Using an experiment, I examine whether managers have preferences for corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a capital budgeting setting and the factors that influence the extent to which they act on these preferences. I find that managers have and act on preferences for CSR by reporting to implement higher cost CSR investments that reduce firm profit even when they have financial incentives not to do so. I also find that when managers need to misreport to act on their preferences for CSR, their willingness to act on such preferences is decreased due to a desire to be honest. Conversely, an opportunity to create slack for personal benefit increases managers’ willingness to act on their CSR preferences, offsetting the decrease resulting from honesty concerns. Together these findings demonstrate that managers’ preferences for CSR investments can influence behavior even in the presence of competing economic incentives and social norms. Finally, an analysis of firm profit shows that firms may be better off financially with managers who act on preferences for CSR investments rather than managers who have strong preferences for wealth. This result obtains because managers with strong CSR preferences do not create slack to the same extent as managers with strong preferences for wealth. These results have implications for both theory and practice because they show that managers’ reports used to make investment decisions are influenced by their personal CSR preferences.

Although managers’ green investments have no impact on future cash flows in our experimental markets, investors respond favorably when managers make and disclose an investment and highlight the societal benefits rather than the cost to the company. Managers anticipate investors’ reaction and therefore often disclose their investment and the associated societal benefits. Managers and other shareholders benefit from investors’ reaction, but the investment cost always exceeds this benefit, demonstrating that managers make green investments because they value the societal benefits. Collectively, our findings show that both investors and managers tradeoff wealth for societal benefits and help explain managers’ corporate social responsibilty disclosures.

Employers often give employees general pay increases that are not tied to individual performance. These pay increases can either be unconditional fixed pay raises such as cost-of-living adjustments or be tied to risky firm-level measures of performance (e.g., profit-sharing). We use two experiments and a survey to investigate how employees' position in the firm's value chain affects their psychological ownership of the firm and subsequently their preferences for different types of pay increases. We find theory-consistent evidence that employees exhibit higher levels of psychological ownership of their organization when they add value to their firm's products and services directly (i.e., are primary workers who produce goods or services) rather than indirectly (i.e., are support workers such as janitorial or safety staff) and that this in turn increases their preferences for a profit-sharing pay increase relative to an unconditional pay increase. We discuss the implications of adopting a “value chain” perspective when designing employee compensation packages.

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Donald V. Moser, Patrick R. Martin; A Broader Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility Research in Accounting. The Accounting Review 1 May 2012; 87 (3): 797–806. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-10257 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Accounting Review Search Advanced Search

We examine the effect of a charitable contribution matching (CCM) program on employee effort. In CCM programs, employers commit to match employees' donations to charity. We expect CCM to activate a norm of other-regarding behavior, inducing employees to increase effort to benefit their employer. Experimental results robustly support our expectation. We find that CCM increases effort under both fixed-wage and performance-based incentive contracts. Further, our results suggest that CCM is more effective at eliciting effort than alternative uses of firm capital. Specifically, CCM is more effective at eliciting effort than the firm allocating an equivalent amount of capital to either direct firm charitable giving or increased performance-based pay. Our study suggests that CCM has efficient and robust effort-elicitation benefits that increase its value as a compensation tool incremental to any initial employee selection benefits from CCM and any effort benefits from firms' direct charitable giving.

Firms frequently attempt to increase profits by replacing some existing workers with new lower-wage workers. However, this strategy may be ineffective in an incomplete-contract environment because the new workers may provide lower effort in response to their lower wages, and hiring new lower-wage workers may damage the remaining original workers' reciprocal relationship with the firm. We conduct an experiment to examine this issue and find that when new lower-wage workers become available, firms hire them to replace original higher-wage workers and pay the new workers lower wages. However, these lower wages do not improve firm profit because the decision to hire new lower-wage workers causes both the new and remaining workers to provide lower effort. Moreover, hiring lower-wage workers reduces new workers' payoffs and, thus, decreases social welfare. These unintended consequences suggest that firms should consider both the wage savings and the potential costs when deciding whether to replace some workers with new lower-wage workers. We discuss the implications of our findings for contract design, hiring practices, and managerial accountants.