Previous research suggests that large firms are more committed to corporate social performance (CSP), because the society exerts heavier pressure on large firms for socially responsible activities, and firms correspondingly conform to the pressure. This seemingly plausible argument, however, ignores the internal process how the response occurs in firms. In this study, the authors propose that the relationship between firm size and CSP is mediated by outside director representation in the board. The authors tested the mediating effect using a data set of 180 Korean firms and found empirical support for the argument. The result indicates that a firm’s social performance is more directly influenced by internal responses, such as appointing more outside directors in this study, rather than firm size. This study advances the institutional theory perspective in the size–CSP linkage by introducing the mediation internal mechanism.
AguileraR. V.RuppD.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.
2.
ArogyaswamyB. (2001). Looking forward: Korea after the economic crisis. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18, 412-413.
3.
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.
4.
AshforthB. E.GibbsB. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1, 177-194.
5.
AyraB.ZhangG. (2009). Institutional reforms and investor reactions to CSP announcements: Evidence from an emerging economy. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1089-1111.
6.
BansalP.ClellandI. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 93-103.
7.
BaronR.KennyD. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
8.
BeattyR. P.ZajacE. J. (1987). CEO change and firm performance in large corporations: Succession effects and manager effects. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 305-317.
9.
BooneA. L.FieldL. C.KarpoffJ. M.RahejaC. G. (2007). The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 85, 66-101.
10.
BorgattiS. P.FosterP. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991-1013.
11.
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, 639-660.
12.
CertoS. T. (2003). Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Academy of Management Review, 28, 432-446.
13.
CertoS. T.DailyC. M.DaltonD. R. (2001). Signaling firm value through board structure: An investigation of initial public offerings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 33-50.
14.
ChappleW.MoonJ. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting. Business & Society, 44, 415-441.
15.
ChizemaA.KimJ. (2010). Outside directors on Korean boards: Governance and institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 109-129.
16.
ChoD-S.KimJ. (2007). Outside directors, ownership structure and firm profitability in Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 239-250.
17.
CochranP. L.WoodR. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42-56.
18.
CoffeyB. S.WangJ. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1595-1603.
19.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
20.
CovaleskiM. A.DirsmithM. W. (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 562-587.
21.
CowenS. S.FerreriL. B.ParkerD. B. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12, 111-122.
22.
CoxT.BlakeS. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45-56.
23.
DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D.DonaldsonL. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
24.
DiMaggioP. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In ZuckerL. G. (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3-21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
25.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
26.
DonaldsonL. (2001). The contingency theory of organization. London, England: Sage.
27.
DowlingJ.PfefferJ. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122-135.
28.
FaleyeO. (2003). Are large boards poor monitors? Evidence from CEO turnover (EFMA Basel Meetings Paper). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.498285.
29.
FamaE.JensenM. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law & Economics, 26, 301-325.
30.
FombrunC.ShanleyM. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233-258.
31.
FredricksonJ. W.HambrickD. C.BaumrinS. (1988). A model of CEO dismissal. Academy of Management Review, 13, 255-270.
32.
FreemanR. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
33.
HatfieldG.WorrellD.DavidsonW.IIIBlandE. (1999). Turbulence at the top: Antecedents of key executive dismissal. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, 38, 3-24.
34.
HeckmanJ. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153-161.
35.
HillmanA. J.CannellaA. A.PaetzoldR. L. (2000). The resource dependence role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 235-256.
36.
IbrahimN. A.AngelidisJ. P. (1995). The corporate social responsiveness orientation of board members: Are there differences between inside and outside directors?. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 405-410.
37.
IbrahimN. A.HowardD. P.AngelidisJ. P. (2003). Board members in the service industry: An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility orientation and director type. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 393-401.
38.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. C. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Analysis, 3, 305-360.
39.
JohnsonR. A.GreeningD. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564-576.
40.
KaganR.GunninghamN.ThorntonD. (2003). Explaining corporate environmental performance: How does regulation matter?. Law & Society Review, 37, 51-90.
41.
KimY. (2005). Board network characteristics and firm performance in Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13, 800-808.
42.
KimY. (2007). The proportion and social capital of outside directors and their impacts on firm value: Evidence from Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 1168-1176.
43.
KohlbergL. (1984). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In KohlbergL. (Ed.), Essays on moral development: Vol. II. The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (pp. 170-205). San Franciso, CA: Harper & Row.
44.
LaplumeA. O.SonparK.LitzR. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34, 1152-1189.
45.
LeeC. (1994). Social capital, social closure, and human capital development: The case of managerial workers in Korean Chaebol (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
46.
LewisS. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 7, 356-364.
47.
MaignanI.FerrellO. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 3-19.
48.
MalletteP.FowlerK. L. (1992). Effects of board composition and stock ownership on the adoption of “poison pills.”Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1010-1035.
49.
MargolisJ. D.WalshJ. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
50.
MarsdenP. V. (1990). Network data measurementAnnual Review of Sociology, 16, 435-463.
51.
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.
52.
McWilliamsA.SiegelD. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.
53.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
54.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1983). The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerJ. W.ScottW. R. (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
55.
MilesR. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
56.
MooreG. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 299-315.
57.
MorrowJ. L.SirmonD. G.HittM. A.HolcombT. R. (2007). Creating value in the face of declining performance: Firm strategies and organizational recovery. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 271-283.
58.
MullerA.KolkA. (2010). Extrinsic and intrinsic drivers of corporate social performance: Evidence from foreign and domestic firms in Mexico. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1-26.
59.
OhW.-Y.ChangY. K.MartynovA. (2011). The effects of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 283-297.
60.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
61.
OrlitzkyM.SchmidtF. L.RynesS. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403-441.
62.
O’ShaughnessyK. C.GedajlovicE.ReinmoellerP. (2007). The influence of firm, industry and network on the corporate social performance of Japanese firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24, 283-303.
63.
ParmarB. L.FreemanR. E.HarrisonJ. S.WicksA. C.PurnellL.de ColleS. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 403-445.
64.
ParsonsT. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
65.
PfefferJ. (1973). Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors: A study of organization-environment linkage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 349-364.
66.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependent perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
67.
PitcherP.ChreimS.KisfalviV. (2000). CEO succession research: Methodological bridges over troubled waters. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 625-648.
68.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36, 717-731.
69.
RestJ. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger.
70.
RobertsR. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 595-612.
71.
Rodriguez-DominguezL.Gallego-AlvarezI.Garcia-SanchezI. M. (2009). Corporate governance and codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 187-202.
72.
ScottW. R. (1987a). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493-511.
73.
ScottW. R. (1987b). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
74.
ShepardJ. M.BetzM.O’ConnellL. (1997). The proactive corporation: Its nature and causes. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1001-1010.
75.
StanwickP.StanwickS. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 195-204.
76.
SuchmanM. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
TjosvoldD. (1988). Cooperative and competitive interdependence: Collaboration between departments to serve customers. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 274-279.
79.
UdayasankarK. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 167-175.
80.
VisserW. (2008). CSP in developing countries. In CraneA.McWilliamsA.MattenD.MoonJ.SiegelD. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 473-499). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
81.
WaddockS. A.GravesS. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
82.
WalshJ. P.SewardJ. K. (1990). On the efficiency of internal and external corporate control mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 15, 421-458.
83.
WangJ.CoffeyB. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 771-778.
84.
WangJ.DewhirstD. (1992). Boards of directors and stakeholder orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 115-123.
85.
WebbE. (2004). An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 255-277.
86.
WilliamsR. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 1-10.
87.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
88.
WoodD. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
89.
ZahraS. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1713-1735.
90.
ZahraS. A.PearceJ. A.II. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15, 291-334.
91.
ZajacE. J.WestphalJ. D. (1996). Director reputation, CEO-board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 507-529.
92.
ZhouN.DeliosA. (2010). Diversification and diffusion: A social networks and institutional perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10490-010-9242-4
