical analysis. In this paper, we demonstrate a particular flaw in existing econometric studies of the relationship between social and financial performance. These studies estimate the effect of CSR by regressing firm performance on corporate social performance, and several control variables. This model is misspecified because it does not control for investment in R&D, which has been shown to be an important determinant of firm performance. This misspecification results in upwardly biased estimates of the financial impact of CSR. When the model is properly specified, we find that CSR has a neutral impact on financial performance. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does buyers' financial slack promote or inhibit suppliers' circular economy performance?

Extant research examining the link between slack resources and performance offers few insights into how buyer firms' financial slack influences suppliers' circular economy (CE) performance. We collect secondary data from 290 buyer-supplier dyads of listed firms in China during 2006–2018 from CSMAR database. Using panel data analysis, we find a nonlinear (U-shaped) relationship between them. In addition, some relationship-specific contextual factors, i.e., buyer power and technology capability, have positive moderating effects, while buyer-supplier geographical distance has negative moderating effects on the main U-shaped relationship. Our study contributes to the literature on the slack-performance debate confirming the CE performance effect of financial slack in the business-to-business (B2B) relationship.     

Last dance or second chance? Firm performance,CEO career horizon,and the separation of board leadership roles

In recent years, many firms have chosen to separate their CEO and board chair positions. Prior research has demonstrated that there are three forms that a CEO–board chair separation can take: apprentice, departure, and demotion. In this paper, we examine the antecedents of these three types. Our results show that the three types of separation each have different profiles in terms of the prior performance of the firm, the independence of the board, and the career horizon of the incumbent CEO. The findings in this paper provide unique insights into the factors that drive boards' structural choices. As questions about board leadership structure become more nuanced and more relevant in both scholarship and practice, a full understanding of these factors will only become more important. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.