Search results

Corporate misconduct carries significant social and economic costs, and therefore regulators and other stakeholders seek to deter it. Despite the significant costs and deterrence efforts, corporate misconduct is widespread and our understanding of it is limited. As argued in this chapter, one key reason for this is the lack of understanding of the benefits and penalties of misconduct for the companies and individuals involved, as well as the detection of such behavior. This chapter seeks to advance our understanding of corporate misconduct and builds on the rational choice model (RCM) – where the decision to engage in misconduct hinges on a calculation of the expected costs and benefit – and links it to research in organization theory and strategy. Specifically, it sets a research agenda at the intersection of organizational and strategic perspectives, to deepen our understanding of corporate misconduct and shed light on opportunities for empirical and theoretical research which can potentially aid in developing effective deterrence strategies.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between chief executive officers (CEOs) with military service and firm dividend and cash holding decisions.

The authors use a sample of Standard and Poor's (S&P) 1500 firms in the USA over a sample period from 1999 to 2017 and a panel data approach, as well as instrumental variable (IV)analysis. The models control for firm characteristics as well as industry and year-fixed effects.

The results show CEOs with military service are associated with higher total payout and less cash. Higher dividends appear to drive the total payout result. When cash holdings are split into pure cash and short-term investments, the reduction in cash holdings is driven by a reduction in pure cash. The findings are more pronounced for powerful CEOs and CEOs with low labor mobility. Military CEOs are also associated with less risk, measured by stock return volatility and return on assets (ROA) volatility.

Overall, the results are consistent with military CEOs implementing conservative policies that reduce firm risk, curtailing the demand for precautionary cash and reducing the necessity to forego dividend payouts.

The role of chief executive officer (CEO) personal characteristics in shaping corporate policies has attracted increasing academic attention in the past two decades. In this review, the authors synthesize extant research on CEO attributes by reviewing 232 articles published in 29 journals from the accounting, finance and management literature. This review provides an overview of existing findings, highlights current trends and interdisciplinary differences in research approaches and identifies potential avenues for future research.

To review the literature on CEO attributes, the authors manually collected peer-reviewed articles in accounting, finance and management journals from 2000 to 2021. The authors conducted in-depth analysis of each paper and manually recorded the theories, data sources, country of study, study period, measures of CEO attributes and dependent variables. This procedure helped the authors group the selected articles into themes and sub-themes. The authors compared the findings in various disciplines and provided direction for future research.

The authors highlight the role of CEO personal attributes in influencing corporate decision-making and firm outcomes. The authors categorize studies of CEO traits into three main research themes: (1) demographic attributes and experience (including age, gender, culture, experience, education); (2) CEO interactions with others (social and political networks) and (3) underlying attributes (including personality, values and ideology). The evidence shows that CEO characteristics significantly affect a wide range of specific corporate policies that serve as mechanisms through which individual CEOs determine firm success and performance.

CEO selection is one of the most crucial decisions made by corporations. The study findings provide valuable insights to corporate executives, boards, investors and practitioners into how CEOs’ personal characteristics can impact future firm decisions and outcomes that can, in turn, inform the high-stake process of CEO recruitment and selection. The study findings have significant practical implications for corporations, such as contributing to executive training programs, to assist executives and directors attain a greater level of self-awareness.

Building on the theoretical foundation of upper echelons theory, the authors offer an integrated theoretical framework to consolidate existing empirical research on the impacts of CEO personal attributes on firm outcomes across accounting and finance (A&F) and management literature. The study findings provide a roadmap for scholars to bridge the interdisciplinary divide between A&F and management research. The authors advocate a more holistic and multifaceted approach to examining CEOs, each of whom embodies a myriad of personal characteristics that comprise their unique identity. The study findings encourage future researchers to expand the investigation of the boundary conditions that magnify or moderate the impacts of CEO idiosyncrasies.

This paper explores the relationship between board interlocks and firm outcomes by reviewing the most recent peer-reviewed articles examining this research theme.

A systematic and bibliometric methodology of assessing 369 peer-reviewed articles from the Web of Science (WoS) database was applied. The study also leverages key R-packages litsearchr and Bibliometrix software to enhance the descriptive and thematic literature analysis to identify gaps and opportunities for new research.

This study confirms a rapid increase in articles on this thematic area, over the last decade, with increasing collaboration occurring among researchers in the United States, Europe, China, South Korea and India. Four core research clusters are identified. The first and largest cluster links interlocked directors to issues related to corporate governance and firm outcomes. The second cluster links social network theory, interlocking directorates and firm outcomes. Smaller emerging research clusters include topics related to ownership structure, board size, political connectedness and impacts on firm outcomes. The final cluster examines the influence of board interlocks on market value and firm innovation.

Interlocked directors can have both positive and negative impacts on a wide variety of firm outcomes. This study places great interest in the selection of new directors, ensuring that the selection has aligned with the needs and interests of the company and disclosures of potential competing interests are declared and considered. Equally important are the governance practices used to monitor directors' behavior and to protect the interest of shareholders and the firm. This is particularly relevant in the internal appointment of interlocked directors to critical positions, such as audit committees or instances where interlocked directors may simultaneously hold CEO or executive leadership positions in other companies.

This paper examines the board interlocks literature related to firm outcomes. Additionally, this review identifies several topics and disciplines which, if pursued, could enrich the literature and promise new avenues for future research.

This paper aims to study the impact of CEOs’ personality and social connections on corporate risk-taking in the Russian market.

Using a sample of 93 large listed Russian corporations between 2008 and 2016, this study tests a range of personal traits, including the classical personal characteristics like age and tenure, some country-specific traits such as connections and military experience, as well as other human and social capital characteristics.

This study finds non-linear relationships between corporate risk-taking and CEO age and tenure. This study also finds that firms run by CEOs with military experience take more corporate risk. On the CEOs’ social capital side, this study’s results suggest that both political and educational connections are positively related to corporate risk-taking.

This study also tests some traits that have usually been ignored by the literature, such as marital and family status.

Scandal is the disruptive publicity of alleged misconduct and it is important for organizations because of its severe consequences. Distinguishing between single-actor scandals, i.e., scandals that result from publicity of misconduct by a single actor, and multiple-actor scandals, i.e., scandals that result from publicity of misconduct of a similar type by multiple actors, we develop a framework for studying scandal dynamics that draws a distinction between how scandals start (single-actor or multiple-actor) and how they end (single-actor or multiple-actor). We focus specifically on spillover scandals (from single to multiple actors) and scapegoating scandals (from multiple to single actors) and identify several mechanisms that affect the likelihood of these two important types of scandals. We conclude by developing a research agenda that builds upon the central contribution of our framework: the distinction between single- and multiple-organization scandals and the transitions that result in spillovers and scapegoating.

One of the most active areas of study in the field of corporate governance, board interlocks is a phenomenon that is both pervasive and perplexing. This paper aims to examine and integrate the empirical research on board interlocks to fill the void left by the lack of a recent review.

The bibliometric analysis methodology, which emphasizes methodological rigor and transparency, was used to analyze the board interlocks literature. Eighty publications published since 2000 were chosen as the subject of this research because they reveal the key contributions to the field of board interlocks. Additionally, their clustering pattern is also identified.

The authors classify various studies conducted on board interlocks into three clusters: “Social Capitalization”, “Antecedents and Outcomes” and “Corporate Governance”.

This literature review helps better comprehend the board interlocks literature by pointing out several areas of study that, if pursued, would add to the existing body of knowledge and open future research directions.

Misconduct allegations have been found to not only affect the alleged firm but also other, unalleged firms in form of reputational and financial spillover effects. It has remained unexplored, however, how the number of prior allegations against other firms matters for an individual firm currently facing an allegation. Building on behavioral decision theory, we argue that the relationship between allegation prevalence among other firms and investor reaction to a focal allegation is inverted U-shaped. The inverted U-shaped effect is theorized to emerge from the combination of two effects: In the absence of prior allegations against other firms, investors fail to anticipate the focal allegation, and hence react particularly negatively (“anticipation effect”). In the case of many prior allegations against other firms, investors also react particularly negatively because investors perceive the focal allegation as more warranted (“evaluation effect”). The multi-industry, empirical analysis of 8,802 misconduct allegations against US firms between 2007 and 2017 provides support for our predicted, inverted U-shaped effect. Our study complements recent misconduct research on spillover effects by highlighting that not only a current allegation against an individual firm can “contaminate” other, unalleged firms but that also prior allegations against other firms can “contaminate” investor reaction to a focal allegation against an individual firm.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of corporate culture on stock price crash risk and explore the underlying mechanisms.

This paper uses a novel firm-level culture measure of Li et al. (2020), which evaluates corporate culture from the perspectives of integrity, teamwork, innovation, respect and quality. Using a sample of 4,017 US firms from 2001 to 2018, this paper uses panel data regressions to explore the impact of corporate culture on stock price crash risk.

This paper finds that among five cultural dimensions, integrity reduces crash risk and quality increases crash risk. The mitigating effect of integrity culture on crash risk is concentrated among firms with a strong incentive or ability to hoard bad news. The exacerbating effect of quality culture on crash risk is concentrated among firms with low managerial flexibility.

This paper helps investors and regulators to understand the determinants of stock price crash risk, which facilitates investors’ wealth management and stabilizes social welfare.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that uses time-varying firm-level measure of corporate culture to investigate its impact on stock price crash risk, contributing to the literature on the determinants of crash risk. Besides, this is the first study that explores the possible mechanism of managerial flexibility in influencing stock price crash risk.

Despite growing interest in misconduct spillovers – where unimplicated bystanders’ stock prices, reputations, resources, and opportunities are positively or negatively affected by others’ misconduct – theory about spillovers’ antecedents has largely focused on industry or product similarity, and has used the same characteristics to argue for both positive and negative spillovers. Furthermore, limited research has considered both positive and negative spillovers together, instead focusing on one kind of spillover or the other in isolation, thereby creating a lack of theoretical integration within the literature. In this chapter, we draw on attribution theory and expectancy violations theory to explain when and how misconduct incurs positive and negative spillovers. We argue that a spillover’s valence depends on the locus of attributions made by stakeholders, where the misconduct’s causes are attributed to the perpetrator alone (i.e., an isolated attribution) – resulting in positive spillovers – or the misconduct’s causes are perceived as indicative of a systemic problem shared among a broader set of organizations (i.e., a systemic attribution), leading to negative spillovers. We further suggest that the misconduct’s nature and misconduct prevalence within a perpetrator and among other firms influences stakeholders’ attributions, and ultimately the spillover’s valence. Our theory contributes to the organizational misconduct literature by providing a unifying theoretical framework to understand both positive and negative spillovers.