본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Substantive Board Independence and Board Interlocks on ESG Performance: The Role of CEO Power

김봉진|전재희
한국전략경영학회 (Korean Strategic Management Society)|2024.12|전략경영연구 (Journal of Strategic Management)|제27권 제3호|pp. 41-75|DOI 10.17786/jsm.2024.27.3.002

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

CEO powerSocial performanceESG performanceBoard interlocksEnvionmental performanceSubstantive board independence
주제분류경영학

초록

Recently, the influence of boards of directors on the efficiency of ESG practices has been extensively explored in academic literature. However, the impact of board characteristics on ESG performance has not been thoroughly examined in Korean research. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating how substantive board independence and interlocks involving outside directors and CEOs influence ESG performance, and how this relationship is moderated by CEO power. We analyzed panel data from 4,926 firm-year observations of Korean-listed firms with ESG scores from 2012 to 2021. Our empirical evidence reveals that substantive board independence, particularly non-affiliated outside directors, positively influences ESG, including environmental and social performance. Additionally, outside director interlocks are positively associated with ESG and social performance, while CEO interlocks negatively affect all ESG aspects in companies belonging to business groups. Furthermore, we demonstrate that specific board characteristics significantly affect ESG outcomes, and this relationship varies depending on the role of CEO power. Our findings indicate that effective board leadership is the most decisive factor linking higher ESG performance to enhanced long-term shareholder value for all stakeholders. By integrating stakeholder perspectives with extended agency theory, we elucidate how resource allocation decisions made by the board and CEO significantly impact strategic ESG performance.

Abstract

Recently, the influence of boards of directors on the efficiency of ESG practices has been extensively explored in academic literature. However, the impact of board characteristics on ESG performance has not been thoroughly examined in Korean research. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating how substantive board independence and interlocks involving outside directors and CEOs influence ESG performance, and how this relationship is moderated by CEO power. We analyzed panel data from 4,926 firm-year observations of Korean-listed firms with ESG scores from 2012 to 2021. Our empirical evidence reveals that substantive board independence, particularly non-affiliated outside directors, positively influences ESG, including environmental and social performance. Additionally, outside director interlocks are positively associated with ESG and social performance, while CEO interlocks negatively affect all ESG aspects in companies belonging to business groups. Furthermore, we demonstrate that specific board characteristics significantly affect ESG outcomes, and this relationship varies depending on the role of CEO power. Our findings indicate that effective board leadership is the most decisive factor linking higher ESG performance to enhanced long-term shareholder value for all stakeholders. By integrating stakeholder perspectives with extended agency theory, we elucidate how resource allocation decisions made by the board and CEO significantly impact strategic ESG performance.

참고문헌 (103)

  1. Adams, R. B., "A theory of friendly boards", The Journal of Finance, 62(1), pp.217~250 (2007)
  2. Amin, A., "It’s who you know that counts : Board connectedness and CSR performance", Journal of Corporate Finance, 64, pp.101662~ (2020)
  3. Ayuso, S., "Maximizing stakeholders’interests : An empirical analysis of the stakeholder approach to corporate governance", Business & Society, 53(3), pp.414~439 (2014)
  4. Bae, K. H., "Tunneling or value added? Evidence from mergers by Korean business groups", The Journal of Finance, 57(6), pp.2695~2740 (2002)
  5. Biart, M., "Social sustainability as part of the social agenda of the European community", Soziale Nachhaltigkeit : Von der Umweltpolitik zur Nachhaltigkeit, 149(8), pp.5~10 (2002)
  6. Birindelli, G., "Composition and activity of the board of directors : Impact on ESG performance in the banking system", Sustainability, 10(12), pp.4699~ (2018)
  7. Boivie, S., "Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of effective board monitoring", Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), pp.319~407 (2016)
  8. Boivie, S., "Corporate directors’ implicit theories of the roles and duties of boards", Strategic Management Journal, 42(9), pp.1662~1695 (2021)
  9. Boone, A. L., "The determinants of corporate board size and composition : An empirical analysis", Journal of Financial Economics, 85(1), pp.66~101 (2007)
  10. Bose, S., "Does CEO–audit committee", board interlocking matter for corporate social responsibility?, 2022, pp.179(3), 819~847
  11. Boyd, B. K., "Corporate linkages and organizational environment : A test of the resource dependence model", Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), pp.419~430 (1990)
  12. Bromiley, P., "Social, behavioral, and cognitive influences on upper echelons during strategy process : A literature review", Journal of Management, 42(1), pp.174~202 (2016)
  13. Carpenter, M. A., "The strategic context of external network ties : Examining the impact of director appointments on board involvement in strategic decision making", Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), pp.639~660 (2001)
  14. Chen, S., "Trust and corporate social responsibility : From expected utility and social normative perspective", Journal of Business Research, 134, pp.518~530 (2021)
  15. Chen, X., "Vertical interlock and the value of cash holdings", Accounting and Finance, 61(1), pp.561~593 (2021)
  16. Clarke, T., "Deconstructing the mythology of shareholder value : A comment on Lynn Stout’s"The Shareholder Value Myth"", Accounting, Economics and Law, 3(1), pp.15~42 (2013)
  17. Clarke, T., "Oxford Handbook of the Corporation" (2019)
  18. Coles, J. L., "Co-opted boards", The Review of Financial Studies, 27(6), pp.1751~1796 (2014)
  19. Combs, J. G., "The moderating effect of CEO power on the board composition–firm performance relationship", Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), pp.1299~1323 (2007)
  20. Cooper, E. W., "Busy outside directors and ESG performance", Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, pp.1~20 (2022)
  21. Crifo, P., "Corporate governance as a key driver of corporate sustainability in France : The role of board members and investor relations", Journal of Business Ethics, 159, pp.1127~1146 (2019)
  22. Dalziel, T., "An integrated agency–resource dependence view of the influence of directors’human and relational capital on firms’R&D spending", Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), pp.1217~1242 (2011)
  23. Davis, J. H., "Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson reply : The distinctiveness of agency theory and stewardship theory", Academy of Management Review, 22(3), pp.611~ (1997)
  24. Delgado-Ceballos, J., "The effect of internal barriers on the connection between stakeholder integration and proactive environmental strategies", Journal of Business Ethics, 107, pp.281~293 (2012)
  25. Delgado-Ceballos, J., "Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals to firm-level sustainability and ESG factors : The need for double materiality", BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 26(1), pp.2~10 (2023)
  26. Donaldson, T., "The stakeholder theory of the corporation : Concepts, evidence, and implications", Academy of management Review, 20(1), pp.65~91 (1995)
  27. Eweje, G., "Business and sustainability:Concepts, strategies and changes", ~ (2011)
  28. Fama, E. F., "Agency problems and the theory of the firm", Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), pp.288~307 (1980)
  29. Fama, E. F., "Agency problems and residual claims", The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), pp.327~349 (1983)
  30. Fich, E. M., "Are busy boards effective monitors?", The Journal of Finance, 61(2), pp.689~724 (2006)
  31. Fich, E. M., "Why do CEOs reciprocally sit on each other’s boards?", Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(1-2), pp.175~195 (2005)
  32. Finkelstein, S., "Power in top management teams : Dimensions, measurement, and validation", Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), pp.505~538 (1992)
  33. Fracassi, C., "External networking and internal firm governance", The Journal of Finance, 67(1), pp.153~194 (2012)
  34. Gao, J., "Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability", Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), pp.241~255 (2013)
  35. Garg, S., "Unpacking the CEO–board relationship : How strategy making happens in entrepreneurial firms", Academy of Management Journal, 60(5), pp.1828~1858 (2017)
  36. Gavin, D. J., "Power in the Corporate Boardroom:Development of the CEO Power Index", Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 20(2), pp.47~ (2014)
  37. Ghafoor, A., "Co-opted board and firm climate change risk", Finance Research Letters, 52, pp.103508~ (2023)
  38. Govindan, K., "Drivers and value-relevance of CSR performance in the logistics sector : A cross-country firm-level investigation", International Journal of Production Economics, 231, pp.107835~ (2021)
  39. Harjoto, M. A., "Board of directors network centrality and environmental, social and governance(ESG)performance", Corporate Governance : The International Journal of Business in Society, 20(6), pp.965~985 (2020)
  40. Hermalin, B., "Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution : A survey of the economic literature", Economic Policy Review, 9(1), pp.7~26 (2003)
  41. Hernandez, M., "Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship", Academy of Management Review, 37(2), pp.172~193 (2012)
  42. Hossain, A., "Firm-level climate change risk and CEO equity incentives", British Journal of Management, 34(3), pp.1387~1419 (2023)
  43. Hussain, N., "Corporate governance and sustainability performance : Analysis of triple bottom line performance", Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), pp.411~432 (2018)
  44. Hwang, B. H., "It pays to have friends", Journal of Financial Economics, 93(1), pp.138~158 (2009)
  45. Jensen, M. C., "Theory of the firm : Capital managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure", Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), pp.305~360 (1976)
  46. Jing, L., "Airline chief executive officer and corporate social responsibility", Sustainability, 13(15), pp.8599~ (2021)
  47. Jizi, M. I., "Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility disclosure : Evidence from the US banking sector", Journal of Business Ethics, 125, pp.601~615 (2014)
  48. Jo, H., "The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility", Journal of Business Ethics, 106, pp.53~72 (2012)
  49. Sustainable development goals in the Republic of Korea, Progress Report, "Jung, T. Y.", ~ (2018)
  50. Khanna, T., "Interorganizational ties and business group boundaries:Evidence from an emerging economy", Organization Science, 17(3), pp.333~352 (2006)
  51. Kor, Y. Y., "Experiencebased human capital and social capital of outside directors", Journal of Management, 35(4), pp.981~1006 (2009)
  52. Lamb, N. H., "The"ties that bind"board interlocks research : A systematic review", Management Research Review, 39(11), pp.1516~1542 (2016)
  53. Lee, K. W., "Are multiple directorships beneficial in East Asia?", Accounting and Finance, 54(3), pp.999~1032 (2014)
  54. Lewellyn, K., "ESG leaders or laggards? A configurational analysis of ESG performance", Business & Society, 63(5), pp.1149~1202 (2023)
  55. Li, F., "CEO power, corporate social responsibility, and firm value : A test of agency theory", International Journal of Managerial Finance, 12(5), pp.611~628 (2016)
  56. Li, Y., "The impact of environmental, social, and governance disclosure on firm value : The role of CEO power", The British Accounting Review, 50(1), pp.60~75 (2018)
  57. Liu, G., "Research on the masking effect of vertical interlock on ESG greenwashing in the context of sustainable Enterprise development", Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(1), pp.196~209 (2024)
  58. Lu, J., "Board interlocks and greenhouse gas emissions", Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), pp.92~108 (2021)
  59. Mallin, C., "Monitoring intensity and stakeholders’orientation : how does governance affect social and environmental disclosure?", Journal of Business Ethics, 114, pp.29~43 (2013)
  60. Maswadi, L., "Does board capital enhance corporate social responsibility disclosure quality? The role of CEO power", Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(1), pp.209~225 (2023)
  61. Miletkov, M. K., "The role of corporate board structure in attracting foreign investors", Journal of Corporate Finance, 29, pp.143~157 (2014)
  62. Mizruchi, M. S., "What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates", Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), pp.271~298 (1996)
  63. Muttakin, M. B., "The effect of board capital and CEO power on corporate social responsibility disclosures", Journal of Business Ethics, 150, pp.41~56 (2018)
  64. Naciti, V., "Corporate governance and board of directors : The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance", Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, pp.117727~ (2019)
  65. Nijhof, A., "Business, society, and the need for stewardship orientation", Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(1), pp.145~163 (2019)
  66. Nishikawa, Y., "Board co-option and employee welfare", Managerial Finance, 48(8), pp.1174~1185 (2022)
  67. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., "Boards and sustainability : The contingent influence of director interlocks on corporate environmental performance", Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), pp.499~517 (2015)
  68. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., "Corporate governance and environmental sustainability : The moderating role of the national institutional context", Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(3), pp.150~164 (2016)
  69. Ostbirk, K. H., "Environmental Social Governance:Uncovering Strengths, Weaknesses, and Misconceptions in ESG Disclosure and Rating", Senior Projects Spring, 274 (2022)
  70. Pfeffer, J., "Building sustainable organizations : The human factor", Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), pp.34~45 (2010)
  71. Pfeffer, J., "The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective" (1978), Harper & Row
  72. Popov, K., "Relationship between Board Characteristics, ESG and Corporate Performance : A Systematic Review", Journal of Corporate Finance Research, 16(4), pp.119~134 (2022)
  73. Pucheta-Martínez, M. C., "Do board characteristics drive firm performance?", An International Perspective. Review of Managerial Science, 14(6), pp.1251~1297 (2020)
  74. Reguera-Alvarado, N., "The effect of independent directors’ characteristics on firm performance : Tenure and multiple directorships", Research in International Business and Finance, 41, pp.590~599 (2017)
  75. Saleh, M. W., "The effect of board multiple directorships and CEO characteristics on firm performance : evidence from Palestine", Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(4), pp.637~654 (2020)
  76. Sarkar, J., "Multiple board appointments and firm performance in emerging economies : Evidence from India", Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 17(2), pp.271~293 (2009)
  77. CEO Perspectives and Sustainable Practices: Unraveling the Nexus between CEO Attributes and ESG Reporting, "Seow, R. Y", ~ (2023)
  78. Sheikh, S., "Is corporate social responsibility a value-increasing investment? Evidence from antitakeover provisions", Global Finance Journal, 38, pp.1~12 (2018)
  79. Sheikh, S., "An examination of the dimensions of CEO power and corporate social responsibility", Review of Accounting and Finance, 18(2), pp.221~244 (2019)
  80. Shleifer, A., "Large shareholders and corporate control", Journal of Political Economy, 94(3), pp.461~488 (1986)
  81. Shropshire, C., "The role of the interlocking director and board receptivity in the diffusion of practices", Academy of Management Review, 35(2), pp.246~264 (2010)
  82. Sun, W., "Board interlocks and the diffusion of CSR reporting practices : The role of market development", Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(3), pp.1333~1343 (2020)
  83. Surroca, J., "Managerial entrenchment and corporate social performance", Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 35(5-6), pp.748~789 (2008)
  84. Terjesen, S., "Does the presence of independent and female directors impact firm performance? A multi-country study of board diversity", Journal of Management and Governance, 20(3), pp.447~483 (2016)
  85. Tijani, A., "An empirical study of the relationship between the busy outside directors and indicators of ESG performance", Decision Science Letters, 11(3), pp.323~332 (2022)
  86. Useem, M., "The Inner Circle" (1984), Oxford University Press
  87. Vafeas, N., "Length of board tenure and outside director independence", Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 30(7-8), pp.1043~1064 (2003)
  88. Volonté, C., "Boards : Independent and committed directors?", International Review of Law and Economics, 41, pp.25~37 (2015)
  89. Walls, J. L., "The power of one to make a difference : How informal and formal CEO power affect environmental sustainability", Journal of Business Ethics, 145, pp.293~308 (2017)
  90. Welch, K., "Do high-ability managers choose ESG projects that create shareholder value? Evidence from employee opinions", Review of Accounting Studies, 28(4), pp.2448~2475 (2023)
  91. Westphal, J. D., "Who shall govern? CEO", board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection, 1995, 60~83
  92. Westphal, J. D., "Defections from the inner circle: Social exchange, reciprocity, and the diffusion of board in dependence in US corporations", Administrative Science Quarterly, pp.161~183 (1997)
  93. White, H., "A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity", Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp.817~838 (1980)
  94. Wilson, M., "Corporate sustainability : What is it and where does it come from", Ivey Business Journal, 67(6), pp.1~5 (2003)
  95. Wintoki, M. B., "Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance", Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), pp.581~606 (2012)
  96. Wu, S., "The impact of ESG performance on firm value : The moderating role of ownership structure", Sustainability, 14(21), pp.14507~ (2022)
  97. Yang, C., "Vertical interlock and stock price crash risk", Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 68, pp.101387~ (2021)
  98. Yeh, H. C., "The impact of corporate governance and ESG performance on firm value", Journal Economics and Business, 42 (2019)
  99. Yoon, B., "Does ESG performance enhance firm value? Evidence from Korea", Sustainability, 10(10), pp.3635~ (2018)
  100. Zhao, Y., "How does board interlock network matter for sustainability? A social learning approach to corporate environmental performance", Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(8), pp.5889~5908 (2023)
  101. Zaman, R., "Fiduciary duty or loyalty? Evidence from co-opted boards and corporate misconduct", Journal of Corporate Finance, 70, pp.102066~ (2021)
  102. Zona, F., "Board interlocks and firm performance : Toward a combined agency–resource dependence perspective", Journal of Management, 44(2), pp.589~618 (2018)
  103. Zou, H., "The diffusion of corporate social responsibility through social network ties : From the perspective of strategic imitation", Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), pp.186~198 (2019)

관련 논문AI추천

Exploring the Governance-ESG Nexus: Insights from Korea Across the COVID-19 Period김주태, 박수연한국국제경영학회 · 국제경영연구2025 · 제36권 제4호The Impact of Interlocking Directorates on Firm Value: Empirical Evidence from KOSDAQ companies in KoreaPark Jeong Hwan사람과세계경영학회 · Global Business and Finance Review2025 · 제30권 제1호기업의 지배구조 수준에 따른 환경(E), 사회(S) 성과와 기업가치 간의 관계강윤식, 이재식경영경제연구소 · 아태비즈니스연구2025 · 제16권 제2호기업의 사회적 책임성과가 이사회 독립성에 미치는 영향박범진한국공인회계사회 · 회계ㆍ세무와 감사 연구2020 · 제62권 제3호사외이사의 전략적 안건 반대: 최고경영자와 이사회의 권력 차이를 중심으로김영규, 김지은, 조명현한국전략경영학회 · 전략경영연구2020 · 제23권 제3호ESG incidents and financial performance: Evidence from Korea손삼호, 이정환경제연구소 · Journal of Economic Research (JER)2024 · 제29권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

지정학적 리스크가 메모리 산업에 미치는 영향: 삼성전자와 SK하이닉스의 시나리오 분석을 통한 지정학적 리스크 분석이제호, 김장운pp. 1-40Responding to Conflicting Institutional Demands in the Context of Institutional Voids: Korean Multinationals in Cameroon안영훈pp. 77-105한국 기업의 최고경영자(CEO) 교체유형에 따른 기업 성과와 외부 출신 CEO 교체 시 성과 조절 요인 분석최숙아, 최승호pp. 107-135외부 영입 스타 인재가 조직 혁신 성과에 미치는 영향: R&D 조직의 네트워크와 시장성과의 조절효과를 중심으로현은정pp. 137-162
원문 보기