Purpose: The purpose of the current study is to revisit the relationship between CSR and firm market performance. The authors examine whether a gap between the firm's internal and external CSR moderates the CSR-firm market performance relationship. Additionally, the authors propose that the moderating effect of the CSR gap on this relationship is mediated by firm visibility.Design/methodology/approach: The initial sample is the Fortune 500 firms during the years 2004–2013. The final panel data sample consisted of 1,300 firms and 6,128 observations from 2004 to 2013. The authors obtained data from five different sources: Compustat North America Fundamental Annual, GMI Ratings, Execucomp, IBES and KLD Stats.Findings: The results of this research find evidence that both internal CSR and external CSR were positively related to firm market performance, but that the relationship was stronger for firms with equal emphasis on external and internal CSR activities. Furthermore, the negative moderating effect of the CSR gap was mediated by the firm visibility.Originality/value: The findings of the study advance our understanding of the CSR-FP relationship. First, the theoretical arguments and the empirical evidence highlight that the CSR-FP relationship exists and that its magnitude is contingent upon the gap between internal and external CSR investments. Second, the authors enhanced theoretical understanding of how and why CSR relates to firm performance by exploring firm visibility as a mediator. Specifically, the authors introduced firm visibility as a mechanism which explains the effect of the interaction of overall CSR with the CSR gap on firm performance.

While CEO compensation is seen as influencing firm performance, the intervening mechanisms that govern this influence have remained largely unexplored. Using the agency and expectancy theories, this paper attempts to open the “black box” between CEO compensation and firm performance and empirically tests the intervening effect of CEO risk-taking behavior on this relationship. Specifically, we hypothesize that CEO compensation indirectly influences firm performance through its direct effects on CEO risk-taking behavior. Results based on data collected from 204 U.S. manufacturing firms revealed a strong, positive relationship between CEO option pay and a firm’s strategic risk, stock returns risk, and income stream risk. Results also showed that firm strategic risk, measured by R&D expenditure, mediates the CEO option pay-firm performance relationship, sometimes fully and sometimes partially, depending on which type of performance is being examined.

Purpose: In light of the conflict between scholarly findings supporting corporate social responsibility’s positive impact on corporate financial performance (CFP) versus findings showing negative impact on CFP, the academic literature has reoriented toward determining the contingency conditions that affect the underlying relationships. This paper aims to investigate two potential contingency factors, the chief executive officer’s (CEO) corporate social responsibility (CSR) expertise and board members’ CSR expertise. Design/methodology/approach: This paper uses an unbalanced panel of archival data of 168 firms from the S&P 500 index for the period 2006–2013. The analytic model is estimated using the feasible generalized least squares regression method with heteroscedasticity and panel-specific AR1 autocorrelation. Findings: The findings reinforce the perspective that CSR positively affects the firm’s financial performance. The authors find that firms realize optimal results from their CSR investments when both the board and the CEO have greater CSR expertise. In other words, both, CEO CSR expertise and board CSR expertise positively impact the CSR–CFP relationship. Research limitations/implications: The findings of this study advance the literature in three important areas, namely, the social responsibility–financial responsibility relationship, the governance literature and upper echelons theory. First, the theoretical arguments and the empirical evidence highlight that CSR–CFP relationship is at least partly contingent upon the CEO’s and board members’ CSR expertise. Second, this study introduces two important variables: the CEO and board’s CSR experience as proxies for their CSR expertise. Future researchers may consider decomposing the various components of CSR to study the differential impact of each component on financial performance. Practical implications: First, this study finds that while the CEO CSR expertise may be of value for the firm, such value can only be realized under a capable and effective board that has adequate knowledge in the field of CSR. Second, this study shows that the best-case scenario for firms occurs when both its board members and CEO have had greater prior CSR involvement that contributed to their knowledge inventory and skills. Greater knowledge and skills enhance the quality of the decisions that comprise the firm’s CSR strategy. Originality/value: While it seems intuitive that prior CSR knowledge and expertise should lead to more and better CSR initiatives, there are few if any studies that empirically examine the effects of this premise on a firm’s financial performance. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study appears to be the first that directly tests the relationship between executives’ CSR experience and firm performance.

Our current review paper aims to discuss the various issues pertaining to the future research avenues of CSR, and possible expansions that this scholarly field could have considering the growing interests from numerous academic disciplines and practitioners across the globe. In particular, we briefly discuss the work that has been performed on CSR, major theories that guided this area of research, and a summary of prior research findings. Then, we suggest future directions on specific drivers that motivate firms to engage in CSR activities. Specifically, we provide insights on how research should focus on within-firm variables, namely personality traits of TMTs and their possible impact on their firms’ stances towards CSR. We also briefly discuss the need for more advanced method of CSR rankings that takes into account consumers’ perception about the existing CSR rankings, such as KDL, and also consumers’ satisfaction and responses towards firms’ CSR. Finally, we highlight the need for two separate measurements of CSR; a measure that speaks to external stakeholders of the firm, and another measure that speaks to the internal stakeholders of the firm.

Purpose: This study aims to investigate how the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance, documented in prior research, is affected by the joint effects of managerial ability and attributes of the firm's governance structure.Design/methodology/approach: Unbalanced panel contains the essence of cross-sectional time-series data. A significant F-test proves the inappropriateness of pooled OLS regression to the sample. Further, the rejection of the Hausman test null favors fixed-effects over random-effects. However, statistically significant results from Shapiro–Wilk test, Breusch–Pagan test and Wooldridge test reveal non-normal distribution of the dependent variable, the presence of heteroscedasticity and the existence of first-order autocorrelation, respectively. Thus, this study applies feasible generalized least squares with panel-specific autocorrelation structure (hence, a slightly smaller sample) controlling for heteroskedasticity to all models after lagging all the explanatory variables by a year.Findings: This study finds that higher levels of managerial ability enable firms to benefit more/less from their CSR investments depending on the presence/absence of appropriate governance devices. While CEO ability may be seen as an indicator of how well the CEO might serve the firm in the market-domain strategies, the results suggest that this may not be the case in the non-market domain in the absence of appropriate governance mechanisms.Originality/value: The arguments and analyses in this study support two important contributions to the growing literature on CSR. First, the current study is one of the few to identify CEO ability as an important factor that may influence the dynamics of the firm's CSR (see also Garcì-Sànchez et al., 2019 and Yuan et al., 2019). Second, this study examines whether governance robustness minimizes the potential for opportunistic behavior of more able CEOs or constraints the effectiveness of more able CEOs in decisions pertaining to CSR.