|
董事会特征与企业绩效的关系:基于社会责任的调节作用
|
Abstract:
文章利用我国2015~2019年计算机、通信和其他电子设备制造业上市公司的平衡面板数据,探究董事会特征、社会责任和企业绩效的内在机制。研究发现:不同董事会特征对企业绩效产生差异化影响。其中,董事会会议次数增多会推动企业绩效的提升,社会责任未起调节作用;高董事会学历水平显著正向影响企业绩效,企业履行社会责任则弱化该影响;独立董事占比负向影响企业绩效,但不显著,社会责任未起调节作用。进一步分析发现,与国有企业相比,非国有企业董事会召开会议、招聘高学历董事以及履行社会责任对企业绩效的影响更显著。研究结论为厘清董事会特征对企业绩效的差异化影响提供理论支撑,也对我国不同股权性质企业管理者建立和完善董事会治理架构具有现实意义。
This study uses the balanced panel data of Chinese ICT industry from 2015 to 2019. Research ex-plores the internal mechanism of board characteristics, social responsibility and corporate per-formance. We find out that board characteristics have different effects on corporate performance. Firstly, the increase in board meetings will promote corporate performance, while social responsibility does not play a role in moderating. Secondly, directors who have been well-educated do a positive impact on corporate performance, while social responsibility weakens the impact. Thirdly, independent directors negatively affect corporate performance without a significant outcome, and social responsibility dose not play a moderating role. Moreover, compared with state-owned enterprises, non-state-owned enterprises with board meetings, well-educated directors, and social responsibilities have a more significant impact on corporate performance. The research provides theoretical support for different influences on enterprise performance by board characteristics. This study reveals practical significance for managers to establish and improve the structure of corporate governance.
[1] | 陈煦江(2014). 企业社会责任影响财务绩效的中介调节效应——基于中国100强企业社会责任发展指数的经验证据. 山西财经大学学报, 36(3), 101-109. |
[2] | 程翠凤(2015). 股权结构、高管薪酬、董事会特征与制造业运营效率——基于江苏制造业上市公司2009-2013年的面板数据. 华东经济管理, 29(7), 24-28. |
[3] | 党齐民(2019). 国外企业社会责任的发展趋向与启示. 甘肃社会科学, (2), 229-236. |
[4] | 付悦(2018). 高管团队认知对组织双元能力开发的作用机理研究: 基于组织性格的视角. 心理科学进展, 26(1), 14-25. |
[5] | 简兆权, 黄如意, 陈伟宏(2018). CEO过度自信、董事会特征和企业创新绩效的关系研究——来自中国A股制造业上市公司的经验证据. 科技管理研究, 38(16), 169-176. |
[6] | 姜付秀, 伊志宏, 苏飞, 黄磊(2009). 管理者背景特征与企业过度投资行为. 管理世界, (1), 130-139. |
[7] | 李姝, 谢晓嫣(2014). 民营企业的社会责任、政治关联与债务融资——来自中国资本市场的经验证据. 南开管理评论, 17(6), 30-40+95. |
[8] | 刘俊, 秦传燕(2018). 企业社会责任与员工绩效的关系: 一项元分析. 心理科学进展, 26(7), 1152-1164. |
[9] | 彭正龙, 王海花(2010). 企业社会责任表现与员工满意度对组织即兴效能的影响. 心理科学, 33(1), 118-121. |
[10] | 沈昊, 杨梅英(2020). 混改条件下股权结构与国资监管方式的选择——基于多案例角度研究. 管理评论, 32(3), 323-336. |
[11] | 沈真真, 李明辉(2021). 薪酬管制与国企高管行为——基于“不作为”和“乱作为”视角. 北京工商大学学报(社会科学版), 36(3), 50-65. |
[12] | 魏刚, 肖泽忠, N. Travlos, 邹宏(2007). 独立董事背景与公司经营绩效. 经济研究, (3), 92-105+156. |
[13] | 徐华亮(2021). 中国制造业高质量发展研究: 理论逻辑、变化态势、政策导向——基于价值链升级视角. 经济学家, (11), 52-61. |
[14] | 徐子尧, 刘益志(2015). 私募股权投资、董事会特征与公司绩效. 软科学, 29(10), 69-73. |
[15] | 杨东星, 汪旭晖(2012). 流通服务业上市公司的董事会治理对公司价值影响的实证研究. 财政研究, (1), 67-70. |
[16] | 张金涛, 雷星晖, 苏涛永(2021). 非正式层级作用下谦卑型董事会、战略激进度与风险承担的关系研究. 管理学报, 18(9), 1287-1295. |
[17] | 张完定, 崔承杰, 王珍(2021). 基于治理机制调节效应的技术创新与企业绩效关系研究——来自上市高新技术企业的经验数据. 统计与信息论坛, 36(3), 107-118. |
[18] | 邹海亮, 曾赛星, 林翰, 翟育明(2016). 董事会特征、资源松弛性与环境绩效: 制造业上市公司的实证分析. 系统管理学报, 25(2), 193-202. |
[19] | Alias, N., Yaacob, M. H., & Jaffar, N. (2017). Board Composition, Corporate Restructuring and Corporate Policy. Advanced Science Letters, 23, 566-568. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7256 |
[20] | Asahak, S., Albrecht, S. L., De Sanctis, M., & Barnett, N. S. (2018). Boards of Directors: Assessing Their Functioning and Validation of a Multi-Dimensional Measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2425.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02425 |
[21] | Calderón, R., Pi?ero, R., & Redín, D. M. (2020). Understanding Independence: Board of Directors and CSR. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 3254. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552152 |
[22] | Chou, H. I., Chung, H., & Yin, X. (2013). Attendance of Board Meetings and Company Performance: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37, 4157-4171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.07.028 |
[23] | Hambrick, D. C., & Fukutomi, G. D. S. (1991). The Seasons of a CEO’s Tenure. Academy of Management Review, 16, 719-742. https://doi.org/10.2307/258978 |
[24] | Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A., & Thanos, I. C. (2019). Hard, Soft or Ambidextrous? Which Influence Style Promotes Managers’ Task Performance and the Role of Political Skill. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 618-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1233447 |
[25] | Majchrzak, A., Markus, M. L., & Wareham, J. (2016). Designing for Digital Transformation. The MIS Quarterly, 40, 267-278.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628906
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40:2.03 |
[26] | Ozerturk, S. (2005). Board Independence and CEO Pay. Economics Letters, 88, 260-265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2005.02.012 |
[27] | Walls, J. L., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. H. (2012). Corporate Governance and Environmental Performance: Is There Really a Link? Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885-913. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1952 |
[28] | Zhou, M., Chen, F., & Chen, Z. (2021). Can CEO Education Promote Environmental Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, Article ID: 126725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126725 |