Despite ample research on corporate governance (CG) and corporate social responsibility (CSR), there is a lack of consensus on the nature of the relationship between these two concepts and on how this relationship manifests across institutional contexts. Drawing on the national business systems approach, this article systematically reviews 218 research articles published over a 27-year period to map how CG–CSR research has evolved and progressed theoretically and methodologically across different institutional contexts. To shed light on the full gamut of the CG–CSR relationship, we categorize and explore the nature of this relationship along two strands: (a) CSR as a function of CG and (b) CG as a function of CSR. Through this review, we identify key themes where CG–CSR research has lagged and account for under-explored contexts in this domain. Finally, we put forth a comprehensive agenda for progressing future research in the field.
AgarwalR.CrosonR.MahoneyJ. T. (2010). The role of incentives and communication in strategic alliances: An experimental investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 413–437.
2.
AguileraR. V.CapapéJ.SantisoJ. (2016). Sovereign wealth funds: A strategic governance view. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30, 5–23.
3.
AguileraR. V.DesenderK.BednarM. K.LeeJ. H. (2015). Connecting the dots: Bringing external corporate governance into the corporate governance puzzle. Academy of Management Annals, 9, 483–573.
4.
AguileraR. V.FilatotchevI.GospelH.JacksonG. (2008). An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and complementarities. Organization Science, 19, 475–492.
5.
AguileraR. V.GoyerM.Kabbach-CastroL. (2013). Regulation and comparative corporate governance. In WrightM.SiegelD. S.KeaseyK.FilatotchevI. (Eds.), Handbook of corporate governance (pp. 23–45). Oxford University Press.
6.
AguileraR. V.JacksonG. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28, 447–465.
7.
AguileraR. V.RuppD. E.WilliamsC. A.GanapathiJ. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863.
8.
AguileraR. V.WilliamsC. A. (2009). Law and finance: Inaccurate, incomplete, and important. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2009, 1413–1434.
9.
*AguileraR. V.WilliamsC. A.ConleyJ. M.RuppD. E. (2006). Corporate governance and social responsibility: A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(3), 147–158.
10.
AguinisH.GlavasA. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.
11.
*AharonsonB. S.BortS. (2015). Institutional pressure and an organization’s strategic response in Corporate Social Action engagement: The role of ownership and media attention. Strategic Organization, 13, 307–339.
12.
AlbertS.WhettenD. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.
13.
AliW.FrynasJ. G.MahmoodZ. (2017). Determinants of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in developed and developing countries: A literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(4), 273–294.
14.
*AltunerD.ÇelikS.GüleçT. C. (2015). The linkages among intellectual capital, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance, 15, 491–507.
15.
AmitR.DingY.VillalongaB.ZhangH. (2015). The role of institutional development in the prevalence and performance of entrepreneur and family-controlled firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 31, 284–305.
16.
*AmoreM. D.BennedsenM. (2016). Corporate governance and green innovation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 75, 54–72.
17.
AokiM. (2000). Information, corporate governance and institutional diversity: Competitiveness in Japan, the USA, and the transitional economies. Oxford University Press.
AshforthB. E.MaelF. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
20.
AshkanasyN. M.HumphreyR. H.HuyQ. N. (2017). Integrating emotions and affect in theories of management. Academy of Management Review, 42, 175–189.
21.
Ashton-JamesC. E.AshkanasyN. M. (2008). Chapter 1 Affective events theory: A strategic perspective. In ZerbeW. J.HärtelC. E. J.AshkanasyN. M. (Eds.), Emotions, ethics and decision-making (pp. 1–34). Emerald.
22.
*BaiG. (2013). How do board size and occupational background of directors influence social performance in for-profit and non-profit organizations? Evidence from California hospitals. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 171–187.
23.
BansalP.SmithW. K.VaaraE. (2018). New ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 1189–1196.
24.
BarneyJ. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.
25.
*Ben BarkaH.DardourA. (2015). Investigating the relationship between director’s profile, board interlocks and corporate social responsibility. Management Decision, 53, 553–570.
26.
BennettR. (1998). Corporate philanthropy in France, Germany and the UK: International comparisons of commercial orientation towards company giving in European nations. International Marketing Review, 15, 458–475.
27.
BerleA.MeansG. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. Macmillan.
28.
BerroneP.CruzC.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2012). Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25, 258–279.
29.
*BerroneP.Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2009). The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top. Human Resource Management, 48, 959–971.
30.
BerryJ. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 119–128.
31.
BerryJ. W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 721–735.
32.
BlairM. M.StoutL. A. (1999). A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85, 247–328.
33.
*BlockJ. H.WagnerM. (2014). The effect of family ownership on different dimensions of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from large US firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23, 475–492.
34.
BoivieS.BednarM. K.AguileraR. V.AndrusJ. L. (2016). Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 319–407.
35.
BondyK.MoonJ.MattenD. (2012). An institution of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in multi-national corporations (MNCs): Form and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 281–299.
36.
BoodooM. U. (2016). Does mandatory CSR reporting regulation lead to improved corporate social performance? Evidence from India. The London School of Economics and Political Science. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67559/
37.
BowenM. G.PowerF. C. (1993). The moral manager: Communicative ethics and the Exxon Valdez disaster. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3, 97–116.
38.
BradleyM.SchipaniC. A.SundaramA. K.WalshJ. P. (1999). The purposes and accountability of the corporation in contemporary society: Corporate governance at a crossroads. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(3), 9–86.
39.
BrislinR. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross-cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 215–229.
40.
BrownJ. A.AndersonA.SalasJ. M.WardA. J. (2017). Do investors care about director tenure? Insights from executive cognition and social capital theories. Organization Science, 28, 471–494.
41.
*BrownP.BeekesW.VerhoevenP. (2011). Corporate governance, accounting and finance: A review. Accounting & Finance, 51, 96–172.
42.
BrutonG. D.FilatotchevI.ChahineS.WrightM. (2010). Governance, ownership structure, and performance of IPO firms: The impact of different types of private equity investors and institutional environments. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 491–509.
43.
BrymanA. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024329.d9
44.
BuchholtzA. K.BrownJ. A.ShabanaK. M. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. In CraneA.McWilliamsA.MattenD.MoonJ.SiegelD. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 327–345). Oxford University Press.
45.
*CahanS. F.ChenC.ChenL.NguyenN. H. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and media coverage. Journal of Banking & Finance, 59, 409–422.
46.
*CaiY.JoH.PanC. (2011). Vice or virtue? The impact of corporate social responsibility on executive compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 159–173.
47.
ChenM.-J.MillerD. (2011). The relational perspective as a business mindset: Managerial implications for East and West. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 6–18.
48.
ChengB.IoannouI.SerafeimG. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1–23.
49.
*ChoiB. B.LeeD.ParkY. (2013). Corporate social responsibility, corporate governance and earnings quality: Evidence from Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21, 447–467.
50.
ClarkC.BrownJ. A. (2015). Multinational corporations and governance effectiveness: Toward a more integrative board. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 565–577.
51.
CraneA.HenriquesI.HustedB. W.MattenD. (2016). Publishing country studies in business & society: Or, do we care about CSR in Mongolia?Business & Society, 55, 3–10.
52.
CrifoP.Escrig-OlmedoE.MottisN. (2019). Corporate governance as a key driver of corporate sustainability in France: The role of board members and investor relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 1127–1146.
53.
CrossanM. M.ApaydinM. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.
54.
CrosslandC.HambrickD. C. (2007). How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: A study of CEO effects in three countries. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 767–789.
55.
CruzC.Larraza–KintanaM.Garcés–GaldeanoL.BerroneP. (2014). Are family firms really more socially responsible?Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38, 1295–1316.
56.
*CuiJ.JoH.LiY. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and insider trading. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 869–887.
57.
DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D.DonaldsonL. (1997). Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson reply: The distinctiveness of agency theory and stewardship theory. Academy of Management Review, 22, 611–613.
58.
DebickiB. J.KellermannsF. W.ChrismanJ. J.PearsonA. W.SpencerB. A. (2016). Development of a socioemotional wealth importance (SEW) scale for family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7, 47–57.
59.
DelbardO. (2008). CSR legislation in France and the European regulatory paradox: An analysis of EU CSR policy and sustainability reporting practice. Corporate Governance, 8, 397–405.
60.
DenzinN. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Aldine.
61.
*DienesD.VelteP. (2016). The impact of supervisory board composition on CSR reporting. Evidence from the German two-tier system. Sustainability, 8, Article 63.
62.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
63.
DjelicM. L.den HondF. (2014). Introduction: Multiplicity and plurality in the world of standards. Business and Politics, 16, 67–77.
64.
DjelicM. L.Sahlin-AnderssonK. (2006). Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press.
65.
DobbsS.Van StadenC. (2016). Motivations for corporate social and environmental reporting: New Zealand evidence. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7, 449–472.
66.
DouglasS. P.CraigC. S. (2006). On improving the conceptual foundations of international marketing research. Journal of International Marketing, 14, 1–22.
67.
*DuX. Q.PeiH. M.DuY. J.ZengQ. (2016). Media coverage, family ownership, and corporate philanthropic giving: Evidence from China. Journal of Management & Organization, 22, 224–253.
68.
DyerJ. S.FishburnP. C.SteuerR. E.WalleniusJ.ZiontsS. (1992). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: The next ten years. Management Science, 38, 645–654.
69.
*EarnhartD.LizalL. (2006). Effects of ownership and financial performance on corporate environmental performance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 34, 111–129.
70.
EberleinB.AbbottK. W.BlackJ.MeidingerE.WoodS. (2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8, 1–21.
71.
FainshmidtS.JudgeW. Q.AguileraR. V.SmithA. (2018). Varieties of institutional systems: A contextual taxonomy of understudied countries. Journal of World Business, 53, 307–322.
72.
FarooqO.RuppD. E.FarooqM. (2017). The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: The moderating role of cultural and social orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 954–985.
73.
*FassinY.Van RossemA. (2009). Corporate governance in the debate on CSR and ethics: Sensemaking of social issues in management by authorities and CEOs. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 573–593.
74.
FelinT.FossN. J.PloyhartR. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 9, 575–632.
75.
FilatotchevI.NakajimaC. (2010). Internal and external corporate governance: An interface between an organization and its environment. British Journal of Management, 21, 591–606.
76.
*FilatotchevI.StahlG. K. (2015). Towards transnational CSR: Corporate social responsibility approaches and governance solutions for multinational corporations. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2), 121–129.
77.
FilatotchevI.StrangeR.PiesseJ.LienY.-C. (2007). FDI by firms from newly industrialised economies in emerging markets: Corporate governance, entry mode and location. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 556–572.
78.
FilatotchevI.WeiL. Q.SaralaR. M.DickP.PrescottJ. E. (2019). Connecting Eastern and Western Perspectives on Management: Translation of Practices Across Organizations, Institution and Geographies. Journal of Management Studies, 57, 1–24.
79.
FissP. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 393–420.
80.
FlammerC. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science, 61, 2549–2568.
81.
FrederickW.PostJ.DavisK. (1992). Business and society. corporate strategy, public policy, ethics (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
82.
FriedlandR. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). University of Chicago Pres.
83.
FriedlandJ.JainT. (2022). Reframing the purpose of business education: Crowding-in a culture of moral self-awareness. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620940793
84.
*FrynasJ. G. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and societal governance: Lessons from transparency in the oil and gas sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 163–179.
85.
*GainetC. (2011). Exploring the impact of legal systems and financial structure on corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 195–222.
86.
*GalbreathJ. (2010). Corporate governance practices that address climate change: An exploratory study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 335–350.
87.
Garcia-CastroR.AguileraR. V. (2014). Family involvement in business and financial performance: A set-theoretic cross-national inquiry. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5, 85–96.
88.
García-SánchezI. M.AceitunoJ. V. F.DomínguezL. R. (2015). The ethical commitment of independent directors in different contexts of investor protection. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18, 81–94.
89.
*Garcia-SanchezI.-M.Cuadrado-BallesterosB.SepulvedaC. (2014). Does media pressure moderate CSR disclosures by external directors?Management Decision, 52, 1014–1045.
90.
GarrigaE.MeléD. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.
91.
GhoshalS. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 75–91.
92.
GillA. (2008). Corporate governance as social responsibility: A research agenda. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 26, Article 452.
93.
GiovanniD. P. (2012). Do internal and external environmental management contribute to the triple bottom line?International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32, 265–290.
94.
*Godos-DíezJ.-L.Fernández-GagoR.Cabeza-GarcíaL.Martínez-CampilloA. (2014). Determinants of CSR practices: Analysis of the influence of ownership and the management profile mediating effect. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, 43, 47–68.
95.
GoergenM.ChahineS.WoodG.BrewsterC. (2019). The relationship between public listing, context, multi-nationality and internal CSR. Journal of Corporate Finance, 57, 122–141.
96.
Gómez-MejíaL. R.HaynesK. T.Núñez-NickelM.JacobsonK. J.Moyano-FuentesJ. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106–137.
97.
GoranovaM.RyanL. V. (2015). Shareholder empowerment: An introduction. In GoranovaM.RyanL. V. (Eds.), Shareholder empowerment (pp. 1–32). Springer.
98.
GraenG. B.ScanduraT. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.
99.
*Gras-GilE.Palacios ManzanoM.Hernández FernándezJ. (2016). Investigating the relationship between corporate social responsibility and earnings management: Evidence from Spain. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19, 289–299.
100.
*GravesS. B.WaddockS. A. (1994, August1). Institutional Owners and Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034–1046.
101.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). John Wiley.
102.
*GreeningD. W.GrayB. (1994). Testing a Model of Organizational Response to Social and Political Issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 467–498.
103.
GriffinJ. J. (2000). Corporate social performance: Research directions for the 21st century. Business & Society, 39, 479–491.
104.
*GrosserK. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and multi-stakeholder governance: Pluralism, feminist perspectives and women’s NGOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 65–81.
105.
*HabbashM. (2016). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(4), 740–754.
HambrickD. C.FinkelsteinS. (1995). The effects of ownership structure on conditions at the top: The case of CEO pay raises. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 175–193.
108.
HambrickD. C.MasonP. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.
109.
*HaniffaR. M.CookeT. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 391–430.
110.
HawnO.IoannouI. (2016). Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 2569–2588.
111.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.
112.
HoggM. A.TerryD. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
113.
*HongB.LiZ. C.MinorD. (2016). Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation for Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 199–213.
114.
HopewellK. (2017). The BRICS—merely a fable? Emerging power alliances in global trade governance. International Affairs, 93, 1377–1396.
115.
*HungH. (2011). Directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 385–402.
116.
*HuseM.NielsenS. T.HagenI. M. (2009). Women and employee-elected board members, and their contributions to board control tasks. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 581–597.
117.
HustedB. W. (2003). Governance choices for corporate social responsibility: To contribute, collaborate or internalize?Long Range Planning, 36, 481–498.
118.
*IatridisG. E. (2013). Environmental disclosure quality: Evidence on environmental performance, corporate governance and value relevance. Emerging Markets Review, 14, 55–75.
119.
IatridisG. E. (2015). Corporate philanthropy in the US stock market: Evidence on corporate governance, value relevance and earnings manipulation. International Review of Financial Analysis, 39, 113–126.
120.
IoannouI.SerafeimG. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 834–864.
121.
IoannouI.SerafeimG. (2017). The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting (Working Paper No. 11-100). Harvard Business School Research. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1799589
122.
JacksonG.ApostolakouA. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute?Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 371–394.
JainT.AguileraR. V.JamaliD. (2017). Corporate stakeholder orientation in an emerging country context: A longitudinal cross industry analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 701–719.
125.
*JainT.JamaliD. (2016). Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24, 253–273.
126.
JainT.ZamanR. (2019). When boards matter: The case of corporate social irresponsibility. British Journal of Management, 31, 365–386.
127.
JamaliD.HossaryM. (2019). CSR logics in the Middle East. In RettabB.MellahiK. (Eds.), Practising CSR in the Middle East (pp. 53–80). Springer.
128.
JamaliD.JainT.SamaraG.ZoghbiE. (2020). How institutions affect CSR practices in the Middle East and North Africa: A critical review. Journal of World Business, 55(5), Article 101127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101127
129.
JamaliD.KaramC.YinJ.SoundararajanV. (2017). CSR logics in developing countries: Translation, adaptation and stalled development. Journal of World Business, 52, 343–359. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.02.001
130.
JamaliD.MirshakR. (2007). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Theory and practice in a developing country context. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 243–262.
131.
JamaliD.NevilleB. (2011). Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries: An embedded multi-layered institutional lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 599–621.
132.
JamaliD.SafieddineA. M.RabbathM. (2008). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies and interrelationships. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 443–459.
133.
JamaliD.SamaraG.ZolloL.CiappeiC. (2019). Is internal CSR really less impactful in individualist and masculine Cultures? A multilevel approach. Management Decision, 58, 362–375.
134.
*JaskyteK. (2015). Board of directors and innovation in nonprofit organizations model: Preliminary evidence from nonprofit organizations in developing countries. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 1920–1943.
135.
*JianM.LeeK.-W. (2015). CEO compensation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 29, 46–65.
136.
*JiziM. I.SalamaA.DixonR.StratlingR. (2014). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from the US banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 601–615.
137.
*JoH.HarjotoM. (2014). Analyst coverage, corporate social responsibility, and firm risk. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23, 272–292.
138.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
139.
*JunH. (2016). Corporate governance and the institutionalization of socially responsible investing (SRI) in Korea. Asia Pacific Business Review, 22, 487–501.
140.
*KangJ. (2015). Effectiveness of the KLD social ratings as a measure of workforce diversity and corporate governance. Business & Society, 54, 599–631.
141.
*KentP.MonemR. (2008). What drives TBL reporting: Good governance or threat to legitimacy?Australian Accounting Review, 18, 297–309.
142.
*KhanA.MuttakinM. B.SiddiquiJ. (2013). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosures: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 207–223.
143.
*KiliçM.KuzeyC.UyarA. (2015). The impact of ownership and board structure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting in the Turkish banking industry. Corporate Governance, 15, 357–374.
144.
KogutB.ZanderU. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7, 502–518.
145.
*KongD. (2013). Does corporate social responsibility affect the participation of minority shareholders in corporate governance?Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(Suppl. 1), S168–S187.
146.
KrippendorffK. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
147.
*LattemannC.FetscherinM.AlonI.LiS.SchneiderA. M. (2009). CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 426–442.
148.
*LauC. M.LuY.LiangQ. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility in China: A Corporate Governance Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 73–87.
149.
LiS.FetscherinM.AlonI.LattemannC.YehK. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in emerging markets. Management International Review, 50, 635–654.
150.
*LiS.SongX.WuH. (2015). Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate philanthropy in China: A strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 399–411.
151.
*LohC. M.DeeganC.InglisR. (2015). The changing trends of corporate social and environmental disclosure within the Australian gambling industry. Accounting & Finance, 55, 783–823.
152.
*LoneE. J.AliA.KhanI. (2016). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from Pakistan. Corporate Governance, 16, 785–797.
153.
*LuY.ShailerG.WilsonM. (2016). Corporate political donations: Influences from directors’ networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 461–481.
154.
*Lund-ThomsenP. (2005). Corporate accountability in South Africa: The role of community mobilizing in environmental governance. International Affairs, 81, 619–633.
155.
MaignanI.RalstonD. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497–514.
156.
*MallinC. A.MichelonG. (2011). Board reputation attributes and corporate social performance: An empirical investigation of the US best corporate citizens. Accounting and Business Research, 41, 119–144.
157.
*MallinC. A.MichelonG.RaggiD. (2013). Monitoring intensity and stakeholders’ orientation: How does governance affect social and environmental disclosure?Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 29–43.
158.
MarquesJ.-C. (2013). A league of their own: How business-led private governance initiatives achieve legitimacy. McGill University, Montreal.
159.
MarquisC.QianC. (2013). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance?Organization Science, 25, 127–148.
160.
MattenD.MoonJ. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404–424.
161.
McWilliamsA.SiegelD. (2001). Profit maximizing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 26, 504–505.
162.
McWilliamsA.SiegelD. S.WrightP. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1–18.
163.
MellahiK.FrynasJ. G.SunP.SiegelD. (2016). A review of the nonmarket strategy literature: Toward a multi-theoretical integration. Journal of Management, 42, 143–173.
164.
Molina-AzorínJ. F. (2007). Mixed methods in strategy research: Applications and implications in the resource-based view. In KetchenD. J.BerghD. D. (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 4, pp. 37–73). Emerald.
165.
MorrisM. W.LeungK.AmesD.LickelB. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24, 781–796.
166.
MorsingM.SpenceL. J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and small and medium sized enterprises: The governmentality dilemma of explicit and implicit CSR communication. Human Relations, 72, 1920–1947.
167.
NadeemM.ZamanR.SaleemI. (2017). Boardroom gender diversity and corporate sustainability practices: Evidence from Australian Securities Exchange listed firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 874–885.
168.
*NazariJ. A.HerremansI. M.WarsameH. A. (2015). Sustainability reporting: External motivators and internal facilitators. Corporate Governance, 15, 375–390.
169.
*NtimC. G.SoobaroyenT. (2013). Corporate governance and performance in socially responsible corporations: New empirical insights from a Neo-institutional framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21, 468–494.
170.
*OhW.-Y.ChangY. K.ChengZ. (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, 279–291.
171.
OhW.-Y.ChangY. K.KimT.-Y. (2016). Complementary or substitutive effects? Corporate governance mechanisms and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management, 44, 2716–2739.
172.
*OhW. Y.ChangY. K.MartynovA. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 283–297.
173.
ParkerS. K.BindlU. K.StraussK. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856.
174.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
175.
PisaniN.KourulaA.KolkA.MeijerR. (2017). How global is international CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a systematic review. Journal of World Business, 52, 591–614.
176.
PolsaP. (2013). The crossover-dialog approach: The importance of multiple methods for international business. Journal of Business Research, 66, 288–297.
177.
*RaoK.TiltC. (2016). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 327–347.
178.
RathertN. (2016). Strategies of legitimation: MNEs and the adoption of CSR in response to host-country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 858–879.
179.
*ReesW.RodionovaT. (2015). The influence of family ownership on corporate social responsibility: An international analysis of publicly listed companies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23, 184–202.
180.
*RehbeinK.LogsdonJ. M.Van BurenH. J. (2013). Corporate responses to shareholder activists: Considering the dialogue alternative. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 137–154.
181.
*RekkerS. A.BensonK. L.FaffR. W. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and CEO compensation revisited: Do disaggregation, market stress, gender matter?Journal of Economics and Business, 72, 84–103.
182.
*Rodríguez BolívarM. P.Garde SánchezR.López HernándezA. M. (2015). Managers as drivers of CSR in state-owned enterprises. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58, 777–801.
183.
Rodriguez-DominguezL.Gallego-AlvarezI.Garcia-SanchezI. M. (2009). Corporate governance and codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 187–202.
184.
RuppD. E.MalloryD. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: Psychological, person-centric, and progressing. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 211–236.
185.
*RyanL. V.BuchholtzA. K.KolbR. W. (2010). New directions in corporate governance and finance: Implications for business ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 673–694.
186.
SabelC. F.ZeitlinJ. (2008). Learning from difference: The new architecture of experimentalist governance in the EU. European Law Journal, 14, 271–327.
187.
SamaraG.Berbegal-MirabentJ. (2018). Independent directors and family firm performance: Does one size fit all?International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14, 149–172.
188.
SamaraG.JamaliD.SierraV.ParadaM. J. (2018, March). Who are the best performers? The environmental social performance of family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 9, 33–43.
189.
SamaraG.PaulK. (2019). Justice versus fairness in the family business workplace: A socioemotional wealth approach. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28, 175–184.
190.
*SánchezJ. L. F.SotorríoL. L.DíezE. B. (2011). The relationship between corporate governance and corporate social behavior: A structural equation model analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 91–101.
191.
SchererA. G. (1998). Pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management and organization theory: A problem in search of a solution. Sage.
192.
SeglenP. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498–502.
193.
ShenW.LinC. (2009). Firm profitability, state ownership, and top management turnover at the listed firms in China: A behavioral perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17, 443–456.
194.
ShipilovA. V.GreveH. R.RowleyT. J. (2010). When do interlocks matter? Institutional logics and the diffusion of multiple corporate governance practices. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 846–864.
195.
SmithC. A.LazarusR. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In PervinL. A. (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637). The Guilford Press.
196.
StanwickP. A.StanwickS. D. (2001). CEO compensation: Does it pay to be green?Business Strategy and the Environment, 10, 176–182.
197.
SoundararajanV.SahasranamamS.KhanZ.JainT. (2021). Multinational enterprises and the governance of sustainability practices in emerging market supply chains: An agile governance perspective. Journal of World Business, 56, 101149https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101149
198.
StrykerS.BurkeP. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297.
199.
SurrocaJ.TribóJ. A. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 35, 748–789.
200.
SurrocaJ. A.AguileraR. V.DesenderK.TribóJ. A. (2020). Is managerial entrenchment always bad and corporate social responsibility always good? A cross-national examination of their combined influence on shareholder value. Strategic Management Journal, 41, 891–920.
201.
SzékelyF.KnirschM. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23, 628–647.
202.
*TanakaT. (2015). Foreign investors and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from the career advancement of women in Japan. Applied Economics, 47, 3510–3524.
203.
TranfieldD.DenyerD.SmartP. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.
204.
*VelteP. (2016). Women on management board and ESG performance. Journal of Global Responsibility, 7, 98–109.
*WallsJ. L.BerroneP.PhanP. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link?Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885–913.
207.
WalshJ. P.SewardJ. K. (1990). On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15, 421–458.
208.
WeissH. M.CropanzanoR. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
209.
WhitleyR. (1992). Business systems in East Asia: Firms, markets and societies. SAGE.
210.
WhitleyR. (1999). Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. OUP Oxford.
211.
WindsorD. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 93–114.
212.
WintokiM. B.LinckJ. S.NetterJ. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105, 581–606.
213.
WittM. A.KabbachdeCastroL. R.AmaeshiK.MahroumS.BohleD.SaezL. (2017). Mapping the business systems of 61 major economies: A taxonomy and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems research. Socio-Economic Review, 16, 5–38.
214.
WittM. A.ReddingG. (2013). Asian business systems: Institutional comparison, clusters and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems theory. Socio-Economic Review, 11, 265–300.
215.
*YooC. Y.PaeJ. (2016). Corporate charitable contributions: Business award winners’ giving behaviors. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25, 25–44.
216.
YoungS.MaraisM. (2012). A multi-level perspective of CSR reporting: The implications of national institutions and industry risk characteristics. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20, 432–450.
217.
*YoungS.ThyilV. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: Role of context in international settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 1–24.
218.
*YuS.LeeN. (2016). Financial crisis, politically connected CEOs, and the performance of state-owned enterprises: Evidence from Korea. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 52, 2087–2099.
219.
*YuanR.SunJ.CaoF. (2016). Directors’ and officers’ liability insurance and stock price crash risk. Journal of Corporate Finance, 37, 173–192.
220.
ZamanR.NadeemM. (2019). CSR practices among New Zealand firms: Myth or reality. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2019, No. 1, p. 16620). Academy of management.
221.
ZamanR.NadeemM.CarvajalM. (2020). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies: Evidence from New Zealand. Meditari Accountancy Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-12-2019-0649
222.
ZamanR.RoudakiJ. (2019). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility integration: Evidence from New Zealand. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2019, No. 1, p. 17202). Academy of Management.
223.
*ZhaoX. P.ChenS. M.XiongC. (2016). Organizational attention to corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of corporate governance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25, 386–399.
224.
*ZouH.ZengS.LinH.XieX. (2015). Top executives’ compensation, industrial competition, and corporate environmental performance. Management Decision, 53, 2036–2059.
225.
*ZouH.ZengS.XieL.ZengR. (2015). Are top executives rewarded for environmental performance? The role of the board of directors in the context of China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 21, 1542–1565.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
