An Examination of the Structure of Executive Compensation and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Canadian Investigation

By Lois S. Mahoney, Linda Thorn. 2006

286 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ba49e2b78ea501e07a9f02b995bc40adc1b9c091

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation for Corporate Social Responsibility (2015, unknown): “Similarly, a nascent literature has examined the effect of executive compensation on CSR, but has also found conflicting results (Mahoney and Thorn 2006).”
CSR Committees and Their Effect on ESG Performance in UK, France, Germany, and Spain (2019, methodology): “We included firm size, ROA, and debt-to-equity ratio as firm-specific characteristics following [24,51,54].”
Corporate social responsibility reporting and organizational stigma: the case of "sin" industries. (2016, background): “Prior literature suggests that ownership structure impacts on CSR policies and disclosures (Gamerschlag, Möller, & Verbeeten, 2011; Mahoney & Thorn, 2006; Nazli & Ghazali, 2007; Oh, Chang, & Martynov, 2011).”
Value-Enhancing Capabilities of CSR: A Brief Review of Contemporary Literature (2014, background): “In another study, Mahoney & Thorne (2006) found that executive salaries increase with CSR weaknesses, and bonus and stock options increase with CSR strengths.”
Do Corporate Social Performance Targets in Executive Compensation Contribute to Corporate Social Performance? (2016, background): “…found to exist between executive salaries and CSP (Callan and Thomas 2011), long-term incentives and CSP (Deckop et al. 2006), executive salaries and CSP weaknesses (Mahoney and Thorne 2005, 2006; McGuire et al. 2003), and bonuses, stock options, and CSP strengths (Mahoney and Thorne 2005, 2006).”
Corporate Social Responsibility Performance, Incentives, and Learning Effects (2020, background): “2016; Kolk and Perego 2014; Maas 2018; Mahoney and Thorn 2006; McGuire et al.”
The Role of CEO’s Personal Incentives in Driving Corporate Social Responsibility (2014, methodology): “Mahoney and Thorne (2006) suggest that the results in McGuire et al. (2003) might be driven by the U.S. institutional environment.”
Responsible Corporate Governance: Towards a Stakeholder Board of Directors? (2009, unknown): “Frye et al., 2006; Mahoney and Thorn, 2006; McGuire et al., 2003) and board structure (Ayuso et al., 2007; Hillman, Keim and Luce, 2001; Webb, 2004).”
Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement Based on Attachment Theory (2010, background): “…corporate citizenship) are related to firm ownership concentration, while size and profitability have been also linked to corporate citizenship (Mahoney and Thorn, 2006), making firm ownership concentration, size, and profitability be the three potential control variables for future research.”
The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and finance (2017, unknown): “Mahoney and Thorn (2006) on the other hand conduct their analysis on a small sample of Canadian firms and find that executives’ salary is positively connected to CSP weaknesses but bonuses and stock options are related to CSP strengths.”
Three Dimensional Aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility (2008, background): “Mahoney and Thorne (2005) examined the association between long-term compensation and corporate social responsibility (CSR) for 90 publicly traded Canadian firms.”