Female CEOs and corporate social responsibility: effect of CEO gender on relational and rational CSR

IF 3.7 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
Prachi Gala, Saim Kashmiri, Cameron Duncan Nicol
{"title":"Female CEOs and corporate social responsibility: effect of CEO gender on relational and rational CSR","authors":"Prachi Gala, Saim Kashmiri, Cameron Duncan Nicol","doi":"10.1108/ejm-06-2023-0448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this research is to explore the impact of women in the C-suite on strategic marketing choices in general and CSR in particular is scant. To that end, this study explores whether and how firms led by female CEOs differ from those led by male CEOs with regard to the types of CSR they pursue. The study classifies CSR into two types: relational (i.e. related to employees, human rights, community and diversity) and rational (i.e. related to product, environment and corporate governance).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>To create the sample, the authors combined four databases: Compustat, Execucomp, Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) and Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini and Co., Inc. (KLD). Data for the time period between 1992 and 2013 (both inclusive) were used for the investigation. The final sample comprised of 2,739 firms, for a total of 19,969 firm-year observations (an unbalanced panel).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Building on self-construal theory and theory of female ethics, the authors theorize and find evidence that while firms led by male and female CEOs are not significantly different with regard to rational CSR performance, firms led by female CEOs outperform those led by male CEOs with regard to their relational CSR performance. Furthermore, the authors also find that different types of CEO power (i.e. managerial power, legitimate power and formal power) moderate the link between CEO gender and types of CSR differently.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>This research contributes to research on CSR by introducing two new types of CSR: relational CSR and rational CSR. Further, the research contributes to the broader discussion of how senior managers inject their gender roles into their CSR choices. The authors provide important insights in this area by highlighting that at least some types of myopic management are also driven by CEO gender: female CEOs – to the extent that they are more likely to invest in CSR strengths which pay off in the long run – engage in less myopic management than male CEOs with regard to CSR choices.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>To prospective managers, this research suggests that the gender of the CEO is an effective signal that can help them predict firms’ likely CSR behavior. More specifically, firms led by female CEOs are likely to outperform those led by male CEOs with regard to certain dimensions of CSR (higher relational and rational strengths and fewer relational concerns) and this effect of CEO gender on firms’ CSR behavior is likely to be more pronounced when the CEO exhibits certain kinds of power. Female CEOs may benefit by understanding their innate tendencies to focus on relational versus rational CSR, thereby taking advantage of the positive aspects of their tendencies.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This paper classifies CSR into two types: relational and rational. The findings indicate the benefits of this nuanced classification: female CEOs have a stronger impact on relational CSR compared to male CEOs, while the two types of CEOs do not show a significant difference with regard to their impact on rational CSR. The paper also shows that dividing the variable of CEO power into its sub-types, i.e. managerial power (CEO duality), legitimate power (CEO tenure) and formal power (CEO-TMT pay gap) has value as each of these power dimensions is found to impact the CEO gender-CSR relationship differently.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":48401,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Marketing","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-06-2023-0448","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to explore the impact of women in the C-suite on strategic marketing choices in general and CSR in particular is scant. To that end, this study explores whether and how firms led by female CEOs differ from those led by male CEOs with regard to the types of CSR they pursue. The study classifies CSR into two types: relational (i.e. related to employees, human rights, community and diversity) and rational (i.e. related to product, environment and corporate governance).

Design/methodology/approach

To create the sample, the authors combined four databases: Compustat, Execucomp, Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) and Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini and Co., Inc. (KLD). Data for the time period between 1992 and 2013 (both inclusive) were used for the investigation. The final sample comprised of 2,739 firms, for a total of 19,969 firm-year observations (an unbalanced panel).

Findings

Building on self-construal theory and theory of female ethics, the authors theorize and find evidence that while firms led by male and female CEOs are not significantly different with regard to rational CSR performance, firms led by female CEOs outperform those led by male CEOs with regard to their relational CSR performance. Furthermore, the authors also find that different types of CEO power (i.e. managerial power, legitimate power and formal power) moderate the link between CEO gender and types of CSR differently.

Research limitations/implications

This research contributes to research on CSR by introducing two new types of CSR: relational CSR and rational CSR. Further, the research contributes to the broader discussion of how senior managers inject their gender roles into their CSR choices. The authors provide important insights in this area by highlighting that at least some types of myopic management are also driven by CEO gender: female CEOs – to the extent that they are more likely to invest in CSR strengths which pay off in the long run – engage in less myopic management than male CEOs with regard to CSR choices.

Practical implications

To prospective managers, this research suggests that the gender of the CEO is an effective signal that can help them predict firms’ likely CSR behavior. More specifically, firms led by female CEOs are likely to outperform those led by male CEOs with regard to certain dimensions of CSR (higher relational and rational strengths and fewer relational concerns) and this effect of CEO gender on firms’ CSR behavior is likely to be more pronounced when the CEO exhibits certain kinds of power. Female CEOs may benefit by understanding their innate tendencies to focus on relational versus rational CSR, thereby taking advantage of the positive aspects of their tendencies.

Originality/value

This paper classifies CSR into two types: relational and rational. The findings indicate the benefits of this nuanced classification: female CEOs have a stronger impact on relational CSR compared to male CEOs, while the two types of CEOs do not show a significant difference with regard to their impact on rational CSR. The paper also shows that dividing the variable of CEO power into its sub-types, i.e. managerial power (CEO duality), legitimate power (CEO tenure) and formal power (CEO-TMT pay gap) has value as each of these power dimensions is found to impact the CEO gender-CSR relationship differently.

女性首席执行官与企业社会责任:首席执行官性别对关系型和理性型企业社会责任的影响
本研究的目的是探讨女性首席执行官对市场营销战略选择的影响,尤其是对企业社会责任的影响。为此,本研究探讨了由女性首席执行官领导的公司与由男性首席执行官领导的公司在追求企业社会责任的类型方面是否存在差异以及有何差异。研究将企业社会责任分为两种类型:关系型(即与员工、人权、社区和多样性相关)和理性型(即与产品、环境和公司治理相关):Compustat, Execucomp, Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) 和 Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini and Co., Inc. (KLD)。调查使用了 1992 年至 2013 年(含)的数据。研究结果作者以自我概念理论和女性伦理理论为基础,提出并发现证据表明,虽然男性和女性首席执行官领导的公司在理性企业社会责任绩效方面没有显著差异,但女性首席执行官领导的公司在关系企业社会责任绩效方面优于男性首席执行官领导的公司。此外,作者还发现,不同类型的首席执行官权力(即管理权力、合法权力和正式权力)以不同方式缓和了首席执行官性别与企业社会责任类型之间的联系。研究局限/意义本研究通过引入两种新的企业社会责任类型:关系型企业社会责任和理性型企业社会责任,为企业社会责任研究做出了贡献。此外,本研究还有助于更广泛地讨论高级管理人员如何将其性别角色融入企业社会责任选择中。作者强调,至少某些类型的近视管理也是由首席执行官的性别所驱动的,从而为这一领域提供了重要见解:在企业社会责任选择方面,女性首席执行官比男性首席执行官更少进行近视管理,因为女性首席执行官更有可能在企业社会责任方面投资,从而获得长期回报。更具体地说,在企业社会责任的某些方面(更高的关系和理性优势以及更少的关系关注),由女性首席执行官领导的公司可能会优于由男性首席执行官领导的公司,而且当首席执行官表现出某种权力时,首席执行官的性别对公司企业社会责任行为的影响可能会更加明显。女性首席执行官可能会通过了解自己关注关系型企业社会责任与理性型企业社会责任的先天倾向而受益,从而利用其倾向的积极方面。研究结果表明了这种细致分类的益处:与男性首席执行官相比,女性首席执行官对关系型企业社会责任的影响更大,而两类首席执行官对理性型企业社会责任的影响并无显著差异。本文还表明,将首席执行官权力变量分为其子类型,即管理权力(首席执行官双重性)、合法权力(首席执行官任期)和正式权力(首席执行官与技术管理团队的薪酬差距)具有价值,因为发现这些权力维度对首席执行官性别-企业社会责任关系的影响各不相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
13.60%
发文量
126
期刊介绍: The EJM is receptive to all areas of research which are relevant to marketing academic research, some examples are: ■Sustainability and ethical issues in marketing ■Consumer behaviour ■Advertising and branding issues ■Sales management and personal selling ■Methodology and metatheory of marketing research ■International and export marketing ■Services marketing ■New product development and innovation ■Retailing and distribution ■Macromarketing and societal issues ■Pricing and economic decision making in marketing ■Marketing models
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信