Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:10:25.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Top Management Teams’ Academic Experience and Firms’ Corporate Social Responsibility Voluntary Disclosure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2020

Zhiming Ma ,
Hong Zhang ,
Weiguo Zhong Open the ORCID record for Weiguo Zhong [Opens in a new window]  and
Kaitang Zhou
Zhiming Ma
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
Hong Zhang*
Affiliation:
Wuhan University, China
Weiguo Zhong
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
Kaitang Zhou*
Affiliation:
Wuhan University, China
*
Corresponding authors: Hong Zhang ([email protected]) and Kaitlang Zhou ([email protected])
Corresponding authors: Hong Zhang ([email protected]) and Kaitlang Zhou ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure is becoming increasingly important for modern corporations. Focusing on voluntary CSR disclosure and drawing on upper echelons theory, we propose that voluntary CSR disclosure is the manifestation of managerial preferences (e.g., managers’ professional ethical values and standards). Specifically, we argue that top executives with an academic background tend to have higher professional and ethical standards than their non-academic counterparts. These standards lead them to act with self-restraint and to perceive CSR disclosure as an opportunity rather than a threat. Compared with non-academic executives, therefore, top executives with an academic background provide stakeholders with more CSR information. Based on a sample of publicly listed firms in China, we find a significant difference in voluntary CSR disclosure between firms led by academic executives and firms without academic top executives. This difference is smaller for firms that are state-owned, firms that are audited by large audit firms, and firms with greater analyst coverage. We contribute to the literature on CSR voluntary disclosure by providing an in-depth analysis of the effects of top management teams’ academic backgrounds.

摘要

摘要

社会责任披露对现代企业而言越来越重要。聚焦企业自愿披露社会责任这一现象，基于高阶理论，本文认为企业社会责任自愿披露表现出高管的偏好（例如高管的职业道德价值标准）。具体来说，我们认为平均而言具有学术经历的高管团队比不具备学术经历的高管团队具有更高的职业和道德标准，进而使得此类高管团队所领导的企业更加自律，并将企业社会责任的披露视为机会而不是威胁。因此，具有学术经历的高管团队所在的企业将向利益相关者提供更多的企业社会责任信息。基于中国上市公司样本，我们发现，由具有学术经历高管团队所领导的企业与那些不具备学术经历的高管团队所领导的企业在社会责任自愿披露行为上存在显著差异。这一差异在国有企业、由最大的会计师事务所审计的企业以及被更多分析师跟踪的企业中更小。通过深入分析高管团队的学术背景特征的影响，本文推动了企业社会责任自愿披露的研究。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

Раскрытие информации в сфере корпоративной социальной ответственности (КСО) становится все более важным для современных корпораций. На основании теории высших эшелонов, мы уделяем основное внимание вопросу добровольного раскрытия информации о КСО и предполагаем, что добровольное раскрытие информации о КСО является проявлением управленческих предпочтений (например, профессиональных этических ценностей и норм у руководителей). В частности, мы утверждаем, что высшие руководители с академическим образованием, как правило, имеют более высокие профессиональные и этические нормы, чем их коллеги без академического образования. Эти нормы заставляют их действовать сдержанно и воспринимать раскрытие информации о КСО как возможность, а не как угрозу. Поэтому, по сравнению с руководителями без академического опыта, высшие руководители с академическим образованием предоставляют заинтересованным сторонам больше информации по КСО. На основании выборки из компаний, зарегистрированных на бирже в Китае, мы обнаруживаем значительное различие в добровольном раскрытии информации о КСО между компаниями, которые возглавляют руководители с академическим образованием, и компаниями без руководителей с академическим опытом. Это различие меньше для компаний, которые находятся в государственной собственности; компаний, которые проверяются крупными аудиторскими фирмами, а также компаний с большими ресурсами по анализу коммерческой деятельности. Мы вносим важный вклад в научную литературу по добровольному раскрытию информации о КСО, проводя подробный анализ того, какую роль играет академический опыт команд высшего звена.

Resumen

RESUMEN

La divulgación de la responsabilidad social empresarial (RSE) se está volviendo cada vez más importante para las corporaciones modernas. Enfocándonos en la divulgación voluntaria de la RSC y basándonos en la teoría de los niveles superiores, proponemos que la divulgación voluntaria de la RSE es la manifestación de las preferencias gerenciales (es decir, los valores y estándares éticos profesionales de los gerentes). Específicamente, argumentamos que los altos ejecutivos con una formación académica tienden a tener mayores estándares profesionales y éticos que sus contrapartes no académicas. Estos estándares los lleva a actuar con autocontrol y a percibir la divulgación de la RSE como una oportunidad en lugar de una amenaza. En comparación con los ejecutivos no académicos, por consiguiente, los altos ejecutivos con una formación académica proporcionan a los grupos de interés más información de la RSE. Con base en una muestra de empresas que cotizan en la bolsa China, encontramos una diferencia significativa en la divulgación voluntaria de la RSE entre las empresas lideradas por ejecutivos académicos y las empresas sin altos ejecutivos académicos. Esta diferencia es menor para empresas que son de propiedad estatal, las empresas que son auditadas por grandes firmas de auditoría, y empresas con una mayor cobertura de analistas. Contribuimos a la literatura sobre la divulgación voluntaria de RSE proporcionando un análisis a profundidad de los efectos de la formación académica en los equipos de alta dirección-

Keywords

academic backgroundanalyst coverageaudit firmscorporate social responsibility disclosureownershiptop executives高管团队学术经历企业社会责任披露产权性质会计师事务所分析师关注академический опытанализ коммерческой деятельностиаудиторские фирмыраскрытие информации о корпоративной социальной ответственностисобственностьвысшие руководителиformación académicacobertura de analistasfirmas de auditoríadivulgación de responsabilidad social empresarialpropiedadaltos ejecutivos
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 293 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Senior Editor Mooweon Rhee

References

REFERENCES

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 507–525.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. 2012. What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4): 932–968.10.1177/0149206311436079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsaeed, K. 2006. The association between firm-specific characteristics and disclosure: The case of Saudi Arabia. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(5): 476–496.10.1108/02686900610667256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. 2006. Entrepreneurial access and absorption of knowledge spillovers: Strategic board and managerial composition for competitive advantage. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2): 155–166.10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00161.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamber, L. S., Jiang, J. X., & Wang, I. Y. 2010. What's my style? The influence of top managers on voluntary corporate financial disclosure. The Accounting Review, 85(4): 1131–1162.10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, E. 1982. Ethics in the academic profession: A Socratic view. The Journal of Higher Education, 53(3): 282–295.Google Scholar
Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. 2010. The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2): 207–221.10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmelech, E., & Frydman, C. 2015. Military CEOs. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(1): 43–59.10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.04.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernile, G., Bhagwat, V., & Rau, P. R. 2017. What doesn't kill you will only make you more risk-loving: Early-life disasters and CEO behavior. The Journal of Finance, 72(1): 167–206.10.1111/jofi.12432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. 2003. Managing with style: The effect of managers on firm policies. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4): 1169–1208.10.1162/003355303322552775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, R. F. 2005. Teacher as servant leader. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(6): 257–26010.3200/TCHS.78.6.257-260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. 2008. Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12): 1325–1343.10.1002/smj.714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. 2008. Social responsibility disclosure: A study of proxies for the public visibility of Portuguese banks. The British Accounting Review, 40(2): 161–181.10.1016/j.bar.2008.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, G. K. Y. 2008. The relevance and value of Confucianism in contemporary business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3): 347–360.10.1007/s10551-007-9354-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Y. K., Oh, W. Y., Park, J. H., & Jang, G. 2017. Exploring the relationship between board characteristics and CSR: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2): 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, G., Luo, S., Tang, Y., & Tong, J. Y. 2015. Passing probation: Earnings management by interim CEOs and its effect on their promotion prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5): 1389–1418.10.5465/amj.2013.0351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. 1999. Development and adaptations of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999(80): 75–81.10.1002/tl.8006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. 2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 197–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, C. H., Jung, J. H., Kwak, B., Lee, J., & Yoo, C. Y. 2015. Professors on the board: Do they contribute to society outside the classroom? Journal of Business Ethics, 141(2): 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, P. M., Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Vasvari, F. P. 2008. Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4): 303–327.10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combe, I. A., & Carrington, D. J. 2015. Leaders' sensemaking under crises: Emerging cognitive consensus over time within management teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3): 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. 1997. Investors' assessment of implicit environmental liabilities: An empirical investigation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 16(2): 215–241.10.1016/S0278-4254(97)00002-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, K., & Mao, Z. 2015. Costs of selected policies to address air pollution in China. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.10.7249/RR861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronqvist, H., & Yu, F. 2017. Shaped by their daughters: Executives, female socialization, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics, 126(3): 543–562.10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossland, C., Zyung, J., Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. 2014. CEO career variety: Effects on firm-level strategic and social novelty. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3): 652–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Custódio, C., Ferreira, M. A., & Matos, P. 2013. Generalists versus specialists: Lifetime work experience and chief executive officer pay. Journal of Financial Economics, 108(2): 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3): 183–199.10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. 2014. A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2): 275–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. 2008. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10): 1027–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, D. W., & Verrecchia, R. E. 1991. Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. The Journal of Finance, 46(4): 1325–1359.10.1111/j.1540-6261.1991.tb04620.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, B. J. 2007. Integrating wealth and power in China: The communist party's embrace of the private sector. The China Quarterly, 192: 827–854.10.1017/S0305741007002056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T. 1999. Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 237–241.Google Scholar
Du, W. 1998. Xiaopin: Chinese theatrical skits as both creatures and critics of commercialism. The China Quarterly, 154: 382–399.10.1017/S0305741000002071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabrizi, M., Mallin, C., & Michelon, G. 2014. The role of CEO's personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2): 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flammer, C. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3): 758–781.10.5465/amj.2011.0744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flammer, C., & Luo, J. 2017. Corporate social responsibility as an employee governance tool: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2): 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, B., Hasan, I., Park, J. C., & Wu, Q. 2015. Gender differences in financial reporting decision making: Evidence from accounting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3): 1285–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbreath, J. 2016. When do board and management resources complement each other? A study of effects on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2): 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4): 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. 1995. Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2): 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafenbrädl, S., & Waeger, D. 2017. Ideology and the micro-foundations of CSR: Why executives believe in the business case for CSR and how this affects their CSR engagements. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4): 1582–1606.10.5465/amj.2014.0691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 334–343.10.5465/amr.2007.24345254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206.10.5465/amr.1984.4277628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. 2015. Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4): 641–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. 2001. Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1): 405–440.10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00018-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. 2004. Managers' personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1): 33–44.10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020964.80208.c9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. 1991. Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 12(5): 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, M., Shi, J., & Wang, Y. 2013. The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on information asymmetry: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Ip, P. K. 2009. Is Confucianism good for business ethics in China? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3): 463–476.10.1007/s10551-009-0120-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irani, R. M., & Oesch, D. 2013. Monitoring and corporate disclosure: Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Financial Economics, 109(2): 398–418.10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.02.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivković, Z., & Jegadeesh, N. 2004. The timing and value of forecast and recommendation revisions. Journal of Financial Economics, 73(3): 433–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, B., & Murphy, P. J. 2007. Do business school professors make good executive managers? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3): 29–50.10.5465/amp.2007.26421237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiraporn, P., & Chintrakarn, P. 2013. Corporate social responsibility and CEO luck: Are lucky CEOs socially responsible? Applied Economics Letters, 20(11): 1036–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, J. 2016. Labor market evaluation versus legacy conservation: What factors determine retiring CEOs' decisions about long-term investment? Strategic Management Journal, 37(2): 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, A., Muttakin, M. B., & Siddiqui, J. 2013. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2): 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koh, P. S., Qian, C., & Wang, H. 2014. Firm litigation risk and the insurance value of corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10): 1464–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriauciunas, A., & Kale, P. 2006. The impact of socialist imprinting and search on resource change: A study of firms in Lithuania. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7): 659–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, K. C. J. 2003. Confucian business ethics and the economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1–2): 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, C., Lu, Y., & Liang, Q. 2016. Corporate social responsibility in China: A corporate governance approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1): 73–87.10.1007/s10551-014-2513-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, L. A., Mason, R., & Lefebvre, E. 1997. The influence prism in SMEs: The power of CEOs' perceptions on technology policy and its organizational impacts. Management Science, 43(6): 856–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennox, C. 2005. Management ownership and audit firm size. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(1): 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennox, C., & Pittman, J. A. 2010. Big Five audits and accounting fraud. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(1): 209–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, B. W., Walls, J. L., & Dowell, G. W. 2014. Difference in degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5): 712–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X.-H., & Liang, X. 2015. A Confucian social model of political appointments among Chinese private-firm entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2): 592–617.10.5465/amj.2012.1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Richardson, G. D., & Thornton, D. B. 1997. Corporate disclosure of environmental liability information: Theory and evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14(3): 435–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W., & Zhang, R. 2010. Corporate social responsibility, ownership structure, and political interference: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4): 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, X., Wang, H., Raithel, S., & Zheng, Q. 2015. Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, X. R., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. 2017. Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1): 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. 2011. Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1): 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, J., Wang, Z., & Khanna, T. 2017. Why advertising safety isn't safe? Reminder effect and consumers’ responses to product quality information. INSEAD Working Paper No. 2017/69/STR/EMI. [Cited 20 October 2017]. Available from URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2906179 and http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2906179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmendier, U., Tate, G., & Yan, J. 2011. Overconfidence and early-life experiences: The impact of managerial traits on corporate financial policies. Journal of Finance, 66(5): 1687–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manner, M. H. 2010. The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(Supplement 1): 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance. Organization Science, 25(1): 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. 2016. Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2): 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, S., Oliver, B., & Song, S. 2017. Corporate social responsibility and CEO confidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 75: 280–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuinness, P. B., Vieito, J. P., & Wang, M. 2017. The role of board gender and foreign ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42: 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellahi, K., Frynas, J. G., Sun, P., & Siegel, D. 2016. A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42(1): 143–173.10.1177/0149206315617241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Cheng, Z. 2016. When CEO career horizon problems matter for corporate social responsibility: The moderating roles of industry-level discretion and blockholder ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2): 279–291.10.1007/s10551-014-2397-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormiston, M. E., & Wong, E. M. 2013. The effects of corporate social responsibility and CEO moral identity on corporate social irresponsibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(4): 861–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. 2016. Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2): 262–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prado-Lorenzo, J., & Garcia-Sanchez, I. 2010. The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3): 391–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 2000. A multilevel model of privatization in emerging economies. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 525–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. 2009. Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11): 1157–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy Morgan Research. 2016. Roy Morgan image of professions survey 2016: Nurses still most highly regarded – followed by doctors, pharmacists & engineers.Google Scholar
Shaukat, A., Qiu, Y., & Trojanowski, G. 2016. Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3): 569–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinidhi, B., Gul, F. A., & Tsui, J. 2011. Female directors and earnings quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(5): 1610–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, D. L. 1999. Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 506–521.10.5465/amr.1999.2202134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, D. L. 2008. Top managers as drivers for corporate social responsibility. The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility: 227–248. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. 2015. How CEO hubris affects corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1338–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thijssens, T., Bollen, L., & Hassink, H. 2015. Secondary stakeholder influence on CSR disclosure: An application of stakeholder salience theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4): 873–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, W. G. 1997. Organizational socialization in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 68(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, A. A. 1985. Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3): 540–557.Google Scholar
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. 2008. Professional ethical standards, corporate social responsibility, and the perceived role of ethics and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3): 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Aaken, D., Splitter, V., & Seidl, D. 2013. Why do corporate actors engage in pro-social behaviour? A Bourdieusian perspective on corporate social responsibility. Organization, 20(3): 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrecchia, R. E. 1983. Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5: 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verrecchia, R. E. 2001. Essays on disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32(1): 97–180.10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00025-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, K. T., & Li, D. 2016. Market reactions to the first-time disclosure of corporate social responsibility reports: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. 2016. Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions thematic issue on corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2): 534–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. 2011. The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6): 1207–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, F. 2008. Analyst coverage and earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(2): 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Marquis, C., & Qiao, K. 2016. Do political connections buffer firms from or bind firms to the government? A study of corporate charitable donations of Chinese firms. Organization Science, 27(5): 1307–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J. Q., Zhu, H., & Ding, H. B. 2013. Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3): 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., Tong, L., Su, J., & Cui, Z. 2015. Analyst coverage and corporate social performance: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 32: 76–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., & Zhao, H. 2017. State ownership and firm innovation in China: An integrated view of institutional and efficiency logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2): 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar