We aggregate different dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities following the stakeholder framework proposed in Clarkson (Acad Manag Rev 20(1), 92–117, 1995) and present consistent evidence that CSR strengths targeting different stakeholders have their unique impact on firm risk and financial performance. Institutional CSR activities that target secondary stakeholders are negatively associated with firm risk, measured by total risk and systematic risk. Technical CSR that target primary stakeholders are positively associated with firm financial performance, measured by Tobin’s Q, ROA, (...) and cash flow returns. Our results, based on a sample of S&P 500 component firms over the period of 1995–2009, are consistent with the risk management view of “altruistic” CSR activities and with the stakeholder salience theory. We also show that the impact of CSR activities on risk varies with the ethical climate, as proved in our subsample analyses on pre- and post-Sarbanes–Oxley periods. Our empirical analyses mitigate possible omitted variables and endogeneity concerns that are often overlooked in previous research. Our findings are robust to alternative CSR measures, to alternative risk and performance measures, and to alternative estimation methods. (shrink)

In this article, we propose that giving in cash and non-cash differ in their relation with the giving firm’s future corporate financial performance and only cash giving is associated with future CFP. Using a novel dataset from ASSET4 that differentiates corporate giving over a sample period of 2002–2012, we examine three competing hypotheses: agency cost hypothesis that cash giving reflects agency cost and destroys value for shareholders, investment hypothesis that cash giving is an investment by management that aims for better (...) future return, and information hypothesis that cash giving has informational value to shareholders as cash is a critical resource at a firm and giving is a decision by managers who are insiders. We find that indeed, only cash giving is positively associated with future CFP and firm value, measured by Fama–French five-factor abnormal risk-adjusted stock returns, future return on assets, and Tobin’s Q. In addition, we find that the positive association exists only between excess, i.e., unexpected, but not expected cash giving and future CFP. Our empirical findings support the information hypothesis, but neither the agency hypothesis nor the investment hypothesis, and are robust to a number of endogeneity tests, including orthogonalized cash giving, instrumental variable regression using geography-based instruments, and propensity score matching. Furthermore, we show that the positive association between future CFP and unexpected cash giving is only pronounced at firms with good governance and relatively higher sales growth where agency problems are less likely, and at firms with no alternative mechanisms to demonstrate the strength of cash flow. Additionally, we do not find evidence that suggests in-kind giving to possess any informational value. (shrink)

This paper investigates the impact of diversity on corporate philanthropy. Compared to previous studies that have considered the influence of board diversity and CEO gender on corporate philanthropy, this study introduces the concept of operational diversity, which is the implementation of diversity programs at management, employee, and supply chain levels, and further, it explains why operational diversity influences corporate philanthropy, by using the premises of resource dependence theory. Second, this study also investigates the influence of board diversity on corporate philanthropy. (...) Third, this study uses a large sample of U.S. firms over the period of 1991–2009 and tries to mitigate possible omitted variables and endogeneity problems that are often overlooked in previous research. We demonstrate that firms with operational diversity programs are likely more dependent on a broad variety of resources and give more to community as a strategic maneuver; hence, operational diversity is a better indicator for predicting future corporate giving than board diversity alone. However, having a woman or a member of a minority as a company’s chief executive officer is not sufficient to impact its charitable giving. A battery of robustness tests support our conclusion and confirm that our results are not driven by a firm’s general corporate social responsibility (CSR) score, gender or independence of board members, or firm ownership. This paper will assist researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders in deepening their understanding of the predictors of corporate giving. (shrink)