We draw from resource dependence and institutional theories to explore how board characteristics associated with directors’ capacities to provide resources and legitimacy (i.e., board size, the number of non-executive, interlocking, and female directors) along with regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutional conditions combine to shape firm environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. Using a process of configurational theorizing with fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis and data from firms in 32 countries, we identify multiple equifinal configurations that are associated with high and low ESG performance. We find that high and low ESG performance have different drivers due to complementarities among the presence and absence of board characteristics. Our results also show that the effectiveness (or not) of the bundles of boards’ characteristics for ESG performance varies across institutional contexts. By leveraging these findings to construct a typology of board archetypes that lead to high and low ESG performance, we offer novel theoretical and empirical insights to scholars as well as implications for practice.
AguileraR. V.Aragón-CorreaJ. A.MaranoV.TashmanP. A. (2021). The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1468–1497.
2.
AguileraR. V.FilatotchevI.GospelH.JacksonG. (2008). An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and complementarities. Organization Science, 19, 475–492.
3.
AguileraR. V.GrøgaardB. (2019). The dubious role of institutions in international business: A road forward. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(1), 20–35.
4.
AlbaredaL.WaddockS. (2018). Networked CSR governance: A whole network approach to meta-governance. Business & Society, 57(4), 636–675.
5.
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.
6.
AltunerD.ÇelikS.GüleçT. C. (2015). The linkages among intellectual capital, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance, 15, 491–507.
7.
ArayssiM.JiziM.TabajaH. H. (2020). The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC countries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1), 137–161.
8.
AroraP.DharwadkarR. (2011). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19, 136–152.
9.
AshrafiM.AdamsM.WalkerT. R.MagnanG. (2018). How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: A theoretical review of their relationships. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25(8), 672–682.
10.
BansalP. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.
11.
BearS.RahmanN.PostC. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 207–221.
12.
BellR. G.FilatotchevI.AguileraR. V. (2014). Corporate governance and investors’ perceptions of foreign IPO value: An institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 301–320.
13.
Ben-AmarW.ChangM.McIlkennyP. (2015). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the Carbon Disclosure Project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 369–383.
14.
Ben BarkaH.DardourA. (2015). Investigating the relationship between director’s profile, board interlocks and corporate social responsibility. Management Decision, 53, 553–570.
15.
BolourianS.AngusA.AlinaghianL. (2021). The impact of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility at the board-level: A critical assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 291, 125752.
16.
BoydB. (1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), 419–430.
17.
BrownJ. A.SpicerA.RehbeinK.HigginsC.de BakkerF. G.BapujiH. (2022). More than an umbrella construct: We can (and should) do better with CSR by theorizing through context. Business & Society, 61(8), 1965–1976.
18.
ByronK.PostC. (2016). Women on boards of directors and corporate social performance: A meta-analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(4), 428–442.
19.
CampopianoG.GabaldónP.Gimenez-JimenezD. (2023). Women directors and corporate social performance: An integrative review of the literature and a future research sgenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 182, 717–746.
20.
CarpenterM. A.WestphalJ. D. (2001). The strategic context of external network ties: Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 639–660.
21.
ChangY. K.OhW. Y.ParkJ. H.JangM. G. (2017). Exploring the relationship between board characteristics and CSR: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(2), 225–242.
22.
CookA.GlassC. (2017). Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility?Human Relations, 71, 897–924.
23.
CortT. (2018). Incentivizing the direction of multi-capital toward inclusive capitalism. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 8(3), 203–212.
24.
DailyC. M.DaltonD. R.CannellaA. A.Jr. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382.
25.
ĐặngR.HikkerovaL.SimioniM.SahutJ. M. (2022). How do women on corporate boards shape corporate social performance? Evidence drawn from semiparametric regression. Annals of Operations Research, 1–28. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04550-5
26.
DavidP.BloomM.HillmanA. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 91–100.
27.
DeeganC. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.
28.
DelmasM. A.PekovicS. (2018). Organizational configurations for sustainability and employee productivity: A qualitative comparative analysis approach. Business & Society, 57(1), 216–251.
29.
De VilliersC.NaikerV.van StadenC. J. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. Journal of Management, 37, 1636–1663.
30.
DhaliwalD. S.RadhakrishnanS.TsangA.YangY. G. (2012). Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 723–759.
31.
DienesD.VelteP. (2016). The impact of supervisory board composition on CSR reporting. Evidence from the German two-tier system. Sustainability, 8, Article 63.
32.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
33.
DohJ.RodriguesS.Saka-HelmhoutA.MakhijaM. (2017). International business responses to institutional voids. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 293–307.
34.
DwivediP.JoshiA.MisangyiV. F. (2018). Gender-inclusive gatekeeping: How (mostly male) predecessors influence the success of female CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 379–404.
35.
EdelmanL.BresnenM.NewellS.ScarbroughH.SwanJ. (2004). The benefits and pitfalls of social capital: Empirical evidence from two organizations in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Management, 15, S59–S69.
36.
ElmD. R.KennedyE. J.LawtonL. (2001). Determinants of moral reasoning: Sex role orientation, gender, and academic factors. Business & Society, 40(3), 241–265.
37.
EndrikatJ.De VilliersC.GuentherT. W.GuentherE. M. (2021). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: A meta-analytic investigation. Business & Society, 60(8), 2099–2135.
38.
Fernandez-FeijooB.RomeroS.Ruiz-BlancoS. (2014). Women onboards: Do they affect sustainability reporting?Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(6), 351–364.
39.
FerrisS. P.JayaramanN.LiaoM. Y. S. (2020). Better directors or distracted directors? An international analysis of busy boards. Global Finance Journal, 44, 100437.
40.
FichE. M.ShivdasaniA. (2006). Are busy boards effective monitors?Journal of Finance, 61, 689–724.
41.
FissP. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
42.
FuL.BoeheD. M.OrlitzkyM. O. (2022). Broad or narrow stakeholder management? A signaling theory perspective. Business & Society, 61(7), 1838–1880.
43.
FuenteJ. A.García-SanchezI. M.LozanoM. B. (2017). The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 737–750.
44.
FurnariS.CrillyD.MisangyiV. F.GreckhamerT.FissP. C.AguileraR. V. (2021). Capturing causal complexity: Heuristics for configurational theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 778–799.
45.
GalbreathJ. (2012). Are boards on board? A model of corporate board influence on sustainability performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(4), 445–460.
46.
GalbreathJ. (2018). Is board gender diversity linked to financial performance? The mediating mechanism of CSR. Business & Society, 57(5), 863–889.
47.
García-CastroR.AguileraR. V.AriñoM. A. (2013). Bundles of firm corporate governance practices: A fuzzy set analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21, 390–407.
48.
García-CastroR.FrancoeurC. (2016). When more is not better: Complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 406–424.
49.
GillanS. L.KochA.StarksL. T. (2021). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101889.
50.
GreckhamerT.MisangyiV. F.FissP. C. (2013). Chapter 3 The two QCAs: From a small-N to a large-N set theoretic approach. Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research, 38, 49–75.
51.
HambrickD. C.FinkelsteinS. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–406.
52.
HaniffaR. M.CookeT. E. (2005). The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24, 391–430.
53.
HarjotoM. A.JoH. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 45–67.
54.
HaxhiI.AguileraR. V. (2017). An institutional configurational approach to cross-national diversity in corporate governance. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 261–303.
55.
HermalinB. E.WeisbachM. S. (2003). Board of directors as endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review, 9(1), 7–26.
56.
HerselM. C.GangloffK. A.ShropshireC. (2022). Mixed messages: Crisis communication-dismissal (in) coherence and shareholder trust following misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 65(1), 170–191.
57.
HeywoodP. M. (2018). Combating corruption in the twenty-first century: New approaches. Daedalus, 147(3), 83–97.
58.
HillmanA. J.DalzielT. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.
59.
HillmanA. J.WithersM. C.CollinsB. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.
60.
HittM. A.LeeH.-U.YucelE. (2002). The importance of social capital to the management of multinational enterprises: Relational networks among Asian and Western firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2–3), 353–372.
61.
HouseR. J.HangesP. J.JavidanM.DorfmanP. W.GuptaV. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.
62.
HuangJ.KisgenD. J. (2013). Gender and corporate finance: Are male executives overconfident relative to female executives?Journal of Financial Economics, 108, 822–839.
63.
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.
64.
HustedB. W.de Sousa-FilhoJ. M. (2017). The impact of sustainability governance, country stakeholder orientation, and country risk on environmental, social, and governance performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 93–102.
65.
IoannouI.SerafeimG. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of national-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864.
66.
JacksonG.DeegR. (2008). Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 540–561.
67.
JainT.JamaliD. (2016). Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(3), 253–273.
68.
JeongS.-W.HarrisonD. A. (2017). Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: Meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOs and TMT members. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1219–1252.
69.
JohnK.SenbetL. W. (1998). Corporate governance and board effectiveness. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22(4), 371–403.
70.
JudgeW. Q.DouglasT. J.KutanA. M. (2008). Institutional antecedents of corporate governance legitimacy. Journal of Management, 34(4), 765–785.
71.
KaganR. A.GunninghamN.ThorntonD. (2003). Explaining corporate environmental performance: How does regulation matter?Law & Society Review, 37(1), 51–90.
72.
KanterR. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990.
73.
KassinisG.VafeasN. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 399–415.
74.
KeatsB. W.HittM. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 570–598.
75.
KeigD. L.BrouthersL. E.MarshallV. B. (2015). Formal and informal corruption environments and multinational enterprise social irresponsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 52(1), 89–116.
76.
KeijzersG. (2002). The transition to the sustainable enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(4), 349–359.
77.
KhatriN.TsangE. W.BegleyT. M. (2006). Cronyism: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1), 61–75.
78.
KirschA. (2022). Revolution from above? Female directors’ equality-related actions in organizations. Business & Society, 61(3), 572–605.
79.
KockC. J.SantalóJ.DiestreL. (2012). Corporate governance and the environment: What type of governance creates greener companies?Journal of Management Studies, 49, 492–514.
80.
KonradA. M.KramerV.ErkutS. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–164.
81.
KostovaT. (1997, August). Country institutional profiles: Concept and measurement. In TanejaS. (Ed.), Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1997, No. 1, pp. 180–184). Academy of Management.
LewellynK. B.FainshmidtS. (2017). Effectiveness of CEO power bundles and discretion context: Unpacking the “fuzziness” of the CEO duality puzzle. Organization Studies, 38(11), 1603–1624.
84.
LewellynK. B.Muller-KahleM. I. (2020). The corporate board glass ceiling: The role of empowerment and culture in shaping board gender diversity. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(2), 329–346.
85.
LiuY.WeiZ.XieF. (2014). Do women directors improve firm performance in China?Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 169–184.
86.
LoneE. J.AliA.KhanI. (2016). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from Pakistan. Corporate Governance, 16, 785–797.
87.
LubinD. A.EstyD. C. (2010). The sustainability imperative. Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 42–50.
88.
LuoY. (2006). Political behavior, social responsibility, and perceived corruption: A structuration perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 747–766.
89.
MaranoV.SauerwaldS.Van EssenM. (2022). The influence of culture on the relationship between women directors and corporate social performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(7), 1315–1342.
90.
MeyskensM.Robb–PostC.StampJ. A.CarsrudA. L.ReynoldsP. D. (2010). Social ventures from a resource–based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661–680.
91.
MilgromP.RobertsJ. (1995). Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2–3), 179–208.
92.
MisangyiV. F.AcharyaA. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705.
93.
MisangyiV. F.GreckhamerT.FurnariS.FissP. C.CrillyD.AguileraR. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1), 255–282.
94.
MiskaC.WittM. A.StahlG. K. (2016). Drivers of global CSR integration and local CSR responsiveness: Evidence from Chinese MNEs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(3), 317–345.
Muller-KahleM. I.WangL.WuJ. (2014). Board structure: An empirical study of firms in Anglo-American governance environments. Managerial Finance, 40(7), 681–699.
98.
NadlerD. A. (2004). Building better boards. Harvard Business Review, 82, 102–105.
99.
NerantzidisM.TzeremesP.KoutoupisA.PourgiasA. (2022). Exploring the black box: Board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Finance Research Letters, 48(4), 102987.
100.
OhH.LabiancaG.ChungM.-H. (2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 569–582.
101.
OrtasE.AlvarezI.JaussaudJ.GarayarA. (2015). The impact of institutional and social context on corporate environmental, social and governance performance of companies committed to voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 673–684.
102.
OrtasE.Gallego-ÁlvarezI.ÁlvarezI. (2019). National institutions, stakeholder engagement, and firms’ environmental, social, and governance performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(3), 598–611.
103.
PavaM. L.KrauszJ. (1997). Criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(3), 337–347.
104.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper and Row.
PostC.RahmanN.RubowE. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50, 189–223.
107.
PriorD.SurrocaJ.TribóJ. A. (2008). Are socially responsible managers really ethical? Exploring the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(3), 160–177.
108.
PuglieseA.MinichilliA.ZattoniA. (2014). Integrating agency and resource dependence theory: Firm profitability, industry regulation, and board task performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1189–1200.
RaginC. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. University of Chicago Press.
111.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 174–198). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
112.
RaginC. C.FissP. C. (2008). Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: An empirical demonstration. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and beyond, 240, 190–212.
113.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
RodriguesR.SamagaioA.FelícioT. (2020). Corporate governance and R&D investment by European listed companies. Journal of Business Research, 115, 289–295.
117.
RoyA.GollI. (2014). Predictors of various facets of sustainability of nations: The role of cultural and economic factors. International Business Review, 23(5), 849–861.
118.
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.
119.
SchiehllE.LewellynK.YanW. (2022). A configurational perspective of boards’ attention structures. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12493
120.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press.
121.
SchreckP.RaithelS. (2018). Corporate social performance, firm size, and organizational visibility: Distinct and joint effects on voluntary sustainability reporting. Business & Society, 57(4), 742–778.
122.
ScottW. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations (Vol. 2). Sage.
123.
ScottW. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–442.
124.
ShaukatA.QiuY.TrojanowskiG. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 569–585.
125.
ShropshireC. (2010). The role of the interlocking director and board receptivity in the diffusion of practices. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 246–264.
StephanU.UhlanerL. M. (2010). Performance-based vs socially supportive culture: A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1347–1364.
128.
StephanU.UhlanerL. M.StrideC. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 308–331.
129.
SurrocaJ.TriboJ. A. (2008). Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 35, 748–789.
130.
TashmanP.RiveraJ. (2016). Ecological uncertainty, adaptation, and mitigation in the US ski resort industry: Managing resource dependence and institutional pressures. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1507–1525.
131.
VeenstraE. M.EllemersN. (2020). ESG indicators as organizational performance goals: Do rating agencies encourage a holistic approach?Sustainability, 12(24), 10228.
132.
WallsJ. L.BerroneP.PhanP. H. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there really a link?Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885–913.
133.
WallsJ. L.HoffmanA. J. (2013). Exceptional boards: Environmental experience and positive deviance from institutional norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 253–271.
134.
WebbE. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 255–277.
135.
WelschH. (2004). Corruption, growth, and the environment: A cross-country analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9, 663–693.
136.
WestlundH.AdamF. (2010). Social capital and economic performance: A meta-analysis of 65 studies. European Planning Studies, 18(6), 893–919.
137.
WittM. A.FainshmidtS.AguileraR. V. (2022). Our board, our rules: Nonconformity to global corporate governance norms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(1), 131–166.
138.
XuD.ShenkarO. (2002). Note: Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 608–618.
139.
YuanR.SunJ.CaoF. (2016). Directors’ and officers’ liability insurance and stock price crash risk. Journal of Corporate Finance, 37, 173–192.
140.
ZamanR.JainT.SamaraG.JamaliD. (2022). Corporate governance meets corporate social responsibility: Mapping the interface. Business & Society, 61(3), 690–752.
141.
ZhangJ. Q.ZhuH.DingH. (2013). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 381–392.
142.
ZumenteI.BistrovaJ. (2021). ESG importance for long-term shareholder value creation: Literature vs. practice. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(2), 127.
