CEO Ideology and Corporate Social Responsibility: Essays on Balance, Benefits, and Boundary Conditions

This dissertation examines how CEO political ideology shapes corporate social responsibility (CSR) and how CSR shapes firm outcomes. Although the association between liberal CEO ideology and higher levels of CSR engagement is well established, less is known about how ideology shapes the allocation of CSR activities, the conditions under which CSR buffers stakeholder reactions during CSR-related controversies, and the boundaries of ideological influence across strategic contexts. The first essay examines whether CEO ideology influences not only the level of CSR engagement but also the allocation of CSR activities between internal implementation and external communication. I find that liberal CEO ideology is positively associated with both internal and external CSR, with a stronger effect on external CSR. Because firms generally exhibit higher levels of internal implementation than external communication, this stronger external association means that firms led by more liberal CEOs display a less internally skewed CSR profile, with a smaller gap between what they implement and what they communicate. The second essay examines whether prior CSR mitigates negative stakeholder responses during firm controversies that cause stakeholder harm and identifies conditions that shape this effect. I find that prior CSR is associated with more favorable consumer sentiment following controversies, but this protection does not extend with comparable strength to investor reactions. The buffering effect diminishes as the magnitude of harm from a controversy increases, and CSR grounded in internal implementation provides stronger protection than external CSR, with directional evidence that imbalance between internal and external CSR may weaken this effect. The third essay examines whether CEO ideology predicts firms’ participation in voluntary climate disclosure and, among participating firms, whether ideology is associated with differences in carbon reduction investment and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) reductions. I find that liberal CEOs are more likely to engage in climate disclosure, but ideology does not predict carbon reduction outcomes among disclosing firms. Together, these essays show that the influence of CEO political ideology on firm CSR, and CSR on firm outcomes, depends on the type of decision, the stakeholder audience, and the institutional context in which firms operate.