IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/corsem/v30y2023i3p1524-1533.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Staggered board, social capital and sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Tanakorn Likitapiwat
  • Sirimon Treepongkaruna

Abstract

Maintaining good relationships with internal and external stakeholders can help companies gain competitive advantages and mitigate risks associated with social factors. However, building social capital is not an easy task, as it requires management to prioritize long‐term goals over short‐term gains. The board of directors is expected to ensure that management maximizes shareholders' value, commits to strengthening its relationship with stakeholders, and engages in socially responsible activities. These expectations depend heavily on the quality and effectiveness of the board. Certain board characteristics may impede its ability to drive long‐term vision or create good stakeholder relationships, leading to a decline in the company's social capital. In this paper, we analyze board characteristics of publicly listed US firms, focusing on staggered boards, and find evidence supporting the agency theory that staggered boards adversely affect firms' social capital. To ensure the robustness of our analysis, we conduct additional analyses including propensity score matching, entropy balancing, and instrumental‐variable analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanakorn Likitapiwat & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2023. "Staggered board, social capital and sustainability," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1524-1533, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:corsem:v:30:y:2023:i:3:p:1524-1533
    DOI: 10.1002/csr.2435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2435
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/csr.2435?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 43-58, January.
    2. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma, 2005. "The costs of entrenched boards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 409-433, November.
    3. Andrei Shleifer & Lawrence H. Summers, 1988. "Breach of Trust in Hostile Takeovers," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences, pages 33-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Guernsey, Scott & Sepe, Simone M. & Serfling, Matthew, 2022. "Blood in the water: The value of antitakeover provisions during market shocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 1070-1096.
    5. Sang Jun Cho & Chune Young Chung & Jason Young, 2019. "Study on the Relationship between CSR and Financial Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-26, January.
    6. Karl V. Lins & Henri Servaes & Ane Tamayo, 2017. "Social Capital, Trust, and Firm Performance: The Value of Corporate Social Responsibility during the Financial Crisis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(4), pages 1785-1824, August.
    7. Corinne Post & Noushi Rahman & Cathleen McQuillen, 2015. "From Board Composition to Corporate Environmental Performance Through Sustainability-Themed Alliances," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 423-435, August.
    8. Chintrakarn, Pandej & Jiraporn, Pornsit & Treepongkaruna, Sirimon, 2021. "How do independent directors view corporate social responsibility (CSR) during a stressful time? Evidence from the financial crisis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 143-160.
    9. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Tirole, Jean, 1988. "The Dynamics of Incentive Contracts," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1153-1175, September.
    10. Luigi Guiso & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2008. "Trusting the Stock Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(6), pages 2557-2600, December.
    11. Faleye, Olubunmi, 2007. "Classified boards, firm value, and managerial entrenchment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 501-529, February.
    12. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(4), pages 351-351.
    13. Jensen, Michael C, 1988. "Takeovers: Their Causes and Consequences," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 21-48, Winter.
    14. Carmelo Reverte, 2012. "The Impact of Better Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure on the Cost of Equity Capital," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(5), pages 253-272, September.
    15. P. Chintrakarn & P. Chatjuthamard & P. Jiraporn, 2013. "How do entrenched boards reduce human rights violations? An empirical analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(12), pages 1178-1182, August.
    16. Michael L. Barnett & Robert M. Salomon, 2012. "Does it pay to be really good? addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1304-1320, November.
    17. Helen Kang & Mandy Cheng & Sidney J. Gray, 2007. "Corporate Governance and Board Composition: diversity and independence of Australian boards," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 194-207, March.
    18. Pochara Arayakarnkul & Pattanaporn Chatjuthamard & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2022. "Board gender diversity, corporate social commitment and sustainability," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1706-1721, September.
    19. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 110-110.
    20. 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.
    21. Imran Shafique & Masood Nawaz Kalyar & Nadia Mehwish, 2021. "Organizational ambidexterity, green entrepreneurial orientation, and environmental performance in SMEs context: Examining the moderating role of perceived CSR," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 446-456, January.
    22. Roberto Fernández‐Gago & Laura Cabeza‐García & Mariano Nieto, 2018. "Independent directors' background and CSR disclosure," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 991-1001, September.
    23. Stephen Bear & Noushi Rahman & Corinne Post, 2010. "The Impact of Board Diversity and Gender Composition on Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Reputation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 207-221, December.
    24. Knoeber, Charles R, 1986. "Golden Parachutes, Shark Repellents, and Hostile Tender Offers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(1), pages 155-167, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José Manuel Hurtado & Inés Herrero, 2024. "Board of directors and firm resilience from a social capital perspective," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 2770-2782, July.

    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. Pochara Arayakarnkul & Pattanaporn Chatjuthamard & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2022. "Board gender diversity, corporate social commitment and sustainability," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1706-1721, September.
    2. Suparatana Tanthanongsakkun & Sirimon Treepongkaruna & Pornsit Jiraporn, 2023. "Carbon emissions, corporate governance, and staggered boards," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 769-780, January.
    3. Cremers, K.J. Martijn & Litov, Lubomir P. & Sepe, Simone M., 2017. "Staggered boards and long-term firm value, revisited," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 422-444.
    4. Chatjuthamard, Pattanaporn & Wongboonsin, Kua & Ongsakul, Viput & Jiraporn, Pornsit, 2024. "Corporate culture, staggered boards, and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from textual analysis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 404-418.
    5. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    6. Robert Campbell & Chinmoy Ghosh & Milena Petrova & C. Sirmans, 2011. "Corporate Governance and Performance in the Market for Corporate Control: The Case of REITs," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 451-480, May.
    7. Carline, Nicholas F. & Linn, Scott C. & Yadav, Pradeep K., 2014. "Corporate governance and the nature of takeover resistance," CFR Working Papers 14-01, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    8. Yijiang Zhao & Kung H. Chen, 2008. "The Influence of Takeover Protection on Earnings Management," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3‐4), pages 347-375, April.
    9. Bhargava, Rahul & Faircloth, Sheri & Zeng, Hongchao, 2017. "Takeover protection and stock price crash risk: Evidence from state antitakeover laws," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-184.
    10. Al Dah, Bilal & Michael, Amir & Dixon, Rob, 2017. "Antitakeover provisions and CEO monetary benefits: Revisiting the E-index," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 992-1004.
    11. Guernsey, Scott & Sepe, Simone M. & Serfling, Matthew, 2022. "Blood in the water: The value of antitakeover provisions during market shocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 1070-1096.
    12. Agrawal, Anup & Knoeber, Charles R., 1998. "Managerial compensation and the threat of takeover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 219-239, February.
    13. Tristan Oliver Stenzaly, 2023. "The effect of staggered boards on firm value during market shocks," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 37(4), pages 457-497, December.
    14. Mbanyele, William, 2021. "Staggered boards, unequal voting rights, poison pills and innovation intensity: New evidence from the Asian markets," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    15. Mike Burkart & Samuel Lee, 2008. "One Share - One Vote: the Theory," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-49.
    16. Wenxia Ge & Jeong-Bon Kim, 2014. "Boards, takeover protection, and real earnings management," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 651-682, November.
    17. Cremers, K. J. Martijn & Litov, Lubomir P. & Sepe, Simone M., 2013. "Staggered Boards and Firm Value, Revisited," Working Papers 13-36, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Weiss Center.
    18. Inder K. Khurana & Wei Wang, 2019. "International Mergers and Acquisitions Laws, the Market for Corporate Control, and Accounting Conservatism," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 241-290, March.
    19. Rose, Morgan J., 2009. "Heterogeneous impacts of staggered boards by ownership concentration," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 113-128, February.
    20. Shkendije Himaj, 2014. "Corporate Governance in Banks and its Impact on Risk and Performance: Review of Literature on the Selected Governance Mechanisms," Journal of Central Banking Theory and Practice, Central bank of Montenegro, vol. 3(3), pages 53-85.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:corsem:v:30:y:2023:i:3:p:1524-1533. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1535-3966 .

    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.