IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v17y2023i1p1-d1303230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CEO Current and Prospective Wealth Option Compensation and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Behavioral Agency Model

Author

Listed:
  • Maretno Agus Harjoto

    (Graziadio Business School, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA 90263, USA)

  • Sunghoon Joo

    (College of Business Administration and Public Policy, California State University Dominquez Hills, Carson, CA 90747-0005, USA)

  • Sang Mook Lee

    (Management Department, Pennsylvania State University Great Valley, Malvern, PA 19355-1488, USA)

  • Hakjoon Song

    (College of Business Administration and Public Policy, California State University Dominquez Hills, Carson, CA 90747-0005, USA)

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between CEO options compensation and corporate social responsibility (CSR) based on the behavioral agency model (BAM). The BAM assumes that the CEO is bounded by loss-aversion behavior. Using constructs from the BAM, i.e., CEO current and prospective wealth from their options compensation, this study examines the differing effects of CEO current wealth and prospective wealth on firms’ CSR strengths, CSR concerns, institutional CSR and technical CSR. Based on a sample of 1565 U.S. firms during 1996 to 2018, the study finds that CEO current wealth is negatively related to firms’ CSR strengths and CSR concerns. The study also finds that CEO prospective wealth is positively related to firms’ CSR strengths but is unrelated to CSR concerns. CEO current wealth is negatively related to institutional CSR, whereas CEO prospective wealth is positively related to institutional and technical CSR. CEO current (prospective) wealth is more strongly and negatively (positively) related to institutional CSR than technical CSR. This study indicates that designing CEO option compensation to align top managers’ interests with the stakeholder interests requires a greater understanding of how CEO bounded rationality behavior toward loss aversion and risk taking is influenced by their option compensation.

Suggested Citation

  • Maretno Agus Harjoto & Sunghoon Joo & Sang Mook Lee & Hakjoon Song, 2023. "CEO Current and Prospective Wealth Option Compensation and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Behavioral Agency Model," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2023:i:1:p:1-:d:1303230
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/1/1/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/1/1/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Amama Shaukat & Yan Qiu & Grzegorz Trojanowski, 2016. "Board Attributes, Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy, and Corporate Environmental and Social Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 569-585, May.
    3. Brian Berkey, 2021. "Sweatshops, Structural Injustice, and the Wrong of Exploitation: Why Multinational Corporations Have Positive Duties to the Global Poor," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 43-56, February.
    4. Maretno A. Harjoto & Andreas G. F. Hoepner & Marcus A. Nilsson, 2022. "Bondholders’ returns and stakeholders’ interests," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1271-1301, November.
    5. Habiba Al-Shaer & Khaldoon Albitar & Jia Liu, 2023. "CEO power and CSR-linked compensation for corporate environmental responsibility: UK evidence," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 1025-1063, April.
    6. Harjoto, Maretno A. & Hoepner, Andreas G.F. & Li, Qian, 2022. "A stakeholder resource-based view of corporate social irresponsibility: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 830-843.
    7. Yahia, Nadia Ben & Chalwati, Amna & Hmaied, Dorra & Khizer, Abdul Mohi & Trabelsi, Samir, 2023. "Do foreign institutions avoid investing in poorly CSR-performing firms?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Ioannis Oikonomou & Chris Brooks & Stephen Pavelin, 2012. "The Impact of Corporate Social Performance on Financial Risk and Utility: A Longitudinal Analysis," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 483-515, June.
    9. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
    10. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    11. Paul C. Godfrey & Craig B. Merrill & Jared M. Hansen, 2009. "The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 425-445, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cemil Kuzey & Habiba Al-Shaer & Ali Uyar & Abdullah S. Karaman, 2024. "Do board monitoring and audit committee quality help risky firms reduce CSR controversies?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 1007-1045, October.
    2. Muhammad Atif & Benjamin Liu & Sivathaasan Nadarajah, 2022. "The effect of corporate environmental, social and governance disclosure on cash holdings: Life‐cycle perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2193-2212, July.
    3. Amal Aouadi & Sylvain Marsat, 2018. "Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1027-1047, September.
    4. Tantawy Moussa & Amir Allam & Said Elbanna & Ahmed Bani‐Mustafa, 2020. "Can board environmental orientation improve U.S. firms' carbon performance? The mediating role of carbon strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 72-86, January.
    5. Boubaker, Sabri & Chebbi, Kaouther & Grira, Jocelyn, 2020. "Top management inside debt and corporate social responsibility? Evidence from the US," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-115.
    6. Benjamin Lynch & Martha O'Hagan‐Luff, 2024. "Relative corporate social performance and cost of equity capital: International evidence," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 2882-2910, July.
    7. Qi Ge & Ting Li, 2022. "Corporate social responsibility and shareholder wealth: New insights from information spillovers," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 57(1), pages 179-203, February.
    8. Alan Gregory & Rajesh Tharyan & Julie Whittaker, 2014. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Value: Disaggregating the Effects on Cash Flow, Risk and Growth," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(4), pages 633-657, November.
    9. Anita, Mendiratta & Shveta, Singh & Yadav Surendra, S. & Arvind, Mahajan, 2023. "When do ESG controversies reduce firm value in India?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    10. Bouslah, Kais & Kryzanowski, Lawrence & M’Zali, Bouchra, 2013. "The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1258-1273.
    11. Fabrizio Rossi & Maretno Agus Harjoto, 2020. "Corporate non-financial disclosure, firm value, risk, and agency costs: evidence from Italian listed companies," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 1149-1181, October.
    12. Farah, Tazrina & Li, Jialong & Li, Zhicheng & Shamsuddin, Abul, 2021. "The non-linear effect of CSR on firms’ systematic risk: International evidence," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    13. Kiyoung Chang & Incheol Kim & Ying Li, 2014. "The Heterogeneous Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities That Target Different Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 211-234, December.
    14. Kanapathippillai, Sutharson & Gul, Ferdinand & Mihret, Dessalegn & Muttakin, Mohammad Badrul, 2019. "Compensation committees, CEO pay and firm performance," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    15. Sang Koo Kang & Hee Sub Byun, 2020. "Are Corporate Environmental Responsibility Activities an Efficient Investment or an Agency Cost? Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Price, Joseph M. & Sun, Wenbin, 2017. "Doing good and doing bad: The impact of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility on firm performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 82-97.
    17. María Iborra & Marta Riera, 2023. "Corporate social irresponsibility: What we know and what we need to know," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1421-1439, May.
    18. Kais Bouslah & Lawrence Kryzanowski & Bouchra M’Zali, 2018. "Social Performance and Firm Risk: Impact of the Financial Crisis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 643-669, May.
    19. Katsuhiko Muramiya & Tomomi Takada, 2015. "Cross-Shareholdings and Information Environment," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-20, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    20. Francesco Gangi & Antonio Meles & Eugenio D'Angelo & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Sustainable development and corporate governance in the financial system: Are environmentally friendly banks less risky?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 529-547, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2023:i:1:p:1-:d:1303230. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.