ArticlePDF Available

Institutional Ownership and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating Effect of Geographic Proximity

Authors:

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of the ownership by institutional investors who are geographically close (local) and have long-term investment horizons (long-term) on corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Using a panel data of S&P 500 firms over the period between 1995 and 2009, we show a differential relation between corporate social performance (CSP) and long-term institutional investors that varies in geographic proximity to the firms they invest in. Specifically, long-term institutional ownership that is geographically proximate (local) is associated with higher corporate social performance, especially CSR strengths, while non-local long-term institutional ownership is not associated with CSR strengths. The positive relation between local long-term institutional ownership and CSP is more pronounced in firms where the dealing of soft information, which is hard to quantify, is necessary. The results are robust to various tests and are consistent with the Stakeholder Salience Theory premises, as local long-term institutional owners are stakeholders with high salience.
Article
We examine the relation between geographical and institutional dispersion and accounting misstatements in China. We hypothesize that geographical dispersion is positively associated with the likelihood of accounting misstatements in subsidiary firms because of increasing monitoring cost and find evidence consistent with this prediction. We also focus on institutional dispersion because institutional duality may affect an organization’s behavior, but do not find that institutional dispersion is associated with accounting misstatements in subsidiary firms. Next, we find that geographical dispersion and institutional dispersion are negatively associated with misstatements in parent firms’ financial statements, consistent with the investor recognition argument. Lastly, we find that the negative (positive) relation between dispersion and parent-level (subsidiary-level) misstatements is more pronounced for state-owned firms and for firms with a wider (narrower) control-ownership wedge.
Article
Full-text available
Do firms respond to changes in economic growth by altering their corporate social responsibility programs? If they do respond, are their responses simply neglect of areas associated with corporate social performance (CSP) or do they also cut back on positive programs such as profit sharing, public/private housing programs, or charitable contributions? In this paper, we argue that because CSP-related actions and programs tend to be discretionary, they are likely to receive less attention during tough economic times, a result of cost-cutting efforts. However, the various CSP performance areas vary in terms of their resource requirements and their influence on financial performance (short- and long-term), which suggests that firms may respond differently depending on area. Consequently, in addition to examining CSP concerns separately from positive actions and programs (CSP strengths), we also examine the influence of economic growth across the five areas of diversity, employee relations, the environment, product quality/safety, and the community. Based on data from 837 firms over 15 years, our results suggest that firms neglect some areas associated with CSP during economic downturns, resulting in increased concerns about community and employee relations, product safety/quality, and the environment. However, this relationship does not apply to positive actions and programs. Instead, firms tend to increase their positive CSP programs in areas such as diversity, employee relations, and the environment during periods of slow economic growth and reduce them when the economy picks up. We offer potential explanations for our findings and discuss their importance to research on CSP.
Article
We test the relationship between shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issue participation. Building better relations with primary stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, and communities could lead to increased shareholder wealth by helping firms develop intangible, valuable assets which can be sources of competitive advantage. On the other hand, using corporate resources for social issues not related to primary stakeholders may not create value for shareholders. We test these propositions with data from S&P 500 firms and find evidence that stakeholder management leads to improved shareholder value, while social issue participation is negatively associated with shareholder value. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.