Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alignment Versus Monitoring: An Examination of the Effect of the CSR Committee and CSR-Linked Executive Compensation on CSR Performance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines how the CSR committee and CSR-linked executive compensation jointly affect CSR performance as governance mechanisms. Prior studies provided mixed results on the CSR committee’s effect on CSR performance. We posit that a CSR committee has both a direct and an indirect positive effect on CSR performance, with CSR-linked compensation playing the role of mediator in the relationship. We base our analysis on a sample of 164 Canadian firms covering the period 2012–2018, for a total of 952 firm-year observations. We propose a regression-based approach for our mediation research design. Our findings reveal that CSR-linked compensation mediates the CSR committee’s positive effect on performance, but the type of mediation depends on whether the performance is social or environmental. We provide evidence of both direct and indirect effects on environmental performance but only a positive indirect effect on social performance. These results suggest that demands from the firm’s internal and external stakeholders are treated differently, with the former receiving priority.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Royal Bank of Canada, https://www.rbcgam.com/en/ca/about-us/responsible-investment/our-latest-independent-research, accessed 2021/06/01.

References

  • Adams, C. A. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(2), 223–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 855–879). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-024.

  • Al-Shaer, H., & Zaman, M. (2019). CEO compensation and sustainability reporting assurance: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 158, 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3735-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amran, A., Lee, S. P., & Devi, S. S. (2014). The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., & Alam, P. (2005). CEO compensation and stakeholders’ claims. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(3), 519–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baraibar-Diez, E., & Odriozola, M. D. (2019). CSR committees and their effect on ESG performance in UK, France, Germany, and Spain. Sustainability, 11(18), 5077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben Amar, W., & Chelli, M. (2018). What drives voluntary corporate water disclosures? The effect of country-level institutions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1609–1622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Amar, W., Chang, M., & McIlkenny, P. (2017). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 82–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birindelli, G., Dell’Atti, S., Iannuzzi, A. P., & Savioli, M. (2018). Composition and activity of the board of directors: Impact on ESG performance in the banking system. Sustainability, 10(12), 4699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. University of Iowa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, F. (2018). Does board diversity matter in the disclosure process? An analysis of the association between diversity and the disclosure of information on risks. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 15(2), 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. N., & Cochran, P. (1991). The stakeholder theory of the firm: Implications for business and society theory and research. In Proceedings of the international association for business and society, 2, 897–933.

  • Buniamin, S., Alrazi, B., Johari, N. H., & Rahman, N. (2011). Corporate governance practices and environmental reporting of companies in Malaysia: Finding possibilities of double thumbs up. Jurnal Pengurusan, 32(2011), 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, J. J., Hoitash, R., & Hoitash, U. (2019). The heterogeneity of board-level sustainability committees and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1161–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callan, S. J., & Thomas, J. M. (2011). Executive compensation, corporate social responsibility, and corporate financial performance: A multi-equation framework. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(6), 332–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Coalition for Good Governance. (2018). The directors E&S Guidebook. Practical insights and recommendations for effective board oversight and company disclosure of environmental and social (E&S) matters. Accessed at https://www.hillsdaleinv.com/uploads/The-directors-ES-Guidebook-1-1-1.pdf

  • Celentano, A., Lepore, L., Pisano, S., D’Amore, G., & Alvino, F. (2020). The Joint effect of board independence and CSR committee on CSR disclosure: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Governance: Examining Key Challenges and Perspectives, 13.

  • Chams, N., & García-Blandón, J. (2019). Sustainable or not sustainable? The role of the board of directors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 1067–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Combs, J. G., Ketchen, J., David, J., Crook, T. R., & Roth, P. L. (2011). Assessing cumulative evidence within ‘macro’ research: Why meta-analysis should be preferred over vote counting. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 178–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2015). The economic relevance of environmental disclosure and its impact on corporate legitimacy: An empirical investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cucari, N., Esposito De Falco, S., & Orlando, B. (2018). Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(3), 250–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derchi, G.-B., Zoni, L., & Dossi, A. (2020). Corporate social responsibility performance, incentives, and learning effects. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04556-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Fowler, H. R., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (2017). The role of board environmental committees in corporate environmental performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 423–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhardt-Toth, E. (2017). Who should be on a board corporate social responsibility committee? Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1926–1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, N., & Viviers, S. (2011). The origins and meanings of names describing investment practices that integrate a consideration of ESG issues in the academic literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endrikat, J., De Villiers, C., Guenther, T. W., & Guenther, E. M. (2020). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: A meta-analytic investigation. Business & Society, 1–37, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320930638  

  • Fabrizi, M., Mallin, C., & Michelon, G. (2014). The role of CEO’s personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 311–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francoeur, C., Labelle, R., Balti, S., & Bouzaidi, S. E. (2019). To what extent do gender diverse boards enhance corporate social performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 343–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.

  • Freeman, E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift Für Wirtschafts-Und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 33, 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuente, J. A., García-Sanchez, I. M., & Lozano, M. B. (2017). The role of the board of directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 737–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Sánchez, I., Gómez-Miranda, M., David, F., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2019). Board independence and GRI-IFC performance standards: The mediating effect of the CSR committee. Journal of Cleaner Production, 225, 554–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gennari, F., & Salvioni, D. M. (2019). CSR committees on boards: The impact of the external country level factors. Journal of Management and Governance, 23(3), 759–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, A. (2008). Corporate governance as social responsibility: A research agenda. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 26, 452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global 100 ranking. (2021). 2021 Global 100 ranking | Corporate Knights. Available at: https://www.corporateknights.com/reports/2021-global-100

  • Godos-Díez, J.-L., Cabeza-García, L., Alonso-Martínez, D., & Fernández-Gago, R. (2018). Factors influencing board of directors’ decision-making process as determinants of CSR engagement. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Canada. (2009). Building the Canadian advantage: Canada’s corporate social responsibility strategy for the Canadian international extractive sector. A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector. Available at: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/maps-tools-and-publications/publications/minerals-mining-publications/building-the-canadian-advantage-csr-strategy-for-the-international-extractive-sector/8776.

  • Government of Canada. (2014). Doing business the Canadian way: A strategy to advance corporate social responsibility in Canada’s extractive sector abroad. Available at: https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/csr-strat-rse.aspx?lang=eng.

  • Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis second edition: A regression-based approach. Ebook The Guilford Press. Google Scholar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfaya, A., & Moussa, T. (2017). Do board’s corporate social responsibility strategy and orientation influence environmental sustainability disclosure? UK evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1061–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal Law, of Economics & Organization, 7, 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, B., Li, Z., & Minor, D. (2016). Corporate governance and executive compensation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1), 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, B. M., Comstock, M., Polk, D., & Wardwell, L. L. P. (2017). ESG reports and ratings: What they are, why they matter. In Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, vol. 44.

  • Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikram, A.,  Li, Z., & Minor, D. (2019). CSR-contingent executive compensation contracts. Journal of Banking and Finance, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.105655.

  • Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jizi, M. (2017). The influence of board composition on sustainable development disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(5), 640–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2014). Sustainable bonuses: Sign of corporate responsibility or window dressing? Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z. F., & Thibodeau, C. (2019). CSR-contingent executive compensation incentive and earnings management. Sustainability, 11(12), 3421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, L., Luo, L., & Tang, Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Arceiz, F. J., Bellostas-Pérezgrueso, A. J., Moneva-Abadía, J. M., & Rivera-Torres, M. P. (2018). The role of corporate governance and transparency in the generation of financial performance in socially responsible companies. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting/Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 47(1), 44–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, K. (2018). Do corporate social performance targets in executive compensation contribute to corporate social performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 573–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, L. S., & Thorne, L. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and long-term compensation: Evidence from Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Ferrero, J., Suárez-Fernández, O., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2019). Obfuscation versus enhancement as corporate social responsibility disclosure strategies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), 468–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matolcsy, Z., & Wright, A. (2011). CEO compensation structure and firm performance. Accounting & Finance, 51(3), 745–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., Dow, S., & Argheyd, K. (2003). CEO incentives and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2012). The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3), 477–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misangyi, V. F., & Acharya, A. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00008-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubaum, D. O., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. B. (2012). Balancing natural environmental concerns of internal and external stakeholders in family and non-family businesses. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nollet, J., Filis, G., & Mitrokostas, E. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A non-linear and disaggregated approach. Economic Modelling, 52, 400–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ntim, C. G., & Soobaroyen, T. (2013). Corporate governance and performance in socially responsible corporations: New empirical insights from a Neo-Institutional framework. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(5), 468–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, N. (2000). The impact of board composition and ownership on audit quality: Evidence from large UK companies. The British Accounting Review, 32(4), 397–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Murphy, P. E. (2013). CSR practices and consumer perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1839–1851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, W.-Y., Chang, Y. K., & Kim, T.-Y. (2018). Complementary or substitutive effects? Corporate governance mechanisms and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2716–2739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özdil, S. Ö., & Kutlu, Ö. (2019). Investigation of the mediator variable effect using BK, Sobel and Bootstrap methods (Mathematical Literacy Case). International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel Da Silva, G. D. (2021). Powering corporate citizenship: Assessing corporate social responsibility of hydroelectric companies in Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 39(2), 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. F., & Romi, A. M. (2015). The association between sustainability governance characteristics and the assurance of corporate sustainability reports. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 163–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. F., Romi, A. M., & Sanchez, J. M. (2019). The influence of corporate sustainability officers on performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4), 1065–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radu, C., & Francoeur, C. (2017). Does innovation drive environmental disclosure? A new insight into sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(7), 893–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (1998). Power in a theory of the firm. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 387–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, K., Chase, L., & Karim, S. (2015). The truth about CSR. Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rediker, K. J., & Seth, A. (1995). Boards of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal, 16(2), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Responsible Investment Association. (2020). RIA Investor opinion survey. Available at https://www.riacanada.ca/research/2020-ria-investor-opinion-survey/.

  • Ricart, J. E., Rodríguez, M. Á., & Sanchez, P. (2005). Sustainability in the boardroom: An empirical examination of Dow Jones Sustainability World Index leaders. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Effective Board Performance, 5(3), 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Cho, C. H. (2013). Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1331-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupley, K. H., Brown, D., & Marshall, R. S. (2012). Governance, media and the quality of environmental disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(6), 610–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0079-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Cowley, J. (2013). The relevance of stakeholder theory and social capital theory in the context of CSR in SMEs: An Australian perspective: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1598-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spira, L. F., & Bender, R. (2004). Compare and contrast: Perspectives on board committees. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(4), 489–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, L., Mahoney, L. S., & Gregory, K. (2017). A comparison of Canadian and U.S. CSR strategic alliances, CSR reporting, and CSR performance: Insights into implicit–explicit CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2799-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tingbani, I., Chithambo, L., Tauringana, V., & Papanikolaou, N. (2020). Board gender diversity, environmental committee and greenhouse gas voluntary disclosures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2194–2210. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosi, H. L., Jr., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1994). CEO compensation monitoring and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1002–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, S., D’Almeida, N., & Libaert, T. (2018). Développement durable-Une communication qui se démarque. PUQ.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tricker, R. B., & Tricker, R. I. (2015). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuggle, C. S., Sirmon, D. G., Reutzel, C. R., & Bierman, L. (2010). Commanding board of director attention: Investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 946–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valle, I. D. D., Esteban, J. M. D., & Pérez, Ó. L. D. F. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability committee inside the board. European Journal of International Management, 13(2), 159–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velte, P. (2019). Do CEO incentives and characteristics influence corporate social responsibility (CSR) and vice versa? A literature review. Social Responsibility Journal, 16, 1293–1323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1703–1725.

  • Wang, Z., & Sarkis, J. (2017). Corporate social responsibility governance, outcomes, and financial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1607–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESG UQAM (School of Management), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada

    Camélia Radu & Nadia Smaili

Authors
  1. Camélia Radu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadia Smaili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camélia Radu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Radu, C., Smaili, N. Alignment Versus Monitoring: An Examination of the Effect of the CSR Committee and CSR-Linked Executive Compensation on CSR Performance. J Bus Ethics 180, 145–163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04904-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04904-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation