Search results

The empirical evidence on mergers and takeovers indicates that positive gains due to mergers and takeovers ac‐crue almost entirely to the target firms. While average abnormal returns to target firms are invariably positive, returns to bidding firms are negative in case of mergers and not significantly different from zero in case of takeovers (see Jensen and Ruback [1983] and De and Mathur in this issue for a review of the empirical evidence). That acquiring firms should offer the shareholders of the target firms such handsome rewards and accept marginal returns for themselves is one of the unresolved problems in the context of mergers and takeovers.

The market for mergers and takeovers, often referred to as the market for corporate control [Manne (1965)], has always attracted the attention of investors and researchers because takeovers represent corporate investment decisions on a scale several times larger than the normal, ongoing, growth‐maintaining capital outlays by the typical value‐maximising firm. Although the theoretical justifications for such corporate actions are reasonably well understood, the true motives for the mergers and the strategies adopted by acquiring firms to consummate them can be complex and diverse in scope. Corporate acquisitions can therefore have widespread effects on the wealth of various groups of agents involved in the market for corporate control.

In light of growing concerns related to the psychological vulnerability during the pandemic, this study aims to examine the impact of fear or trauma of COVID-19 on stress, anxiety and depression among management students. Additionally, the study also explores the possible strategies adopted by professional students to cope with the pandemic situation.

With an approach to establish a probable concrete relationship between fear with the level of stress, anxiety and depression, the data for the study was collected from 1,408 management students through a structured questionnaire designed in Google Form and administered through WhatsApp. The survey was carried out in the month of July and August 2020 during the lockdown period. Correlation and structural equation modeling have been used to examine the relationship among the test attributes.

The results from the study discovered that “fear of COVID-19” has a significant and considerable impact on the increased level of anxiety and stress among the professional students, but the observations did not demonstrate a significant influence of the “fear” on “depression.” The responses reveal that students have developed anxiety and felt stressed mostly due to uncertainty in the upcoming academic plans, disturbances in their regular academic routines and concerns about their future careers. Further, the findings have portrayed that students have adopted both protective and avoidance coping strategies to overcome the adverse consequences of the pandemic.

The study gives an insight on the psychological vulnerability of the management students and their capability to overcome such sudden disruptions due to pandemics. This research could thus, serve as a reference to the policymakers, universities and institutions while planning out programs and schemes, which would encourage the aspiring managers to overcome the crisis and prepare themselves to befit the vibrant corporate world.

Several studies exist on the impact of the pandemic on undergraduate students in different universities. However, there are a dearth of literature, which reflects the psychological vulnerability of professional graduates especially management students who are on the verge of starting their professional career.

The authors aim to develop and test a theory of dual responsibility to explain the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance. The authors empirically examine whether firms that meet their economic and social responsibilities simultaneously perform better than firms that fail to do so. In doing so, the authors theoretically extend and empirically test Barney's (2018) call to incorporate the stakeholder perspective with resource-based view (RBV). The authors also examine the moderating effects of firm status on this relationship.

The authors use a longitudinal panel sample of 137 S&P 500 firms and data for the years between 2004 and 2013 collected from multiple data sources. The authors use stochastic frontiers analysis to measure firm capabilities in the areas of R&D, operations and marketing. These capability measures are then used along with CSR measures and a measure of firm status to test the hypotheses of this study. The authors also conducted several robustness checks and various supplementary analyses using different econometrics techniques and different operationalizations of the key variables of interests.

The results show that firm CSR is positively related to firm performance and that the effect of CSR on performance is stronger for firms with higher levels of R&D capability and operational capability. The authors also find support for the three-way interaction between CSR, economic responsibility and firm status, suggesting that firms high in both social and economic responsibilities and status will enjoy the highest levels of performance.

The findings of this study are based on large, publicly listed firms in North America. Therefore, their generalizability to other contexts and other types of firms require additional research. The reliance on KLD measures is also a limitation, especially because they have not reported CSR ratings after 2013.

For practicing managers, the main implication of this study is that an optimal balance between market and nonmarket strategies is key for superior performance.

The continued debate regarding the firm's purpose can be understood by focusing equally on the two main responsibilities of firms: nonsocial responsibility and social responsibility toward all stakeholders.

The study answers the call to incorporate stakeholder theory into the RBV of the firm by highlighting the critical role of firm capabilities in the relationship between CSR and performance. The study also highlights the role that firm status plays in the relationship between market and nonmarket strategies and firm performance.

This study aims to investigate how the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance, documented in prior research, is affected by the joint effects of managerial ability and attributes of the firm's governance structure.

Unbalanced panel contains the essence of cross-sectional time-series data. A significant F-test proves the inappropriateness of pooled OLS regression to the sample. Further, the rejection of the Hausman test null favors fixed-effects over random-effects. However, statistically significant results from Shapiro–Wilk test, Breusch–Pagan test and Wooldridge test reveal non-normal distribution of the dependent variable, the presence of heteroscedasticity and the existence of first-order autocorrelation, respectively. Thus, this study applies feasible generalized least squares with panel-specific autocorrelation structure (hence, a slightly smaller sample) controlling for heteroskedasticity to all models after lagging all the explanatory variables by a year.

This study finds that higher levels of managerial ability enable firms to benefit more/less from their CSR investments depending on the presence/absence of appropriate governance devices. While CEO ability may be seen as an indicator of how well the CEO might serve the firm in the market-domain strategies, the results suggest that this may not be the case in the non-market domain in the absence of appropriate governance mechanisms.

The arguments and analyses in this study support two important contributions to the growing literature on CSR. First, the current study is one of the few to identify CEO ability as an important factor that may influence the dynamics of the firm's CSR (see also Garcì-Sànchez et al., 2019 and Yuan et al., 2019). Second, this study examines whether governance robustness minimizes the potential for opportunistic behavior of more able CEOs or constraints the effectiveness of more able CEOs in decisions pertaining to CSR.

In light of the conflict between scholarly findings supporting corporate social responsibility’s positive impact on corporate financial performance (CFP) versus findings showing negative impact on CFP, the academic literature has reoriented toward determining the contingency conditions that affect the underlying relationships. This paper aims to investigate two potential contingency factors, the chief executive officer’s (CEO) corporate social responsibility (CSR) expertise and board members’ CSR expertise.

This paper uses an unbalanced panel of archival data of 168 firms from the S&P 500 index for the period 2006–2013. The analytic model is estimated using the feasible generalized least squares regression method with heteroscedasticity and panel-specific AR1 autocorrelation.

The findings reinforce the perspective that CSR positively affects the firm’s financial performance. The authors find that firms realize optimal results from their CSR investments when both the board and the CEO have greater CSR expertise. In other words, both, CEO CSR expertise and board CSR expertise positively impact the CSR–CFP relationship.

The findings of this study advance the literature in three important areas, namely, the social responsibility–financial responsibility relationship, the governance literature and upper echelons theory. First, the theoretical arguments and the empirical evidence highlight that CSR–CFP relationship is at least partly contingent upon the CEO’s and board members’ CSR expertise. Second, this study introduces two important variables: the CEO and board’s CSR experience as proxies for their CSR expertise. Future researchers may consider decomposing the various components of CSR to study the differential impact of each component on financial performance.

First, this study finds that while the CEO CSR expertise may be of value for the firm, such value can only be realized under a capable and effective board that has adequate knowledge in the field of CSR. Second, this study shows that the best-case scenario for firms occurs when both its board members and CEO have had greater prior CSR involvement that contributed to their knowledge inventory and skills. Greater knowledge and skills enhance the quality of the decisions that comprise the firm’s CSR strategy.

While it seems intuitive that prior CSR knowledge and expertise should lead to more and better CSR initiatives, there are few if any studies that empirically examine the effects of this premise on a firm’s financial performance. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study appears to be the first that directly tests the relationship between executives’ CSR experience and firm performance.

The purpose of the current study is to revisit the relationship between CSR and firm market performance. The authors examine whether a gap between the firm's internal and external CSR moderates the CSR-firm market performance relationship. Additionally, the authors propose that the moderating effect of the CSR gap on this relationship is mediated by firm visibility.

The initial sample is the Fortune 500 firms during the years 2004–2013. The final panel data sample consisted of 1,300 firms and 6,128 observations from 2004 to 2013. The authors obtained data from five different sources: Compustat North America Fundamental Annual, GMI Ratings, Execucomp, IBES and KLD Stats.

The results of this research find evidence that both internal CSR and external CSR were positively related to firm market performance, but that the relationship was stronger for firms with equal emphasis on external and internal CSR activities. Furthermore, the negative moderating effect of the CSR gap was mediated by the firm visibility.

The findings of the study advance our understanding of the CSR-FP relationship. First, the theoretical arguments and the empirical evidence highlight that the CSR-FP relationship exists and that its magnitude is contingent upon the gap between internal and external CSR investments. Second, the authors enhanced theoretical understanding of how and why CSR relates to firm performance by exploring firm visibility as a mediator. Specifically, the authors introduced firm visibility as a mechanism which explains the effect of the interaction of overall CSR with the CSR gap on firm performance.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the success and failure of microfinance institutions in generating economic growth over the past 30 years and propose a dual criterion of evaluation.

It surveys the empirical literature on microfinance and finds that while there has been small and localized success in various countries in improving access to credit, at the same time there has been a broader failure to generate economic growth. The authors argue that this broader failure should be viewed from the viewpoint of institutional failure or the lack of supporting institutions such as private property rights and stable rule of law within developing countries.

Using Baumol’s (1968) theory of entrepreneurship, the authors argue that the broader failure of microfinance is a case of poor institutional quality leading to unproductive or even destructive entrepreneurship rather than productive entrepreneurship. The paper also suggests a link between the literature criticizing foreign aid and this view on microfinance.

The paper provides a survey of the empirical literature on micro finance as well as a novel framework that aids in understanding both the localized small-scale success as well as broader failure to generate economic growth.