Search results

The purpose of this paper is to use the dynamic capabilities framework to explain the effect of board networks, as a source of intellectual capital, on firm performance. The authors propose that the influence of board interlocks depends on their ability to contribute to strategic decision making. As a result, their effect is subject to the business context in which they occur and the different role of the interconnected directors involved.

The authors use social network analysis to make board connections and to calculate centrality measures. The authors also identify busy boards to analyze whether their effect differs from centrality. The authors estimate the theoretical model using the Generalized Method of Moments in order to take advantage of the panel database.

For a sample of Spanish firms from 1999 to 2015, the results show there is no direct significant effect of directors’ networks on firm performance. However, the authors find a positive and significant influence of intra-industry board connections, particularly when they are established among outsiders.

The Spanish context of the study can limit the generalization of the papers’ results.

The results can be useful both for practitioners – since they can serve as a guide for companies to reformulate their boards in search of the optimal structure-, and when implementing good governance codes – establishing limits for director interlocking.

This study helps to offer a better understanding of how directors’ networks can add value to the firm depending on the kind of resources they provide (context) and the role of the director who is connected.

The main objective of this paper is to analyze the influence of multiple directorships, as a critical component of board social capital, on CSR reporting. This study also explores the moderating effect of certain board attributes on multiple directorships.

The authors’ sample is composed of Spanish listed firms in the Madrid Stock Exchange for the period 2011–2017. A dynamic panel data model based on the Generalized Method of Moments (GMMs) is employed.

Relying on a resource dependence view, the authors’ results highlight an ambiguously positive association between multiple directorships and the level of CSR reporting. In particular, this relationship is positively moderated by both board size and gender diversity.

These findings contribute to academic debates concerning the value of board members intellectual capital. In particular, the authors emphasize the importance of board social capital, as well as the need to consider the context in which directors make decisions.

This evidence may prove helpful to firms when configuring the board of directors, and for regulators and professionals when refining their legislations and recommendations.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study that empirically analyzes the impact of an important element of board social capital, such as multiple directorships, on CSR reporting, which has become crucial in financial markets.