Пороговый эффект характеристик совета директоров, корпоративной социальной ответственности и стоимости бренда
Аннотация
Стоимость бренда остается исключительно важным элементом котирующихся на бирже компаний, которые стремятся сохранить свою конкурентоспособность в условиях экономики с двойным циклом. На основании панельных данных по китайским котирующимся на бирже компаниям с акциями класса А за 2017-2021г.г. в настоящем исследовании применяется модель порогового эффекта для глубокого изучения граничных условий сложной взаимосвязи между корпоративной социальной ответственностью (КСО) и стоимостью бренда. В нем проводится эмпирическое изучение роли характеристик совета директоров в формировании стоимости бренда котирующихся на бирже компаний через их деятельность в рамках КСО с учетом размеров совета директоров и соотношения размеров долей членов совета директоров. Результаты показывают, что приверженность социальной ответственности повышает стоимость бренда до определенного предела. Однако длительное и масштабное инвестирование в ресурсы может отвлечь компанию от основных целей, что может отрицательно сказаться на стоимости бренда. Проявляется это в виде нестрого перевернутого U-образного порогового эффекта между КСО и стоимостью бренда. Помимо этого, исследование изучает различия в размере совета директоров, а также соотношение размеров долей членов совета директоров и выявляет, что взгляды членов совета директоров, связанные с приверженностью КСО, подвержены определенным ограничениям. Результатом данной динамики становится нелинейная, симметричная U-образная зависимость между КСО и стоимостью бренда, изначально отрицательная, а затем положительная. Исследование определяет, играют ли характеристики совета директоров какую-либо роль при принятии решений по КСО и способствуют ли, таким образом, повышению стоимости бренда, чтобы выработать рекомендации по управлению советами директоров котирующихся на бирже компаний и оптимизировать способы повышения стоимости бренда.
Скачивания
Литература
Backhaus K., Steiner M., Lügger K. To invest, or not to invest, in brands? Drivers of brand relevance in B2B markets. Industrial Marketing Management. 2011;40(7):1082-1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.002
Baskentli S., Sen S., Du S., et al. Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility: The role of CSR domains. Journal of Business Research. 2019;95:502-513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.046 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.046
Carlini J., Grace D., France C., et al. The corporate social responsibility (CSR) employer brand process: integrative review and comprehensive model. Journal of Marketing Management. 2019;35(1-2):182-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1569549 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1569549
Fabrizi M., Mallin C., Michelon G. The role of CEO’s personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 2014;124:311-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1864-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1864-2
Bravo F., Reguera‐Alvarado N. The effect of board of directors on R&D intensity: board tenure and multiple directorships. R&D Management. 2017;47(5):701-714. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12260
Ramchander S., Schwebach R.G., Staking K.I.M. The informational relevance of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from DS400 index reconstitutions. Strategic management journal. 2012;33(3):303-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.952 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.952
Rothenhoefer L.M. The impact of CSR on corporate reputation perceptions of the public—A configurational multi‐time, multi‐source perspective. Business ethics: A European review. 2019;28(2):141-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12207 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12207
Yoo D., Lee J. The effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) fit and CSR consistency on company evaluation: The role of CSR support. Sustainability. 2018;10(8):2956. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082956 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082956
Wright P., Ferris S.P. Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic management journal. 1997;18(1):77-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199701)18:1<77::AID-SMJ810>3.0.CO;2-R
Merton R. A Simple Model of Capital Market Equilibrium with Incomplete Information. Journal of Finance. 1987;42(3):483-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb04565.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1987.tb04565.x
Wenqi D., Khurshid A., Rauf A., et al. Government subsidies’ influence on corporate social responsibility of private firms in a competitive environment. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. 2022;7(2):100189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100189 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100189
Jin C.H., Lee J.Y. The halo effect of CSR activity: Types of CSR activity and negative information effects. Sustainability. 2019;11(7):2067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072067 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072067
Duarte Alonso A., Austin I.P. Entrepreneurial CSR, managerial role and firm resources: a case study approach. Competitiveness Review. 2018;28(4):368-385. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-10-2016-0064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-10-2016-0064
Christensen L.T., Morsing M., Thyssen O. Timely hypocrisy? Hypocrisy temporalities in CSR communication. Journal of Business Research. 2020;114:327-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.020
Andersen S.E., Høvring C.M. CSR stakeholder dialogue in disguise: Hypocrisy in story performances. Journal of business research. 2020;114:421-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.030
Huang Y.S., Wang C.J. Corporate governance and risk-taking of Chinese firms: The role of board size. International Review of Economics & Finance. 2015;37:96-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2014.11.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2014.11.016
Paniagua J., Rivelles R., Sapena J. Corporate governance and financial performance: The role of ownership and board structure. Journal of Business Research. 2018;89:229-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.060
Rahman M., Rodríguez-Serrano M.Á, Faroque A.R. Corporate environmentalism and brand value: A natural resource-based perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2021;29(4):463-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.1872387 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.1872387
Upadhyay A. Board size, firm risk, and equity discount. Journal of Risk and Insurance. 2015;82(3):571-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12033
Alabdullah T.T.Y., Ahmed E.R., Muneerali M. Effect of Board Size and Duality on Corporate Social Responsibility: What has Improved in Corporate Governance in Asia? Journal of Accounting Science. 2019;3(2):121-135. https://doi.org/10.21070/jas.v3i2.2810 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21070/jas.v3i2.2810
Gambo E.-M.J., Bello B.A., Rimamshung S.A. Effect of board size, board composition and board meetings on financial performance of listed consumer goods in Nigeria. International Business Research. 2018;11(6):1-10. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v11n6p1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v11n6p1
Jensen M.C. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. The Journal of Finance. 1993;48(3):831-880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x
Yermack D. Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of financial economics. 1996;40(2):185-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(95)00844-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(95)00844-5
Elsayed K. Board size and corporate performance: The missing role of board leadership structure. Journal of Management Governance. 2011;15:415-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9110-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9110-0
Mak Y.T., Kusnadi Y. Size really matters: Further evidence on the negative relationship between board size and firm value. Pacific-Basin finance journal. 2005;13(3):301-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2004.09.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2004.09.002
Datta D.K., Musteen M., Basuil D.A. Influence of managerial ownership and compensation structure on establishment mode choice: The moderating role of host country political risk. Management International Review. 2015;55(5):593-613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0250-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0250-y
Naseem T., Shahzad F., Asim G.A., et al. Corporate social responsibility engagement and firm performance in Asia Pacific: The role of enterprise risk management. Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management. 2020;27(2):501-513. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1815 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1815
Chahine S., Goergen M. Top management ties with board members: How they affect pay–performance sensitivity and IPO performance. Journal of Corporate Finance. 2014;27:99-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.04.007
Rahman H.U., Zahid M., Khan M. Corporate sustainability practices: a new perspective of linking board with firm performance. Total Quality Management Business Excellence. 2022;33(7-8):929-946. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2021.1908826 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2021.1908826
Hayes R.M., Lemmon M., Qiu M. Stock options and managerial incentives for risk taking: Evidence from FAS 123R. Journal of financial economics. 2012;105(1):174-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.01.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.01.004
García-Sánchez I.-M., Hussain N., Martínez-Ferrero J. An empirical analysis of the complementarities and substitutions between effects of CEO ability and corporate governance on socially responsible performance. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;215:1288-1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.130
Peng W. Managerial Myopia and Corporate Social Responsibility Activities. Frontiers in Business, Economics Management. 2022;5(3):276-280. https://doi.org/10.54097/fbem.v5i3.2035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54097/fbem.v5i3.2035
Ducassy I., Montandrau S. Corporate social performance, ownership structure, and corporate governance in France. Research in International Business Finance. 2015;34:383-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2015.02.002
Shen H., Wang L., Wan T. Can corporate social report and assurance be effective signals. Audit Research. 2011;(4):87–93. (in Chinese).
Lin R., Xie Z., Hao Y., et al. Improving high-tech enterprise innovation in big data environment: a combinative view of internal and external governance. International Journal of Information Management. 2020;50:575-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.009
Kerin R.A., Sethuraman R. Exploring the brand value-shareholder value nexus for consumer goods companies. Journal of the academy of Marketing Science. 1998;(26):260-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398264001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398264001
Chen A.A., Cao H., Zhang D., et al. The impact of shareholding structure on firm investment: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 2013;25:85-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2013.08.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2013.08.002
Zhang Q., Wang X., Huo C., et al. A study on the optimal shareholding proportion of the controlling shareholders in the competitive mixed‐ownership enterprises: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. International Finance. 2023;26(2):208-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/infi.12430 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/infi.12430
Liu Q., Tian G. Controlling shareholder, expropriations and firm's leverage decision: Evidence from Chinese Non-tradable share reform. Journal of Corporate finance. 2012;18(4):782-803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2012.06.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2012.06.002
Nerantzidis M., Tzeremes P., Koutoupis A., et al. Exploring the black box: Board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Finance Research Letters. 2022;48:102987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.102987 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.102987
Zhang X.J. Conservative accounting and equity valuation. Journal of accounting and economics. 2000;29(1):125-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(00)00016-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(00)00016-1
Liang W., Ge H.H. Research on Corporate Social Responsibility Fulfillment, Growth Cycle and Financial Risk: Based on the Empirical Evidence of Listed Companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen. Journal of Technical Economics & Management. 2023;(11):76-81. (In Chinese).
Hansen B.E. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference. Journal of econometrics. 1999;93(2):345-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00025-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00025-1
Ünlü U, Yagli I. Corporate governance and brand value. European Journal of Business and Management. 2016;8(15):65-73.
Melo T., Galan J.I. Effects of corporate social responsibility on brand value. Journal of brand management. 2011;18:423-437. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.54 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.54
Salmones M.M.G., Crespo A.H., Bosque I.R. Influence of corporate social responsibility on loyalty and valuation of services. Journal of business ethics. 2005;61:369-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-5841-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-5841-2
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Corporate Finance Research / Корпоративные Финансы | ISSN: 2073-0438
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование — Без производных произведений») 4.0 Всемирная.
