Examining the Role of Top Management in Corporate Sustainability: Does Supply Chain Position Matter?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. TMT Characteristics in the Context of Sustainability
2.2. Supply Chain Position as a Moderator of the TMT—Sustainability Relationship
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Sample
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Independent Variables
3.2.3. Control Variables
3.3. Model Specification
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Flammer, C. Does product market competition foster corporate social responsibility? Evidence from trade liberalization. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 1469–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flammer, C. Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Superior Financial Performance? A Regression Discontinuity Approach. Manag. Sci. 2015, 61, 2549–2568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Senay, E.; Landrigan, P.J. Assessment of environmental sustainability and corporate social responsibility reporting by large health care organizations. JAMA Netw. Open 2018, 1, e180975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, J. The relationship between sustainable supply chain management, stakeholder pressure and corporate sustainability performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 119, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hambrick, D.C.; Mason, P.A. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jahanshahi, A.A.; Brem, A. Sustainability in SMEs: Top management teams behavioral integration as source of innovativeness. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manrique, S.; Martí-Ballester, C.-P. Analyzing the effect of corporate environmental performance on corporate financial performance in developed and developing countries. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gallo, P.J.; Christensen, L.J. Firm size matters: An empirical investigation of organizational size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 315–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gligor, D.; Bozkurt, S.; Gölgeci, I.; Maloni, M.J. Does supply chain agility create customer value and satisfaction for loyal B2B business and B2C end-customers? Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragon, G.O.; Jiang, Y.; Joenväärä, J.; Tiu, C.I. Socially Responsible Investments: Costs and Benefits for University Endowment Funds. Available SSRN 3446252 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villena, V.H. The Missing Link? The Strategic Role of Procurement in Building Sustainable Supply Networks. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2019, 28, 1149–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, J.; Moeller, S. Chain liability in multitier supply chains? Responsibility attributions for unsustainable supplier behavior. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, A.; Paraskevas, J.P. A Proactive Environmental Strategy: Analyzing the Effect of SCM Experience, Age, and Female Representation in TMT s. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 54, 20–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, S.H.; Yang, H.; Lee, M.; Park, S. The Impact of Institutional Pressures on Green Supply Chain Management and Firm Performance: Top Management Roles and Social Capital. Sustainability 2017, 9, 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bosch-Badia, M.T.; Montllor-Serrats, J.; Tarrazon, M.A. Corporate social responsibility from Friedman to Porter and Kramer. Theor. Econ. Lett. 2013, 3, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiu, S.-C.; Sharfman, M. Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1558–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stevens, J.M.; Steensma, H.K.; Harrison, D.A.; Cochran, P.L. Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives’ decisions. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jahanshahi, A.A.; Brem, A. Antecedents of corporate environmental commitments: The role of customers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strand, R. Strategic leadership of corporate sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 123, 687–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiengarten, F.; Lo, C.K.; Lam, J.Y. How does sustainability leadership affect firm performance? The choices associated with appointing a chief officer of corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 477–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockhaus, S.; Fawcett, S.E.; Knemeyer, A.M.; Fawcett, A.M. Motivations for environmental and social consciousness: Reevaluating the sustainability-based view. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 933–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naranjo-Gil, D. The role of management control systems and top teams in implementing environmental sustainability policies. Sustainability 2016, 8, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, S.K. The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate sustainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 20, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.Q.; Zhu, H.; Ding, H.-B. Board composition and corporate social responsibility: An empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 381–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazutis, D. CEO open executive orientation and positive CSR initiative adoption. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 1, p. 13997. [Google Scholar]
- Iqbal, S.; Farid, T.; Ma, J.; Khattak, A.; Nurunnabi, M. The impact of authentic leadership on organizational citizenship behaviours and the mediating role of corporate social responsibility in the banking sector of Pakistan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manzoor, F.; Wei, L.; Nurunnabi, M.; Subhan, Q.A.; Shah, S.I.A.; Fallatah, S. The impact of transformational leadership on job performance and CSR as mediator in SMEs. Sustainability 2019, 11, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naranjo-Gil, D. The influence of environmental and organizational factors on innovation adoptions: Consequences for performance in public sector organizations. Technovation 2009, 29, 810–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haleblian, J.; Finkelstein, S. Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 844–863. [Google Scholar]
- Amason, A.C.; Sapienza, H.J. The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. J. Manag. 1997, 23, 495–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, L.A.; Buyl, T.; Jansen, R.J. Leading corporate sustainability: T he role of top management team composition for triple bottom line performance. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2019, 28, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, J.; Yun, K.; Yan, F.; Jang, P.; Kim, J.; Pang, C. A Study on the Effect of TMT Characteristics and Vertical Dyad Similarity on Enterprise Achievements. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wiersema, M.F.; Bantel, K.A. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Acad. Manag. J. 1992, 35, 91–121. [Google Scholar]
- Tihanyi, L.; Ellstrand, A.E.; Daily, C.M.; Dalton, D.R. Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 1157–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barker, V.L., III; Mueller, G.C. CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 782–801. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, E.G.; Grosse-Dunker, F.; Reichwald, R. Sustainability innovation cube—A framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2009, 13, 683–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Nmark, F.L. Women, leadership, and empowerment. Psychol. Women Q. 1993, 17, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Amar, W.; Chang, M.; McIlkenny, P. Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 142, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campopiano, G.; Rinaldi, F.R.; Sciascia, S.; De Massis, A. Family and non-family women on the board of directors: Effects on corporate citizenship behavior in family-controlled fashion firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choi, T.Y.; Dooley, K.J.; Rungtusanatham, M. Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. J. Oper. Manag. 2001, 19, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villena, V.H.; Gioia, D.A. On the riskiness of lower-tier suppliers: Managing sustainability in supply networks. J. Oper. Manag. 2018, 64, 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, P. Kill it or keep it? The weak brand retain-or-discard decision in brand portfolio management. J. Brand Manag. 2015, 22, 154–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haddock-Fraser, J.; Fraser, I. Assessing corporate environmental reporting motivations: Differences between ‘close-to-market’and ‘business-to-business’ companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 140–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemens, B.; Douglas, T.J. Does coercion drive firms to adopt ‘voluntary’green initiatives? Relationships among coercion, superior firm resources, and voluntary green initiatives. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, D.; Rahman, Z. Sustainability adoption through buyer supplier relationship across supply chain: A literature review and conceptual framework. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2015, 3, 110–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- González-Benito, J.; González-Benito, Ó. A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2006, 15, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prabawani, B. Measuring SMEs’ sustainability: A literature review and agenda for research. Int. J. Manag. Sustain. 2013, 2, 193–207. [Google Scholar]
- Roh, J.; Krause, R.; Swink, M. The appointment of chief supply chain officers to top management teams: A contingency model of firm-level antecedents and consequences. J. Oper. Manag. 2016, 44, 48–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iacus, S.M.; King, G.; Porro, G. Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Anal. 2012, 20, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CGT Editorial Staff, 1 December 2019, “Top 100 Consumer Goods Companies of 2019,” CGT. Available online: https://consumergoods.com/top-100-consumer-goods-companies-2019 (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- Forbes Editorial Staff, 2019, “The World’s Most Valuable Brands,” Forbes. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/3/#tab:rank (accessed on 10 September 2020).
- Labonne, J. A Comparative Analysis of the Environmental Management, Performance and Innovation of SMEs and Larger Firms. Final Report for the European Commission, Directorate-General Environment. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/sme/pdf/final_report_sme_en.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2020).
- Dillard, J.; Pullman, M.E.; Loucks, E.S.; Martens, M.L.; Cho, C.H. Engaging small-and medium-sized businesses in sustainability. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dilling, P.F. Sustainability reporting in a global context: What are the characteristics of corporations that provide high quality sustainability reports an empirical analysis. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2010, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Day, S.W. The Role of the Top Management Team in Understanding the Innovation Capacity and Sustainability of Family Firms. J. US China Public Adm. 2020, 17, 108–119. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics; Paul Zarembka, Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 105–142. [Google Scholar]
- Iacobucci, D.; Schneider, M.J.; Popovich, D.L.; Bakamitsos, G.A. Mean centering helps alleviate “micro” but not “macro” multicollinearity. Behav. Res. Methods 2016, 48, 1308–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Micheal, V.A.; Abiodun, A.A. Estimation of regression coefficients in the presence of multicollinearity. Soc. Basic Sci. Res. Rev. 2014, 2, 404–415. [Google Scholar]
- Qu, Y. The Effects of TMT Demographics on Large Traditional Firms’ E-Business Strategy. AMCIS 2003 Proc. 2003, 159. [Google Scholar]
- He, J.; Wang, H.C. Innovative knowledge assets and economic performance: The asymmetric roles of incentives and monitoring. Acad. Manag. J. 2009, 52, 919–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Yu, B. How innovative knowledge assets and firm transparency affect sustainability-friendly practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 32–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Year | ‘03 | ‘04 | ‘05 | ‘06 | ‘07 | ‘08 | ‘09 | ‘10 | ‘11 | ‘12 | ‘13 | ‘14 | ‘15 | ‘16 | ‘17 | ‘18 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Companies Announcing Sustainability Initiatives | 4 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 33 | 19 | 32 | 38 | 49 | 56 | 60 | 62 | 118 | 97 | 78 | 75 |
Mean | S. D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SUSTAIN_INIT | 0.13 | 0.34 | |||||||||
2 | SIZE | 3.40 | 0.63 | 0.44 | ||||||||
3 | SALES_GR | 0.16 | 0.76 | −0.04 | −0.08 | |||||||
4 | MKT_SHARE | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.49 | 0.51 | −0.05 | ||||||
5 | AVE_TENURE | 9.34 | 8.22 | 0.01 | 0.03 | −0.03 | 0.10 | |||||
6 | SUSTAIN_FR | 0.04 | 0.20 | −0.02 | 0.00 | −0.03 | 0.02 | −0.05 | ||||
7 | SC_POSITION | 0.55 | 0.50 | 0.03 | 0.21 | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.03 | 0.01 | |||
8 | TMT_SIZE | 5.50 | 1.17 | 0.07 | 0.16 | −0.08 | 0.04 | −0.12 | 0.06 | 0.16 | ||
9 | AVE_AGE | 59.63 | 5.27 | −0.01 | 0.13 | −0.07 | 0.04 | 0.20 | −0.02 | 0.13 | 0.08 | |
10 | P_WOMEN | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.05 | −0.05 | 0.08 | −0.08 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.05 | −0.10 |
Model/Predictor | Conditional Logit | GLM | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |
SIZE | 3.85 *** | 3.85 *** | 4.62 *** | 4.64 *** |
(0.29) | (0.28) | (0.37) | (0.37) | |
SALES_GR | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
(0.16) | (0.18) | (0.18) | (0.22) | |
MKT_SHARE | −3.08 *** | −3.06 *** | −2.13 ** | −2.15 ** |
(0.83) | (0.81) | (1.09) | (1.07) | |
AVE_TENURE | −0.01 | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.02 |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
SUSTAIN_FR | −0.31 | −0.35 | −0.35 | −0.40 |
(0.36) | (0.36) | (0.42) | (0.42) | |
SC_POSITION | 15.72 *** | 16.28 *** | 34.21 *** | 34.43 *** |
(0.29) | (0.32) | (0.52) | (0.47) | |
TMT_SIZE | 0.13 ** | 0.29 *** | 0.16 ** | 0.38 *** |
(0.06) | (0.10) | (0.07) | (0.12) | |
AVE_AGE | −0.03 * | 0.02 | −0.05 ** | 0.02 |
(0.02) | (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.04) | |
P_WOMEN | 0.59 | 0.52 | 0.77 | 0.82 |
(0.60) | (0.96) | (0.62) | (0.98) | |
SC_POSITION × TMT_SIZE | −0.28 ** | −0.36 ** | ||
(0.13) | (0.15) | |||
SC_POSITION × AVE_AGE | −0.07 * | −0.10 ** | ||
(0.04) | (0.04) | |||
SC_POSITION × P_WOMEN | 0.02 | −0.23 | ||
(1.25) | (1.30) | |||
Constant | −54.89 *** | −54.59 *** | ||
(1.72) | (1.82) | |||
CEM_STRATA Fixed Effects | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Pseudo R2/Log Likelihood | 0.39 | 0.40 | −652.87 | −648.42 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tacheva, Z.; Simpson, N.; Ivanov, A. Examining the Role of Top Management in Corporate Sustainability: Does Supply Chain Position Matter? Sustainability 2020, 12, 7518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187518
Tacheva Z, Simpson N, Ivanov A. Examining the Role of Top Management in Corporate Sustainability: Does Supply Chain Position Matter? Sustainability. 2020; 12(18):7518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187518
Chicago/Turabian StyleTacheva, Zhasmina, Natalie Simpson, and Anton Ivanov. 2020. "Examining the Role of Top Management in Corporate Sustainability: Does Supply Chain Position Matter?" Sustainability 12, no. 18: 7518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187518