Corporate social responsibility, board characteristics, and family business in Thailand

被引:3
|
作者
Padungsaksawasdi, Chaiyuth [1 ]
Treepongkaruna, Sirimon [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Thammasat Univ, Thammasat Business Sch, Dept Finance, Bangkok 10200, Thailand
[2] Chulalongkorn Univ, Sasin Sch Management, Bangkok, Thailand
[3] Univ Western Australia, UWA Business Sch, Perth, WA, Australia
关键词
board independence; board size; corporate social responsibility; director tenure; family business; female directors; SOCIOEMOTIONAL WEALTH; DISCLOSURE EVIDENCE; GENDER DIVERSITY; CONTROLLED FIRMS; PERFORMANCE; GOVERNANCE; OWNERSHIP; DIRECTORS; IMPACT; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1002/csr.2636
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy, family business, and board characteristics in Thailand provides invaluable insights into how boards of family businesses integrate CSR considerations, leading to responsible business practices and sustainable development in Thailand. Relying on the top 100 listed firms in the Stock Exchange of Thailand and the Refinitiv's CSR strategy score, we find that family business firms or firms with CEO serving as the chairman of board engage less CSR strategy, being consistent with the agency cost hypothesis and the expropriation view of family businesses. Additionally, in line with the resource dependency theory, female directors, independent directors, board tenure, and board size positively influence a firm's CSR. Additional analyses including the Heckman's sample selection bias and 2SLS instrumental variable approaches show that our results are robust and are not driven by unobserved heterogeneity. More importantly, gender diversity is an exemplary governance mechanism as it is the only board characteristic with a positive effect on CSR in both family and non-family sub-samples. While board tenure is positively associated with CSR in the non-family business sample, larger board size and more board independence in the family business positively influence a firm's CSR. Findings from the family business sample support the functional view of board and socioemotional wealth of family firms.
引用
收藏
页码:1340 / 1353
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Board Characteristics, Individual Characteristics and Corporate Social Responsibility
    Wang Lepeng
    Wu Lan
    [J]. NEW THINKING FOR STRATEGY: GREEN, INNOVATION AND SHARING, 2017, : 833 - 839
  • [2] Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: Does family involvement in management matter?
    Oh, Won-Yong
    Chang, Young Kyun
    Jung, Rami
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, 2019, 103 : 23 - 33
  • [3] Corporate social responsibility and family business in spain
    Déniz, MDLCD
    Suárez, MKC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2005, 56 (01) : 27 - 41
  • [4] Corporate Social Responsibility and Family Business in Spain
    María de la Cruz Déniz Déniz
    Ma Katiuska Cabrera Suárez
    [J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2005, 56 : 27 - 41
  • [5] Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development of Family Business
    Chen Lu
    [J]. LOW-CARBON MODEL WHEN PURSUIT OF URBANIZATION IN CHINA, 2011, : 17 - 20
  • [6] Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability in a Hospitality Family Business
    Fonseca, Ana Paula
    Carnicelli, Sandro
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (13)
  • [7] The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure and board characteristics on corporate performance
    Riyadh, Hosam Alden
    Sukoharsono, Eko Ganis
    Alfaiza, Salsabila Aisyah
    [J]. COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT, 2019, 6 (01):
  • [8] CORPORATE AND BUSINESS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
    Camargo, Marcela
    [J]. REVISTA DE CIENCIAS HUMANAS DA UNIVERSIDADE DE TAUBATE, 2010, 3 (02):
  • [9] Board internationalization and corporate social responsibility
    Luo, Yi
    Ma, Jian
    Wang, Yu
    Ye, Aishan
    [J]. NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE, 2022, 63
  • [10] Board Diversity and Corporate Social Responsibility
    Harjoto, Maretno
    Laksmana, Indrarini
    Lee, Robert
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS, 2015, 132 (04) : 641 - 660