CEO 특성이 CSR 전략에 미치는 영향

The Impact of CEO Characteristics on the CSR Strategy

본 연구는 CEO 특성이 CSR 전략에 미치는 영향을 국내기업을 대상으로 검증한다. CEO 특성과 CSR의 관계에 관한 선행연구에 기초하여 CEO 카리스마, 지적자극이 CSR 수준에 영향을 미치고 이해일치이론 관점에 따라 오너소유구조도 CSR 수준에 조절변수로서 영향을 미치는 것으로 모형화되었다. 이해관계자이론(Stakeholder theory)에 기초하여 CSR을 전략적 CSR과 사회적 CSR로 구분하여 분석하였다. 국내 105개 기업을 대상으로 실증 분석한 결과, CEO 카리스마는 사회적 CSR과 정(+)의 관계가 있는 것으로 나타났고, 지적자극은 전략적 CSR과 정(+)의 관계가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, CEO 오너십은 CEO 카리스마가 전략적 CSR에 갖는 정(+)의 효과를 강화하는 조절효과를 갖는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 기존의 CSR 연구에서 CEO의 역할과 관련한 분석이 충분히 이루어지지 않은 연구문헌상의 취약성을 보완하여 CEO 특성이 CSR의 수준에 영향을 미치고 CSR 유형별로 영향이 다르다는 점을 제시한다.

In recent years, many scholars have discussed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR includes business ethics, corporate governance, accounting and trading transparency, labor relations, community involvement, and relationships with suppliers. Recently the field of CSR has grown to also consider sustainability. The CEO has emerged as an important variable in terms of the strategy adopted for firm CSR. The CEO has overall responsibility for corporate strategy, and can exercise managerial discretion in decision-making with regards to CSR. CEOs tend to use CSR as a strategic choice for competitive advantage(McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Researchers further conclude that CEOs promote CSR because of their moral standards, and that CEO intellectual stimulation is associated with strategic CSR (Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006). The purpose of this study is to verify whether these conclusions are valid when applied to Korean firms and their CEOs. To best reflect the reality of Korean firms, the CEO ownership variable was added to the theoretical model of Waldman et al. (2006) in exploring the role of CEOs in determing the extent to which their firms engage in CSR. Based on KLD data, Hillman and Keim (2001) defined the following five dimensions of CSR with respect to stakeholder management: employee relations, diversity issues, environmental issues, product issues, and community relations. They empirically tested whether building better relations with primary stakeholders like employees, customers, and suppliers could lead to increased shareholder wealth by helping firms develop intangible, valuable assets that in turn could be sources of competitive advantage. Waldman et al. (2006) classified strategic CSR as distinct from social CSR. Strategic CSR is related to the firm’s business and corporate-level strategies (e.g. differentiation/reputation building), and Social CSR is based on concern for social issues. Strategic CSR was indicated by environmental, product quality, and employee relations attributes. Social CSR was represented by community and diversity indicators. This study empirically analyzes the impact of CEO characteristics on CSR strategy and tests the moderating effects of CEO ownership. Stakeholder-theory based dimensions of CSR such as strategic and social CSR were tested against CEO transformational leadership variables (charisma and intellectual stimulation), with the moderating variable of CEO ownership. This study sampled 289 Korean firms, 105 of which were public companies. In order to be considered for inclusion in the sample, a firm had to satisfy to three criteria: (1) achieved sales greater than one trillion won; (2) have a CEO with at least two years of tenure; (3) have appointed an external audit firm as of Dec. 31, 2010. We assessed CEO charismatic leadership and intellectual stimulation using 13 items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) that were considered by the authors to be especially relevant to leadership at the strategic level. Nine of the items were intended to assess charismatic leadership, while the other four items were designed to evaluate intellectual stimulation. We sent questionnaires to the corporate public relations department of each firm. Each participant was asked to think about the CEO of his/her respective firm, and then to rate that individual on each item on a five-point likert scale with anchors ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘strongly agree’. We extracted CEO ownership data from Business reports and audit reports published by the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS). In previous studies, authors used KLD data as a basis for their CSR research (Waldman et al., 2006; Waddock & Graves, 1997; Hillman & Keim, 2001). KLD rates CSR for investors who wish to ‘screen’ investment portfolios to exclude companies that violate their social principles.