TY - JOUR
T1 - Do co-opted boards strategically choose LGBT-supportive policies?
AU - Kyaw, Khine
AU - Chindasombatcharoen, Pongsapak
AU - Jiraporn, Pornsit
AU - Treepongkaruna, Sirimon
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - This study contributes to the underexplored literature: corporate governance responsibilities towards internal stakeholders (the employees). We investigate (a) whether the co-opted board, that is, the proportion of directors appointed after the current CEO takes office, influences firms' adoption of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)-supportive policies, (b) if so, what motivates the co-opted boards to do so, and (c) how these relationships change at times of limited economic resources and heightened governance. Based on 4850 firm-year observations of 1081 firms over the sample period of 1996–2010, we find (a) firms with co-opted boards are more inclined towards LGBT-supportive policies, that address stakeholders internal to the firms, (b) management of co-opted boards that adopt LGBT-supportive policies experience a higher increase in compensation than management of co-opted boards that do not adopt LGBT-supportive policies, and (c) during the global financial crisis (GFC), when firms aimed to survive economically under tighter governance, co-opted boards have lower tendency to adopt LGBT-supportive policies. This study offers insights to regulators interested in promoting board structures that address stakeholders. Despite the positive benefits documented in the literature on inclusive policies such as LGBT-supportive policies, the adoption of such policies may have a dark side to it.
AB - This study contributes to the underexplored literature: corporate governance responsibilities towards internal stakeholders (the employees). We investigate (a) whether the co-opted board, that is, the proportion of directors appointed after the current CEO takes office, influences firms' adoption of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT)-supportive policies, (b) if so, what motivates the co-opted boards to do so, and (c) how these relationships change at times of limited economic resources and heightened governance. Based on 4850 firm-year observations of 1081 firms over the sample period of 1996–2010, we find (a) firms with co-opted boards are more inclined towards LGBT-supportive policies, that address stakeholders internal to the firms, (b) management of co-opted boards that adopt LGBT-supportive policies experience a higher increase in compensation than management of co-opted boards that do not adopt LGBT-supportive policies, and (c) during the global financial crisis (GFC), when firms aimed to survive economically under tighter governance, co-opted boards have lower tendency to adopt LGBT-supportive policies. This study offers insights to regulators interested in promoting board structures that address stakeholders. Despite the positive benefits documented in the literature on inclusive policies such as LGBT-supportive policies, the adoption of such policies may have a dark side to it.
KW - Agency theory
KW - Co-opted boards
KW - Corporate governance
KW - LGBT–supportive policy
KW - Stakeholder theory
KW - Strategic-choice hypothesis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098206419&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101651
DO - 10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101651
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85098206419
SN - 1057-5219
VL - 73
JO - International Review of Financial Analysis
JF - International Review of Financial Analysis
M1 - 101651
ER -