Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 20:253-260 (2009)
This paper examines the controversial governance mechanism of classified boards. Classified board advocates believe that multiple year terms give directors a longer-term horizon. Shareholder activists push for declassifications of boards because they argue that agency problems are likely to arise. In a longitudinal study of six years of KLD, RiskMetrics and Compustat data, we test the influence of classified boards on social performance dimensions. We find that classified boards are negatively associated with social performance strengths in the areas of community and diversity, indicating that they are not proactive in these areas. However, classified boards are negatively associated with social performance concerns on five out of six dimensions, providing evidence that while these boards are not proactive in stakeholder management, neither are they harmful nor neglectful towards stakeholders. The overall findings suggest that classified boards may be associated with a stakeholder management philosophy of “do no harm.”
|Keywords||Business and Professional Ethics Conference Proceedings Social Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Changing Composition of Canadian Boards of Directors.Paul Dunn & Barbara Sainty - 2005 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 16:230-233.
The Ethical Implications of Ignoring Shareholder Directives to Remove Antitakeover Provisions.Victoria B. McWilliams - 2008 - Business Ethics Quarterly 18 (3):321-346.
Women Board Directors: Characteristics of the Few. [REVIEW]Zena Burgess & Phyllis Tharenou - 2002 - Journal of Business Ethics 37 (1):39 - 49.
SME Directors and Boards: The Contribution of Directors and Boards to the Growth and Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs).Colin Coulson-Thomas - 2007 - International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 3 (3):250-261.
Current Practice of FTSE 350 Boards Concerning the Appointment, Evaluation and Development of Directors, Boards and Committees Post the Combined Code.Victor Dulewicz & Peter Herbert - 2008 - International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 4 (1):99.
Company Growth and Board Attitudes to Corporate Social Responsibility.Coral B. Ingley - 2008 - International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 4 (1):17.
Boards of Directors and Stakeholder Orientation.Jia Wang & H. Dudley Dewhirst - 1992 - Journal of Business Ethics 11 (2):115 - 123.
Women on Corporate Boards of Directors and Their Influence on Corporate Philanthropy.Robert J. Williams - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 42 (1):1 - 10.
The Ultimate Glass Ceiling Revisited: The Presence of Women on Corporate Boards.Deborah E. Arfken, Stephanie L. Bellar & Marilyn M. Helms - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 50 (2):177-186.
Corporate Governance as Part of the Strategic Process: Rethinking the Role of the Board. [REVIEW]David Weitzner & Theo Peridis - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 102 (S1):33-42.
A Classified Catalogue of the Books, Pamphlets, and Maps in the Library of the Societies for the Promotion of Hellenic and Roman Studies. 4to. Pp. Xvi + 336. London: Macmillan, 1924. Boards, 15s. 6d. Net (to Members of Either Society, 7s. 6d.). [REVIEW]E. Harrison - 1924 - The Classical Review 38 (7-8):213-.
Gender Diversity on European Banks' Boards of Directors.Mateos de Cabo Ruth, Gimeno Ricardo & J. Nieto María - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 109 (2):145-162.
Using Electronic Discussion Boards to Teach Responsible Conduct of Research.David B. Resnik - 2005 - Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):617-630.
Added to index2012-03-18
Total downloads7 ( #515,822 of 2,152,215 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #281,207 of 2,152,215 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.