Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore corporate social responsibility (CSR) inequality, which is the inequality across different CSR categories. Higher inequality suggests a less balanced CSR policy. To determine if CSR inequality is beneficial or harmful, this paper investigates how independent directors view CSR inequality, using an exogenous regulatory shock introduced by the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act.

To draw causality, this study relies on a quasi-natural experiment based on an exogenous regulatory shock that forced certain firms to raise board independence. This approach is significantly less vulnerable to endogeneity and is much more likely to show a causal effect. The results using propensity score matching, principal component analysis and instrumental-variable analysis are confirmed.

The difference-in-difference estimates show that independent directors view CSR inequality unfavorably. Specifically, board independence diminishes CSR inequality by approximately 34%-43%. Because the empirical strategy is based on a quasi-natural experiment, the results are more likely to show causality. The results also imply that CSR inequality is a crucially important aspect of CSR.

Although a substantial volume of research has examined CSR, one vital aspect of CSR has been largely unexplored. Filling this void in the literature, the CSR inequality is investigated. The study is the first to explore how independent directors view CSR inequality using a quasi-natural experiment.

This study aims to investigate the role of the market for corporate control as an external governance mechanism and its effect on executive risk-taking incentives. Managers tend to be risk-averse as they are more exposed to idiosyncratic risk, resulting in sub-optimal risk-taking that does not maximize shareholders’ wealth. The takeover market alleviates this problem, inducing managers to take more risk. Therefore, risk-taking incentives inside the firm are less powerful when the outside takeover market is more active.

Exploiting a novel measure of takeover vulnerability recently constructed by Cain et al. (2017), the authors explore how takeover vulnerability influences executive risk-taking incentives. Using a large sample of US firms, the authors use fixed-effects regressions, propensity score matching and instrumental variable analysis.

Consistent with this study’s hypothesis, a more active takeover market results in less powerful risk-taking incentives. Specifically, a rise in takeover vulnerability by one standard deviation diminishes executive risk-taking incentives by 22.39%, which is an economically meaningful magnitude.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to explore the effect of the takeover market on managerial risk-taking incentives, using a novel measure of takeover susceptibility. The authors’ measure of takeover vulnerability is considerably less susceptible to endogeneity, enabling the authors to draw causal inferences with more confidence.

Exploiting an exogenous regulatory shock and a novel measure of asset redeployability, this paper aims to explore the effect of independent directors on asset redeployability. In particular, the authors use an innovative measure of asset redeployability recently developed by Kim and Kung (2016). This novel index has been rapidly adopted in recent literature.

Relying on a quasi-natural experiment, the authors execute a difference-in-difference analysis based on an exogenous regulatory shock to board independence. To mitigate endogeneity and demonstrate causation, the authors also perform propensity score matching, instrumental-variable analysis and Oster’s (2019) approach for testing coefficient stability.

The difference-in-difference estimates show that firms forced to raise board independence have significantly fewer redeployable assets after the shock than those not required to change board composition. This is consistent with the managerial myopia hypothesis. Subject to more intense monitoring, managers behave more myopically, focusing more on assets that are currently useful to the firm and less on redeployability in the future.

The study makes key contributions to the literature. First, the study is the first to examine the effect of board governance on asset redeployability. Second, the authors exploit an innovative index of asset redeployability that has been recently constructed in the literature. Third, by using a natural experiment, the results are much more likely to reflect causality than merely an association.

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the debate in the literature about generalist CEOs by exploring the effect of board governance on CEO general managerial ability, focusing on one of the most crucial aspects of the board of directors, board size. Prior research shows that smaller boards constitute a more effective governance mechanism and therefore are expected to reduce agency costs.

The authors estimate the effect of board size on CEO general managerial ability, using a fixed-effects regression analysis, propensity score matching, as well as an instrumental-variable analysis. These techniques mitigate endogeneity greatly and make the results much more likely to show causality.

The results show that firms with smaller board size are more likely to hire generalist CEOs. Specifically, a decline in board size by one standard deviation raises CEO general managerial ability by 15.62%. A lack of diverse experiences in a small board with fewer directors makes it more necessary to hire a CEO with a broad range of professional experiences. Furthermore, the agency costs associated with generalist CEOs are greatly diminished in firms with a smaller board. Hence, firms with a smaller board are more inclined to hire generalist CEOs.

Although prior research has explored the effects of board size on various corporate outcomes, strategies and policies, this study is the first to investigate the effect of board size on CEO general managerial ability. This study contributes to the literature both in corporate governance and on CEO general managerial ability.

Taking advantage of a novel measure of innovative culture generated by advanced machine learning, this study aims to investigate how a culture of innovation is influenced by a crucial aspect of the board of directors, i.e. board size. The data on corporate culture of innovation are based on a textual analysis of earnings conference calls and represent a unique approach to capturing corporate culture.

In addition to the standard regression analysis, the authors also perform several sophisticated robustness checks, such as propensity score matching, entropy balancing, an instrumental-variable analysis, Oster’s (2019) method for testing coefficient stability, GMM dynamic panel data analysis and Lewbel’s (2012) heteroscedastic identification.

Corroborating the prediction of the resource dependence theory, the study results show that larger boards promote an innovative culture more effectively. A larger board with more directors provides the firm with additional resources, expertise and abilities, enabling it to develop an innovative culture more successfully.

This study is the first to examine the effect of board size on innovation using data on corporate culture generated by sophisticated computer algorithms. The authors advance the literature both in corporate governance and corporate innovation.

This study aims to examine whether co-opted directors influence analysts’ recommendations. As information intermediaries, financial analysts should incorporate the quality of corporate governance into their valuation because well-governed firms are associated with lower agency costs and better performance. Co-opted directors are those appointed after the incumbent chief executive officer assumes office. The authors investigate whether board co-option has an effect on analyst recommendations.

The present study uses univariate analysis, multi-variate regression analysis and conduct a natural experiment using the Sarbanes-Oxley as an exogenous shock.

The results show that firms with fewer co-opted directors tend to receive more favorable recommendations, suggesting that analysts favor firms with strong corporate governance. The results hold even after controlling for various firm characteristics, including the traditional measures of board quality, i.e. board size and independent directors.

The paper is the first of its kind and offers evidence on the effect of co-opted directors on analyst recommendations. The results contribute to the literature both in corporate governance and in financial intermediaries, where analysts play a crucial role in providing information to the various participants in financial markets.

Exploiting a novel measure of innovation, the authors investigate whether independent directors improve innovation efficiency. This novel measure of innovation captures the extent to which the firm generates revenue from its research & development and is, therefore, more economically meaningful. The authors also use a text-based measure of innovation.

The authors rely on a quasi-natural experiment based on the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that compelled certain firms to raise board independence. The difference-in-difference analysis is far less vulnerable to endogeneity and is more likely to show a causal influence, rather than a mere association.

The results show that more independent directors improve innovation efficiency significantly. Specifically, firms forced to raise board independence experienced a much higher increase in innovation than those not required to change their board composition. The authors also explore another novel measure of innovation, a text-based metric of innovation.

The research is original in several ways. First, the authors take advantage of an exogenous regulatory shock as a quasi-natural experiment. This approach is far less susceptible to endogeneity. Second, the authors use a novel measure of innovation efficiency, i.e. research quotient, which is more economically meaningful. Finally, the authors use a unique measure of innovation derived from powerful textual analysis.

Taking advantage of a unique measure of corporate culture obtained from advanced machine learning algorithms, this study aims to explore how corporate culture strength is influenced by board independence, which is one of the most crucial aspects of the board of directors. Because of their independence from the corporation, outside independent directors are more likely to be unbiased. As a result, board independence is commonly used as a proxy for board quality.

In addition to the standard regression analysis, the authors execute a variety of additional tests, i.e. propensity score matching, an instrumental variable analysis, Lewbel’s (2012) heteroscedastic identification and Oster’s (2019) testing for coefficient stability.

The results show that stronger board independence, measured by a higher proportion of independent directors, is significantly associated with corporate culture. In particular, a rise in board independence by one standard deviation results in an improvement in corporate culture by 32.8%.

Conducting empirical research on corporate culture is incredibly difficult due to the inherent difficulties in recognizing and assessing corporate culture, resulting in a lack of empirical research on corporate culture in the literature. The authors fill this important void in the literature. Exploiting a novel measure of corporate culture based on textual analysis, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to link corporate culture to corporate governance with a specific focus on board independence.

Taking advantage of distinctive text-based measures of climate policy uncertainty and firm-specific exposure to climate change, this study aims to examine the impact of firm-specific vulnerability on dividend policy.

To mitigate endogeneity, the authors apply an instrumental-variable analysis based on climate policy uncertainty as well as use additional analysis using propensity score matching and entropy balancing.

The authors show that an increase in climate policy uncertainty exacerbates firm-specific exposure considerably. Exploiting climate policy uncertainty to generate exogenous variation in firm-specific exposure, the authors demonstrate that companies more susceptible to climate change are significantly less likely to pay dividends and those that do pay dividends pay significantly smaller dividends. For instance, a rise in firm-specific exposure by one standard deviation weakens the propensity to pay dividends by 5.11%. Climate policy uncertainty originates at the national level, beyond the control of individual firms and is thus plausibly exogenous, making endogeneity less likely.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first attempt in the literature to investigate the effect of firm-specific exposure on dividend policy using a rigorous empirical framework that is less vulnerable to endogeneity and is more likely to show a causal influence, rather than a mere correlation.

Exploiting two novel measures of takeover vulnerability and asset redeployability, this paper aims to investigate the effect of the takeover market on redeployable assets. Redeployable assets are those with alternative uses. Asset redeployability is a crucial concept in the literature on investment irreversibility.

In addition to the standard regression analysis, the authors execute several robustness checks: propensity score matching, entropy balancing, instrumental-variable analysis and generalized method of moment dynamic panel data analysis.

The authors’ results reveal that more takeover threats reduce asset redeployability significantly, corroborating the managerial myopia hypothesis. Hostile takeover threats reduce managers’ job security and thus induce them to myopically focus on the current utilization of assets in the short run, rather than how they may be deployed in the long run, resulting in less asset redeployability.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the effect of takeover threats on asset redeployability. Because the authors’ measure of takeover vulnerability is principally based on the staggered passage of state legislations, which are plausibly exogenous, the authors’ results likely reflect causality, rather than merely an association.