Корпоративное управление, социальная ответственность и финансовая эффективность компании

Artem V. Gizatullin

Authors

Artem V. Gizatullin Kazan State Institute of Finance and Economics, Russia

Abstract

The study provides empirical research on the relationship between corporate governance quality, corporate social policy and financial performance. The study results reveal U-linear interdependence between corporate social performance and corporate governance quality. The analysis shows as well, that joint influence of corporate social performance and corporate governance quality on firm financial performance is oppositely directed and has features of dynamic Pareto-equilibrium. The variants of theoretical explanation of the results are offered in the study.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

REFERENCES IN LATIN ALPHABET

Allouche J., Laroche P. 2005. A Meta-Analytical Examination of the Link Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Cahier de Recherche. Université Paris 1 — Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Barnea A., Rubin A. 2003. Corporate Social Responsibility and Ownership Structure. Working Paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Barnett M. L., Salomon R. M. 2002. Unpacking Social Responsibility: The Curvilinear Relationship between Social and Financial Performance. Academy of Management Conference (SIM Division): Denver.

Becht M., Bolton P., Röell A. 2002. Corporate Governance and Control. Working Paper, European Corporate Governance Institute.

Bebchuk L. A., Cohen A., Ferrell A. 2004. What Matters in Corporate Governance? Working Paper, Harvard University.

Better Corporate Governance Results in Higher Profit and Lower Risk. 2005. White Paper, Institutional Shareholder Services: Rockville, MD.

Bowman E. H., Haire M. 1975. A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review 18 (2): 49–58.

Brammer S., Millington A., Rayton B. 2005. The Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility to Organizational Commitment. Working Paper, University of Bath.

Brown L. D., Caylor M. L. 2004. Corporate Governance and Firm Performance. Working Paper, Georgia State University.

Brown L. D., Caylor M. L. 2005. Corporate Governance and Firm Valuation. Working Paper, Georgia State University.

Carroll A. B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of definitional construct. Business and Society 38 (3): 268–295.

Ceton G. C., Liston-Heyes C. 2004. CSR and Political Values: An Empirical Investigation of the Determinants of Corporate Social Performance in S&P500 Firms. Working Paper, University of London.

Cornell B., Shapiro A.C. 1987. Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management 16 (1): 5–14.

d’Arcimoles C. H., Trébucq S. 2003. The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link: Evidence from France. Cahier de Recherche, Université François Rabelais.

Dalton D. R., Daily C. M., Ellstrand A. E., Johnson J. L. 1998. Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 19 (3): 269–290.

Daines R. 2000. Does Delaware law improve firm value? Working Paper, New York University.

Donaldson T., Preston L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 65–91.

Fisch J. E. 2000. The Peculiar Role of Delaware Courts in Competition for Corporate Charters. Working Paper, Fordham University.

Fombrun C., Stanley M. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33 (2): 233–258.

Freeman R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman/Ballinger: Boston, MA.

Friedman M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine (September 13): 32–33, 122, 124, 126.

Gompers P. A., Ishii J. L., Metrick A. 2003. Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1): 107–155.

Greenwood D. L. H. 2005. Democracy and Delaware: The mysterious race to the top/bottom. Yale Law and Policy Review 23 (9): 381–454.

Grewal R., Kayande U., Roberts P. W. 2005. Reputation, Reputation Coherence and Performance Reliability. Working paper, Emory University.

Griffin J. J., Mahon J. F. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society 36 (1): 5–31.

Hansmann H. 1996. The Ownership of Enterprise. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Hart O. 1995. Firms, Contracts and Financial Structure. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Hart O., Holmström B. 1987. The theory of contracts. In: Bewley T. (ed.). Advances in Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 71–155.

Igalens J., Gond J.-P. 2004. Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Critical and Empirical Analysis of ARESE Data. Working Paper, University Toulouse.

Jensen M. C. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flows, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review 76 (2): 323–329.

Jensen M. C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (1): 235–256.

Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (5): 305–360.

Jones R., Murrell A. 2001. Signaling positive corporate social performance: An event study of family-friendly firms. Business and Society 40 (1): 59–78.

KLD Ratings Data: Inclusive Social Rating Criteria. 2003. KLD Research & Analytics, Inc.: Boston.

Kraft K., Hage J. 1990. Strategy, social responsibility and implementation. Journal of Business Ethics 9 (1): 11–19.

Mahoney L., Roberts R. 2002. Corporate Social and Environmental Performance and Their Relation to Financial Performance and Institutional Ownership: Empirical Evidence on Canadian Firms. Working Paper, University of Central Florida.

Margolis J. D., Walsh J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2): 268–305.

McDonnel B. 2004. Delaware, Federalism, and the Expertise-Bias Tradeoff. Working Paper, University of California, Berkely.

McWilliams A., Siegel D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26 (1): 117–127.

Milgrom P., Roberts J. 1990. Rationalizability, learning and equilibrium games with strategic complementarities. Econometrica 58 (6): 1255–77.

Orlitzky M., Benjamin J. D. 2001. Corporate social performance and firm risk: A metaanalytic review. Business and Society 40 (4): 369–396.

Orlitzky M., Schmidt F. L., Rynes S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24 (3): 403–441.

Preston L. E., O’Bannon D. P. 1997. The corporate social-financial performance relationship. A typology and analysis. Business and Society 36 (4): 419–429.

Roe M. J. 2003. Delaware’s Competition. Working Paper, Harvard University.

Report on the 2005 Corporate Governance Survey. 2005. White Paper. Japan Corporate Governance Index Research Group: Tokyo.

Roman R. M., Hayibor S., Agle B. R. 1999. The relationship between social and financial performance. Repainting a portrait. Business and Society 38 (4): 109–125.

Rose P. 2006. The Corporate Governance Industry. Working Paper, Northwestern University.

Satake C. 2003. Empirical Investigation between CEO Compensation and Corporate Social Responsibility. Working Paper, University of Washington.

Schneper W. D., Guillén M. F. 2004. Stakeholder rights and corporate governance: A cross-national study of hostile takeovers. Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (2): 263–295.

Sitkoff R. H. 2002. Corporate Political Speech, Political Extortion, And The Competition For Corporate Charters. Working Paper, Northwestern University.

Social Science Citation Index® (Expanded). 2005. Institute of Scientific Information (Web of Sciense®). Thomson Dialog: Cary, NC USA.

Tirole J. 2001. Corporate governance. Econometrica 69 (1): 1–35.

Verschoor C. C., Murphy E. A. 2002. The financial performance of large US firms and those with global prominence: How do the best corporate citizens rates? Business and Society Review 107 (3): 371–380.

Waddock S. A., Graves S. B. 1997. The corporate social performance — financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal 18 (4): 303–319.

Waddock S. A., Graves S. B. 2002. The Impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on Corporate Stakeholder Practices. Working Paper, Carroll School of Management.

Wartick S. L., Cochran P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review 10 (4): 758–769.

Webb E. 2003. Corporate Governance in Socially Responsible Firms. PhD Thesis, Drexel University.

Webb E. 2005. Agency costs, leverage, and corporate social responsibility: A test of causality. Financial Decisions 17 (3), Article 1. http://www.financialdecisionsonline.org/current/Webb.pdf

Williamson O. 1984. Corporate governance. Yale Law Journal 93 (6): 1197–1230.

Wood D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review 16 (4): 691–718.

Yen S.-W. 2005. Are Well Governed Firms Safe Investments? Working Paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Yoong J. 2005. Shareholders, Stakeholders and Standards: The Value Puzzle of Corporate Social Responsibility. Working Paper, Stanford University.

Zingales L. 1997. Corporate Governance. Working Paper, Chicago University.