Untangling the Paradoxical Relationship Between Religion and Business: A Systematic Literature Review of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Religiosity Research

Heubeck, Tim Article — Published Version Untangling the Paradoxical Relationship Between Religion and Business: A Systematic Literature Review of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Religiosity Research Journal of Business Ethics Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Heubeck, Tim (2024) : Untangling the Paradoxical Relationship Between Religion and Business: A Systematic Literature Review of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Religiosity Research, Journal of Business Ethics, ISSN 1573-0697, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Vol. 195, Iss. 1, pp. 191-214, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05688-x This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/315219 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Business Ethics (2024) 195:191–214 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05688-x ORIGINAL PAPER Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature Review ofChief Executive Officer (CEO) Religiosity Research TimHeubeck1 Received: 7 November 2023 / Accepted: 5 April 2024 / Published online: 2 May 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Despite numerous chief executive officers (CEOs) citing their religious convictions as the primary guiding framework for their decision-making, leadership behavior, business philosophy, and motivation to contribute to society, the impact of CEOs’ religious convictions is relatively limited in the business literature. However, the widespread yet potentially ambiguous impact of CEO religiosity, encompassing both a CEO’s religious denomination and level of religiosity, on individual, organizational, economical, and societal levels remains a neglected area of research. This gap is attributed to challenges in conceptualizing and measuring this multifaceted construct, with existing research scattered and predominantly confined to the ethics domain. Notably, this oversight is significant given the pivotal role that CEOs, as primary decision-makers, play in organizational dynamics. This article aims to address this gap by conducting a systematic literature review of 50 articles focused on CEO religiosity, seeking to enhance the understanding of personal religion in the business world. Through an analysis of publication trends, methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, and empirical findings, the review not only offers insights for future research and theorizing but also proposes a conceptual framework for understanding and advancing CEO religiosity research. Additionally, this review identifies specific areas warranting further investigation, thereby highlighting existing research gaps and providing explicit starting points for future research. Through these contributions, this article provides a blueprint for future research on CEO religiosity and holds significant implications for management practice. Keywords CEO· Religion· Religiosity Introduction Chief executive officers (CEOs) face immense challenges in making efficient decisions and showcasing strong leadership, especially in today’s dynamic business environment with diverse stakeholder expectations and global issues like equality and climate change. Religion has become a guiding framework for many CEOs, who turn to religious teachings to find guidance and deeper meaning in the secular business world (McCarthy, 1996; Nash, 1994, 2004). Exemplary for the religious imprinting of business conduct is Donnie Smith, former CEO of Tyson Foods, who asserted that his personal faith is inseparable from his professional life, stating, “My faith influences how I think, what I do, what I say” (Kilman, 2010). Similarly, S. Truett Cathy embedded his Christian beliefs into Chick-fil-A’s corporate purpose, leading the company to continually realize corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and closing all restaurants on Sundays to allow employees to attend church and spend time with their families (McCarthy, 1996). Therefore, religious beliefs at the top transcend the entire organization, instilling a sense of moral obligation and purpose beyond profit maximization (Agle & Van Buren, 1999; Nash, 2004). This alignment is unsurprising, as religious teachings provide universal guidance on life’s fundamental issues, emphasizing ethical values such as honesty and reciprocity (Arli etal., 2023; Nash, 1994; Weaver & Agle, 2002). These ethical foundations make religious CEOs instrumental in ensuring the sustainability of the business, preventing fraudulent behavior, and fostering long-term business performance (Chantziaras etal., 2020; Nash, 2004). * Tim Heubeck tim.heubec[email protected] 1 Chair ofInternational Management, Faculty ofLaw, Business, andEconomics, University ofBayreuth, Universitätsstraße 30, 95447Bayreuth, Germany 192 T.Heubeck Therefore, personal religion at the top of organizations can have significant outcomes across the individual (e.g., business as a vehicle to realize religious values), organizational (e.g., ethical standards and employment practices), economical (e.g., sustainable value creation), and societal levels (e.g., remedy global economic crises) (Nash, 1994). However, religious beliefs can also cause significant tensions between CEOs and the businesses they serve (Nash, 1994). Besides generating ethical dilemmas (e.g., Graafland etal., 2006), personal religion can increase risk aversion (e.g., Hilary & Hui, 2009), deter social interactions (e.g., Kwok etal., 2020), or heavily polarize religious adherents (e.g., Arli etal., 2023). Moreover, research shows that religious convictions often are relatively weak predictors of attitudes and behaviors, for example, in the context of CSR (Agle & Van Buren, 1999; Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten etal., 2014). Therefore, there is currently significant ambiguity in the literature as to whether CEOs’ personal religion infers beneficial outcomes by instilling desirable values, is detrimental due to the conflicts between religious convictions and business values, or is unrelated to attitudes and behaviors. The research on CEO religiosity1 faces several notable issues. Firstly, existing studies fail to present a nuanced assessment of the potentially ambiguous repercussions of CEO religiosity for businesses (Chan-Serafin etal., 2013; Nunziata & Rocco, 2018). Thus, the present research tends to ignore the dual-edged nature of CEO religiosity, thereby neglecting the multifaceted and potentially conflicting ways in which CEO religiosity affects business outcomes. Secondly, religious studies often treat religion or religiosity as a macro-level construct (e.g., Hilary & Hui, 2009; Kumar etal., 2011). This reliance on coarse-grained proxies (e.g., religiosity in the country of the company headquarters) fails to determine whether CEOs are religious themselves due to measurement issues (Jiang etal., 2015) and what CEO religiosity might lead to in the organizational context due to a lack of theoretical understanding. Therefore, the current measurements of CEO religiosity often lack the granularity needed to capture CEOs’ individual religious adherence or religiosity. Thirdly, the research scope is relatively narrow, as evident from the predominant focus on business ethics (Agle & Van Buren, 1999; van Aaken & Buchner, 2020). Although business ethics provide a fitting research setting for CEO religiosity due to the moral values of religious teachings, studying CEO religiosity in the broader business context might also be a fruitful avenue for making this research stream more mainstream in the management literature. These research gaps illustrate a pressing need to fathom and comprehend the influence of CEO religiosity. Thus, a systematic review of the current literature should allow management research to clarify the concept of CEO religiosity and progress beyond the confines of current approaches. However, micro-level research on CEO religiosity encounters inherent challenges that must be addressed for this research stream to advance. These challenges include the measurement of CEO religiosity, primarily stemming from limited data availability or operationalization issues. Moreover, there may be a reluctance to study CEO religiosity due to concerns about obtaining mixed or negative findings, which could be perceived as a fusion of science and religion or an attack on religious beliefs or specific religions. Fostering this understanding is required, as “management research seems to rely on rather diffuse concepts of religion” (van Aaken & Buchner, 2020, p. 929). These research gaps are significant because firms’ strategies are primarily determined by the personal values, norms, and views of their most powerful decisionmaker—the CEO (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). As religion is an inherently micro-level construct originating from an individual’s religious affiliation and commitment (McDaniel & Burnett, 1990; Reutter & Bigatti, 2014; Weaver & Agle, 2002), there are significant differences in the decisionmaking style of CEOs (Agle & Van Buren, 1999; Pargament etal., 1988). Further, CEOs stand out markedly from other managers due to socioeconomic characteristics, managerial capabilities, and psychological traits (Brenner, 2015; Heubeck, 2024). Lastly, CEO religiosity holds importance not only within the intra-organizational context but also in inter-organizational interactions (Greenberg, 2000; Kwok etal., 2020). Thus, the study of CEO religiosity in the business context presents an intriguing research subject. Recognizing the importance of CEO religiosity for organizations and the broader society they impact, this article systematically reviews the current research on CEO religiosity. This systematic approach can also serve as the springboard for future research by highlighting critical gaps in the literature and offering concrete research directions. This article differs in its review focus from existing literature reviews, as none have focused on the personal religion of CEOs.2 There are three noteworthy exceptions in the literature. Firstly, van Aaken and Buchner (2020) extend the analysis to the micro level by shedding light on managerial religiosity 1 The term CEO religiosity encompasses both the CEO‘s religious affiliation (i.e., adherence to a formal religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism) as well as their religiosity (i.e., commitment to a specific religion or a general commitment to religion). This term will be used throughout this article to encompass both dimensions of religion. For a more detailed explanation, please refer to the section “Defining CEO Religiosity”. 2 There are also some reviews on spirituality in the business context (e.g., Maidl etal., 2022; Singh & Singh 2022) but these are not the focus of this review. For a detailed distinction between religion and spirituality please see Obregon etal. (2022). 193 Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature… concerning CSR. However, this review does not concentrate on top managers’ religiosity, a crucial distinction given CEOs’ hierarchical position and distinctive personal characteristics, and is confined to the CSR domain. Secondly, Amer (2023) provides another review of religiosity in the CSR context, further underscoring the need for a broader review of religious convictions. Although the study is partly concerned with top management religiosity, the analysis is primarily descriptive and fails to understand the subject thoroughly. Further, it does not differentiate between management levels and only considers studies published after 2015. Thirdly, Kumar etal. (2022) review the literature on religion and entrepreneurship. Although this review mentions religion as a critical personality trait of senior managers, its relevance is confined to the CSR domain and only briefly mentioned. Thus, despite its contributions to the entrepreneurship literature, this review falls short of providing a comprehensive analysis of CEO religiosity’s role in shaping organizations. This article systematically reviews existing studies on CEO religiosity, engaging in both retrospective analysis—examining the current understanding of CEO religiosity—and prospective exploration—establishing a robust foundation for future research. Therefore, this article also advances the discussion on the paradoxical tensions surrounding CEO religiosity. Through this systematic approach, this review aims to offer a blueprint for the study of CEO religiosity and serves as a springboard for future research on this topic. In particular, this article addresses the following research questions: To what extent and when did the study of CEO religiosity emerge, and in which journals has this research been published? Across which geographical regions, industries, and organizational types has CEO religiosity been explored? What methodological approaches, including data collection techniques, data analysis methods, and operationalizations of CEO religiosity, have been employed in this research stream? Which theoretical foundations have been utilized in conjunction with CEO religiosity? What are the key empirical findings and patterns emerging from the research on CEO religiosity, and how can these findings be synthesized into a comprehensive theoretical framework? Which implications for future research can be derived from these insights? What do the findings imply for management practice? The subsequent sections of this article adhere to the systematic structure commonly employed in literature reviews. Before beginning the review, the most pivotal terminology—CEO religiosity—is precisely defined. Following this, the review’s methodology is outlined. Subsequently, the articles undergo analysis and synthesis via descriptive and thematic approaches, cumulating in the formulation of a CEO religiosity framework. The discussion section encompasses future research directions, practical implications, and limitations of this review. The article concludes succinctly. Defining CEO Religiosity Religious teachings provide an orienting worldview, function as a guiding principle to make sense of inner experiences, and orient social interactions and collective behaviors (Agle & Van Buren, 1999; Batson etal., 1993; Peterson, 2001). Different religions vary significantly in their belief structure. Western religions such as Christianity or Islam emphasize the worship of a single deity and are often diffused by formal institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church. In contrast, Eastern religions, including Buddhism or Taoism, offer multiple paths to salvation without a single God and rely more heavily on individual practice than formal institutions (Hopfe & Woodward, 2009; Hussain etal., 2018; Miller, 2000). Besides these ideological and practiced differences, all religions significantly shape the beliefs and behaviors of their followers, especially when they are instilled during a person’s formative periods (e.g., during childhood or early adulthood) (Agle & Van Buren, 1999; Batson etal., 1993; Peterson, 2001). Religiosity involves practicing religion, such as engaging with sacred texts or acts of worship (Hill, 1999; Mueller, 1980). It signifies the commitment to religious teachings and practices, categorized in intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions. Intrinsic religiosity views religion as an end in itself, while extrinsic religiosity sees religion as a means to an end (Allport & Ross, 1967). Thus, intrinsic religiosity appreciates religion not as a tool for personal or professional gain but as a commitment to selfless engagement without anticipating specific benefits (Arli etal., 2023; Chowdhury etal., 2023). Other categorizations of religiosity highlight religiosity’s cognitive and behavioral components, rooted in the perceived importance of religion or active prayer, respectively (Bjarnason, 2007; McDaniel & Burnett, 1990). This distinction highlights that the behaviors and underlying beliefs of religious and nonreligious people (religious affiliation) can differ but also that religiosity-affiliated people can differ in their beliefs and behaviors due to the extent to which they follow and practice religion or view themselves as religious (religiosity) (Miller, 2000; Toney & Oster, 1998; Weber, 1905). Recognizing the imprecision in existing research, this article introduces the term CEO religiosity, encompassing CEOs’ adherence to a religious denomination (religious affiliation) and their level of identification, adherence, and devotion to a particular religion or religion in general (religiosity) (Chan & Ananthram, 2019; Reutter & Bigatti, 2014). 194 T.Heubeck Review Method This article conducts a systematic literature review in the following five phases: (1) defining the review focus; (2) selecting relevant articles; (3) evaluating their quality and relevance; (4) extracting and compiling data; and (5) reporting the findings (Kraus etal., 2022; Tranfield etal., 2003). First, in defining the review focus, this review aims to analyze empirical studies on CEO religiosity in the business context. Figure1 summarizes the search terms for CEO religiosity, including the CEO (Georgakakis etal., 2022; Velte, 2020), general religious terminologies (Block etal., 2020; Kumar etal., 2022; van Aaken & Buchner, 2020), and all world religions (Maoz & Henderson, 2013). The search terms were truncated to account for potential word variations, thereby mitigating the risk of excluding relevant articles (Mahran & Elamer, 2023). Second, in selecting relevant articles, this businesscentered review limited the subject area to journals in business, management, accounting, and finance (Paul & Criado, 2020). The search was restricted to peer-reviewed articles in reputable English-language journals (Kraus etal., 2022; Tranfield etal., 2003), excluding non-journal articles such as working papers, conference papers, book chapters, dissertations, or editorials (Kumar etal., 2022; Yu, 2023). The emphasis on English-language articles ensures comparability across the selected literature.3 The search string utilized Boolean operators in the article title, abstract, and keywords across multiple databases (Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOhost, JSTOR). This approach was chosen to mitigate search bias and eliminate predatory journals (Dabić etal., 2023; Kunisch etal., 2023; Paul etal., 2021), while the search in ‘article title, abstract, and keywords’ captures the main contents (Vrontis & Christofi, 2021). This review includes all studies published until August 02, 2023 (the date of the literature search), with no specific start date to avoid excluding relevant results. The literature search procedure follows the PRISMA framework (Liberati etal., 2009; Moher etal., 2009), as summarized in Table1. The initial search yielded 678 articles, from which 174 duplicates were removed. The resulting 504 articles underwent a fit and quality evaluation. Nineteen articles were excluded due to their non-journal nature or deviation from the review’s journal topics. The remaining 485 articles were assessed for journal quality. Given the emergent nature of CEO religiosity research, less restrictive quality criteria were used, yet a basic quality standard was maintained by selecting studies with rankings in major business lists (CABS, VHB-JOURQUAL 3, or SCIMAGOSJR). This criterion led to the removal of 52 articles from unranked journals. Articles eliminated in the initial phases were reassessed to ensure that no relevant articles were inadvertently excluded. From the 71 previously excluded articles, three were identified that align with the review’s scope.4 The remaining 436 articles underwent a comprehensive screening, applying exclusion criteria beyond the typical systematic literature review standards. Specifically, the titles, abstracts, keywords, research methods, models, and variable descriptions of all articles were assessed to determine whether they fit within the review’s scope. Articles were excluded if their content did not significantly align with the research objective of CEO religiosity in the business context. This meant that articles exploring religion or religiosity at other levels (e.g., country, regional, organizational) Fig. 1 Search strings and inclusion criteria Search strings (CEO OR Chief Executive*) AND (Relig* OR Spirit* OR Faith* OR Islam* OR Muslim* OR Buddh* OR Christian* OR Cathol* OR Protestant* OR Jew* OR Hebrew* OR Hindu*) Inclusion criteria Subject area: Business, Management, Accounting, and Finance Document type: Article Source type: Journal Language: English Rankings: Ranked in CABS, VHB-JOURQUAL 3, or SCIMAGO SJR Databases Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOhost, JSTOR 3 The selection of studies may exhibit a bias toward those focused on Christianity, given its predominant presence in English-speaking countries and the Western world. This concern was also raised by Block etal. (2020). Readers should be aware of this potential bias. 4 The three journals were manually reviewed for their scientific integrity. According to journal websites, all three journals are doubleblind journals and do not charge any article processing charges or submission fees, suggesting that these journals have a solid quality assessment in place and do not operate due to purely financial interests. 195 Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature… or investigating specific religious organizations or contexts without directly considering CEO religiosity were omitted. Due to the broad and potentially ambiguous nature of specific search terms like “spirit” and “faith,” the search generated several unrelated articles. However, this expansive search strategy was required to avoid overlooking relevant articles using alternative terms to describe religion or religiosity. Before removal, supposedly irrelevant articles underwent additional verification to confirm their lack of relevance to the topic. The assessment involved searching for “relig” in their full text, excluding articles that did not explicitly reference “religion.” This third filtering step resulted in the exclusion of a total of 362 articles. The remaining 74 articles underwent a thorough fulltext examination for the final inclusion assessment, using a coding template with selection criteria such as research goals, findings, level of analysis, and empirical design. Articles that did not specifically address CEO religiosity were excluded, which led to the removal of 32 articles that focused on organizational or institutional religious aspects, unrelated research questions within faith-based organizations, or data from non-managerial respondents. This refined selection process led to 42 articles. In line with established systematic literature review practices, backward citation and snowballing techniques were employed to identify potentially overlooked articles. This additional search yielded 89 sources. After removing nine non-journal articles and those contained in the original search (15), the remaining 65 articles underwent a careful review based on title, abstract, keywords, journal topic areas, and rankings. Nineteen articles met the criteria and underwent full-text reading, leading to eight articles relevant to this study. These articles met all inclusion/exclusion criteria applied during the original systematic literature search. An additional search was performed to rule out that the choice of search terms influenced the results. In an additional literature search, an alternate search string covering minority religions yielded 23 unique journal articles. Subsequent screening and reading revealed that none of the 17 empirical articles focused on religion. Instead, these articles predominantly explored aspects of Eastern culture or philosophy, particularly Confucianism. Although there is a debate on whether Confucianism constitutes a religion (e.g., Chen, 2012), the articles in question deliberately delineated Confucianism from religion and defined it as a philosophy. This supplemental analysis ensures that no essential articles on minority religions were missed due to search strings or definitions. Table 1 Literature search process following the PRISMA framework Stage Filtering step Articles in sample Exclusion and inclusion criteria Articles removed Articles added Identification Articles identified from databases Scopus (n = 101) Web of Science (n = 201) EBSCOhost (n = 311) JSTOR (n = 65) 678 Exclusion of duplicate articles 174 Screening Articles reassessed for publication type and journal topic area 504 Exclusion of articles from not from business, management, accounting, or finance journals 19 Journal quality assessment 485 Exclusion of articles without journal ranking (CABS, VHB-JOURQUAL3, SCIMAGOSJR) 52 Final assessment before article content screening 433 Inclusion of articles previously excluded yet related to the study goal 3 Articles screened (abstract, title, keywords, keyword search) 436 Exclusion of articles beyond the review’s scope based on a reading of the title, abstract, and keywords, as well as research methods, research model, and variable descriptions 362 Full-text reading of articles for final inclusion assessment 74 Exclusion of articles not related to the review’s research goal based on fulltext reading 32 Articles that fit with the review 42 Inclusion of articles based on forward/ backward search and snowballing 8 Inclusion Final review sample 50 196 T.Heubeck The final sample comprises 50 articles directly aligned with the research goals, meeting all filtering requirements.5 This sample size provided the opportunity to craft a thorough literature review (Holzmann & Gregori, 2023; Kraus etal., 2019) and was expected given this literature stream’s relatively immature and fragmented nature (Kraus etal., 2020). The number of articles exceeds the minimum requirements and falls within the scope of other management review articles (Hiebl, 2021; e.g., Parris & Peachey, 2013; Vazquez, 2018). Findings General Descriptive Characteristics This section summarizes key descriptive characteristics of CEO religiosity research. Figure2 illustrates a growing interest since 1998, with a surge in academic interest from 2015. These findings show that despite entering the business arena, CEOs’ personal religion is far less studied than other character traits like age or tenure (Liu & Ji, 2022; Popli etal., 2022). As summarized in Table2, the most prominent publication outlet is the Journal of Business Ethics, while seven other journals have published more than two articles. The U.S. is the most widely studied country, followed by countries such as Malaysia, China, and India; there is only one global study. The most significant proportion analyzes data from multiple industries, often excluding financial sectors due to their industry specifics. Only six studies focus on a specific industry, such as the financial or manufacturing sector. There is a clear dominance of studying large and public organizations, probably due to data availability. The descriptive analysis highlights the broad relevancy of this topic, spanning countries, industries, or firm types, while it also indicates a dispersed nature that emphasizes the need for a systematic review. Methodological Approaches Table3 shows that research on CEO religiosity exhibits significant methodological dispersion among the 50 reviewed articles, with 44 quantitative and six qualitative studies. The prevalent quantitative approach involves regression analysis, while qualitative studies lack a preference for a specific method. There is a tendency toward analyzing longitudinal over cross-sectional data, although both approaches have their merits depending on the research goal (for a comprehensive comparison, see Spector, 2019). CEO religiosity studies primarily rely on secondary data sources like annual reports (e.g., Alazzani etal., 2019; Baatwah etal., 2020), the Marquis Who’s Who database (e.g., Brenner, 2015; Ma etal., 2020), or the Chinese National Surveys (e.g., Du, 2017; Jiang etal., 2015). Some articles complement these secondary data sources with manual research on platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, and Bloomberg or through Google searches (e.g., Al-Ebel etal., 2020; Chen etal., 2023; Damaraju & Makhija, 2018). Notably, one article (Connelly etal., 2022) employs primary Fig. 2 Distribution of reviewed articles over time 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1998 2003 2004 2006 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 5 The comprehensive search strategy, coupled with additional verifications, serves as a robust countermeasure against the potential file drawer problem. Nevertheless, it is important for readers to be cognizant of a potential bias toward positive or significant results within the review sample, as studies with such outcomes are more likely to be published (Dalton etal., 2012). 197 Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature… interview data to verify the results obtained from secondary data. These diverse research approaches and the need for manual data collection underscore the challenges posed by the limited availability of individual religiosity or religious adherence that has hindered research progress. In contrast to other CEO characteristics, there is no legal obligation to publicize personal religious orientations or affiliations (Cai etal., 2019). Legislation, such as Title VII of the 1964 U.S. Civil Rights act, even restricts the disclosure of personal religious orientations in corporate settings. The U.S. constitution further prohibits the Bureau of the Census from collecting religious data (Chen etal., 2022). The secular corporate culture also encourages managers to keep their religious beliefs private (Beatty & Kirby, 2006). These constraints contribute to a significant disparity in CEO religiosity research methods and data sources. To advance future research, CEO religiosity operationalizations from various articles were gathered and coded into three overarching categories, as summarized in Table3. The first category includes dummy-based measures, where a binary variable indicates the presence of a predetermined condition. Over 60% of articles use this approach to assess whether CEOs adhere to a specific religion (e.g., Abdul Rahman etal., 2018; Liao etal., 2019), publicly identify as religious (e.g., Maung etal., 2020; Surya & Rahajeng, Table 2 Overview of key descriptive characteristics Category Number of articles Publication outlets Journal of Business Ethics 7 Journal of Corporate Finance 3 Global Finance Journal 2 International Business Review 2 Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research 2 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 2 Journal of Management 2 Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 2 Journals with one article 28 Countries U.S 17 Malaysia 8 China 7 India 5 Indonesia 3 Netherlands 2 Oman 2 Bangladesh 1 Global 1 Italy 1 Japan 1 Thailand 1 Turkey 1 Industries Multiple 44 Single 6 Of which Manufacturing 3 Finance 3 Organization type Large/public 31 Various 7 Small and medium-sized 5 Family-owned 3 Multinationals 2 Private 2 Table 3 Overview of research methods, data source, and operationalizations Category Number of articles Empirical design Quantitative 44 Qualitative 6 Methodology Regression analysis 39 Interview analysis 2 Critical incident technique 1 Descriptive analysis 1 Difference-in-difference analysis 1 Latent class modeling 1 Open and axial coding 1 Single-case study 1 Subjective option valuation model 1 Systematic content analysis 1 Verbal protocol analysis 1 Data structure Longitudinal 29 Cross-sectional 21 Data type (51 mentions) Primary data 16 Secondary data 35 Operationalization (51 mentions) Dummy-based measures (binary variables that indicate whether a predetermined religion/religiosity condition is present or not) 33 Value-based measures (operationalizations that capture CEOs’ religious values) 15 Proportionality-based measures (proxy-based measures of the degree of CEO religiosity/religious adherence through proportional assessment of, e.g., CEOs’ home state religiosity) 3 198 T.Heubeck 2023), hold a degree from a religiously affiliated institution (e.g., Cai etal., 2019; Chen etal., 2023), or are involved in religious activities or institutions (e.g., Harjoto & Rossi, 2019; Nazrul etal., 2022). In the Islamic world, studies often rely on name-based identifications of Muslim CEOs through traditional Islamic names (e.g., Alazzani etal., 2019; Ooi & Hooy, 2022) or their ethnic identity (e.g., Abdul Rahman etal., 2018; Hooy & Ali, 2017). While the former aligns with psychological and religion research that states that names reflect religious affiliations (Dion, 1983; Lauderdale & Kestenbaum, 2000), the latter is guided by the constitutional definition of Malay as someone professing Islam (Barnard, 2004). Thus, both approaches ensure a relatively accurate identification of Muslim CEOs. Second, value-based measures extend beyond the categorial distinction of dummy-based ones by capturing CEOs’ religious values. More than 25% of the articles employ this method, exemplified by coding interview data into overarching value-based concepts and categories (e.g., Chan & Ananthram, 2019), capturing religious values explicitly (e.g., Chou etal., 2016), or utilizing item-based measures (e.g., Connelly etal., 2022; Friedmann etal., 2018). Within the latter, a common approach is assessing the level of CEO religiosity by examining its underlying cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (e.g., Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten etal., 2014; Richardson & Rammal, 2018). Third, proportionality-based measures capture the degree of CEO religiosity by considering factors like the proportion of religious people in a CEO’s home state (e.g., Adhikari & Agrawal, 2016; Ma etal., 2020) or the religiosity ratio of the county where CEOs received their undergraduate degree (e.g., J. Cai & Shi, 2019). This approach is employed in only three studies, making it the least-utilized measure of CEO religiosity. Proportionality-based measures are more prevalent in firmor country-level studies of religiosity (e.g., Brammer etal., 2007; Dyreng etal., 2012; Hilary & Hui, 2009), as they are considered to be less adept at capturing individual religiosity or religious adherence (Brahmana & You, 2022). These findings indicate a lack of consensus on the measurement of CEO religiosity. The approach to measuring CEO religiosity varies significantly based on factors such as the research goal or focus (e.g., religion versus religiosity), the availability of reliable data, and the research setting. Theoretical Foundations Analyzing the articles’ theoretical frameworks is crucial for a profound understanding of the fundamental assumptions in CEO religiosity research. For this purpose, the articles were thoroughly examined for explicit references to concepts, theories, or frameworks commonly found in specific sections (e.g., introduction, theoretical background, discussion). These theoretical foundations must be explicitly applied to the research to qualify for inclusion. Additionally, the articles’ reference lists were carefully reviewed to prevent overlooking any pertinent theories and to assist in categorization. The identified theoretical foundations (second-order themes) were then organized into overarching theories (first-order themes) to provide a concise yet comprehensive overview. Table4 summarizes these themes. The dominant first-order theme centers on behavioral and psychological theories, mentioned 37 times. This Table 4 Systematic overview of adopted theories Theoretical framework Number of articles Behavioral and psychological theories 37 Upper echelons theory 17 Culture theory 2 Motivation theory 2 Negotiation theory 2 Planned behavior theory 2 Social identity theory 2 Social norms theory 2 Behavioral theory 1 Developmental psychology theory 1 Image theory 1 Imprinting theory 1 Managerial cognition theory 1 Managerial optimism theory 1 Self-identity theory 1 Symbolic interaction theory 1 Organizational theories 15 Agency theory 3 Stakeholder theory 3 Institutional theory 2 Network theory 2 Attraction-selection-attrition framework 1 Internationalization theory 1 Residual theory of dividends 1 Stewardship theory 1 Signaling theory 1 Ethical and religious theories 9 Social capital theory of religion 2 Virtue ethics theory 2 Christ and culture paradigm framework 1 Moral theory 1 Religious orientation framework 1 Resource sharing theory of religion 1 Scripture theory 1 None or not specified 7 Economic theories 2 Economic theory 1 Risk tolerance theory 1 205 Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature… Table 5 CEO religiosity framework: Mechanisms, contingencies, and outcomes Mechanisms Contingencies Outcomes (1) Ethics and morality Ethical framework Organizational and industry characteristics Financial performance and reporting Ethical business philosophy Firm size Accuracy of analyst forecasts Ethical mindsets Firms’ headquarters area religiosity Financial reporting quality Ethical virtues Ownership structure Firm size Corporate social responsibility (CSR) Foreign-owned Firm financial performance Ethical responsibility Family-owned Analyst coverage Financial Government-owned CEO compensation Legal Physical capital intensity Real earnings management Philanthropic High misconduct industries Audit report lag CSR attitudes Governance and leadership Ethical considerations CSR motivation Ownership concentration Ethical challenges handling CSR initiatives CEO duality Ethical conflicts Internal Religious board chair Ethical decision-making External CFO accounting experience Ethical values Family firm succession intent Corporate misbehavior Participatory decision-making CSR CSR initiatives Internal External CSR disclosure Corporate donations/philanthropy Firms’ green initiatives Human rights practices External perception and reputation Public perception of corporate philanthropy Company reputation Governance and management CEO hiring following corporate misconduct Employee turnover Competitive intensity (2) Risk-taking Corporate risk and strategy Regulatory, contextual, and governance factors Financial structure, performance, and management Risk-taking Regulatory reforms Capital structure Advertising spending External religiosity Bond yields and covenants Opportunity scanning Board of directors’ religiosity ratio Financial performance Strategic flexibility Board inactiveness Shareholder value Financial metrics CFO accounting experience Earnings management Dividend yields Financial factors Financial disclosure quality Dividend payouts Compensation type CEO compensation structure Cash flow volatility Shariah-compliant financing Cost of capital Credit ratings Ownership structure Accounting conservatism Ownership dispersion Risk and strategic decision-making Ownership control Risk-taking Government-owned Risk-aversion Family owned Market entry decisions Management factors Innovation (performance) CEO gender Eco-innovation 206 T.Heubeck Islamic traditions prevail. The prevalence of Islam may be attributed to the readily observable nature of Muslim CEOs. While focusing on Abrahamic religions is understandable due to their global significance, researchers must acknowledge the Western-centric framework used to classify religions (King, 2013; Smith, 1991), likely contributing to the dearth of research on Eastern traditions. Future studies could investigate developing economies or countries with religious pluralism to gain insights into multi-faith settings. Additionally, a shift from major world religions to minority religions is a promising avenue for exploration, considering that the review sample lacks studies on minority religions. Cross-country comparisons can provide valuable insights into the impact of religion on business operations across diverse institutional and cultural environments. Investigating the effectiveness of CEO religiosity in developing economies with fragile institutional systems offers a promising avenue. Researchers should also explore diverse industrial and organizational contexts beyond broad cross-sectional studies. Single-industry studies offer a more homogeneous backdrop, reducing interference from industry-specific variables and revealing sector-specific patterns in CEO religiosity effects. Due to data scarcity, smalland medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), family-owned businesses, and private firms remain underrepresented in CEO religiosity research. Closing this gap by collecting primary data on CEO religiosity would offer a more comprehensive understanding of its influence across a broader spectrum of the business world. An innovative research opportunity involves exploring the intersection between CEO religiosity and corporate sustainability within SMEs. Investigating how religious beliefs and values influence sustainability practices and ethical behaviors in smaller firms can shed light on the role of CEO religiosity in addressing contemporary environmental and societal issues. Diversify theResearch Methodologies The third possibility for advancing CEO religiosity research it to diversify the research methods. Qualitative research could be employed more heavily in exploring the working ways of CEO religiosity, especially in understanding mechanisms and contingencies, exploring possible antecedents, or studying other potential outcomes. While there is a dearth of mixed-methods studies examining the intersection of CEO religiosity, employing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in a single study offers significant advantages, particularly in the unique context of CEO religiosity. Mixed-methods studies could demystify the elusive construct of CEO religiosity, yielding a more comprehensive understanding of its antecedents, mechanisms, contingencies, and outcomes. Mixed-methods studies can also address the limitations of individual research approaches. They offer various applications, such as using qualitative methods to establish themes and research design, followed by quantitative validation (development), leveraging qualitative approaches to explore further identified mechanisms (complementing), corroborating results with different data (triangulation), enhancing comprehension of mechanisms (expansion), and providing nuanced perspectives on conflicting effects (initiation) (Cameron, 2011; Creswell & Clark, 2011). Integrating these methods can unravel the intricate relationships between CEO religiosity and business more comprehensively in future investigations. Table 5 (continued) Mechanisms Contingencies Outcomes CEO education Incremental Education level Radical Foreign education (3) Social norms and participation Social dynamics Adversity phases Social dynamics and engagement Tie formation Turbulent times Status homophily Intrafirm trust Troubling times Social proximity Religious homophily Stressful times Emotional coping Religious diversity Corporate behavior and resources Trust formation Religiosity-driven business philosophy Corporate philanthropy Community orientation Leadership behavior Political involvement Network resources CEO hiring Personal and professional goals Personal gains/wealth maximization Personal fulfillment Goal achievement 207 Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature… A shift to primary data on CEO religiosity can enrich the understanding of CEO religiosity, as secondary data primarily identifies whether a CEO adheres to a specific religion or participates in religious activities. Researchers can unearth a deeper layer of insight by directly assessing CEOs’ personal religious beliefs. Experimental methods gauging CEOs’ realworld behavior could also offer a more direct approach than drawing inferences based solely on religious attitudes or identities (van Aaken & Buchner, 2020). Several studies supplemented datasets through manual research, tapping into platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, and Bloomberg. This labor-intensive approach offers detailed insights into CEO religiosity, compensating for potential gaps in a single database or offering an alternative measure. Altogether, research should consider the bandwidth of research methods to propel CEO religiosity studies toward more significant heterogeneity and diversity. Accomplishing this goal involves combining complementary research methods and questioning prevailing assumptions and scholarly practices (Christofi etal., 2024). Leading journals should also actively promote and embrace innovative research methods. Develop Fine‑Grained Measures The fourth recommendation involves refining the measurement of CEO religiosity. Most studies rely on dummy-based measures, which primarily capture whether CEOs adhere to a specific religion. Many studies employ dummy-based measures, assessing whether CEOs adhere to a specific religion. While this approach is expected due to data constraints, it oversimplifies the complexity of religion by categorizing CEOs into two broad groups: religiously affiliated and non-religiously affiliated. This binary approach lacks nuance and fails to capture variations in the intensity of religiosity or non-religiosity among CEOs, highlighting the need for more sophisticated measures. Relatedly, a central concern with the dummy-based approach is its oversimplified categorization of religious adherents. For example, several studies use a dummy variable to distinguish between Catholic and Protestant CEOs, overlooking the diversity within Protestant branches (Hillerbrand, 2004; van Aaken & Buchner, 2020). The discussion on perspective pluralism is absent in the study of Muslim CEOs. While this may be less problematic for Islamic research due to relatively consistent economic principles in the Quran (Ameli & Molaei, 2012; van Aaken & Buchner, 2020), future studies should thoroughly consider religious pluralism, not only within Christian denominations but also among non-Christian religions. Proportionality-based measures of CEO religiosity, reflecting the religiosity of the area where the CEO was raised or educated, have been underexplored. These measures rest on the assumption that a person’s upbringing significantly shapes their religious beliefs and remains consistent throughout adulthood, which is debatable to some extent. Moreover, they lack granularity in assessing the nature and intensity of CEOs’ religious beliefs. An alternative to address these limitations is using value-based measures, often employed in studies relying on interviews or surveys. These measures involve CEOs’ selfevaluation of their religious convictions, which offers a more nuanced assessment of CEO religiosity than dummy-based measures. However, value-based measures are subjective and prone to bias, impacting the reliability of the results. A crucial concern with existing measures is their static assessment of CEO religiosity, capturing it at a single moment. Even longitudinal studies determine CEO religiosity at a specific reference point, overlooking its dynamic nature. This omission is critical in religious research, given that religion and religious beliefs are highly dynamic (Cho & Squier, 2013). Religious institutions constantly evolve, and individuals’ adherence to a religion or their personal religious beliefs and religiosity can change. Changes in religious adherence and participation can also be caused by religious scandals, while religious beliefs seem to be relatively robust (Bottan & Perez-Truglia, 2015). This raises validity concerns for CEO religiosity measures, as those relying on religious affiliation or participation might be biased, potentially misclassifying non-adherents or non-participants as non-religious CEOs. Conversely, since religious beliefs are more stable, especially in adulthood (Hamberg, 1991), value-based measures might better capture the enduring aspects of a person’s religious convictions. The interchangeable use of religion and religiosity is an issue faced by most religious research (Héliot etal., 2020), not only in the field of CEO religiosity. Therefore, future research should more explicitly differentiate between measuring religious affiliation (religion) and the importance of religion in a person’s life (religiosity). For example, comparing the effects of religious identity and religiosity on CEOs’ decision-making and corporate behavior could offer valuable insights. Additionally, exploring variations in religiosity (e.g., general religiosity versus religiosity toward a specific religion) could deepen the understanding of CEO religiosity. In summary, future research should prioritize value-based measures for a nuanced assessment of CEO religiosity. However, recognizing practical constraints and the potential reluctance of executives to disclose beliefs, dummyand proportionality-based measures can still serve in large datasets or be complemented with qualitative methods. While advocating for a more fine-grained measure of CEO religiosity aligns with theoretical considerations, the practicalities of empirical research may not always permit such granularity, and top-level executives might be hesitant to disclose 208 T.Heubeck their religious beliefs. However, it will be crucial for future research to disentangle the complex construct of CEO religiosity through more fine-grained measures. Advance theTheoretical Foundations For future CEO religiosity research, it is suggested that theoretical foundations be enhanced by integrating multiple perspectives to gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of CEO religiosity. For example, combining theories like the social capital theory of religion and homophily theory can help dissect the complex effects of personal religion within the social fabric of an organization. Additionally, exploring the combination of stakeholder theory and virtue ethics theory can provide nuanced insights into how CEO religiosity shapes ethical belief systems that influence actions. A noteworthy portion of research lacks an explicit theoretical foundation, which resonates with Hilary and Hui (2009), who contend that “developing a theory for this relation [between religion and corporate decision-making] is more challenging than establishing its existence” (p. 458). The conceptual boundaries of CEO religiosity remain not firmly established, suggesting the need for innovative theorizing beyond existing frameworks. At this critical juncture, focusing on prescriptive theorizing offers a more compelling impetus for developing a comprehensive theory of CEO religiosity compared to descriptive theorizing. Descriptive theorizing involves retrospective analyses to understand the past and present while offering prescriptions for the future. In contrast, prescriptive theorizing adopts a prospective stance to address normative and instrumental questions related to achieving optimal outcomes and outlines ways to attain them. This makes prescriptive theorizing more adept at theorizing concerning broader societal challenges (Hanisch, 2024). For instance, while descriptive theory can explain and predict why and when religious CEOs engage in ethical behavior, it falls short in drawing inferences about whether or how religious CEOs should do so. Theorizing about the latter requires dimensions absent from descriptive theorizing—specifically, normative and instrumental states. This review’s examination of existing theories in CEO religiosity studies provides a fertile ground for scholars to engage in prescriptive theorizing. It serves as a decision-making tool, guiding future researchers in selecting appropriate theoretical frameworks to comprehensively understand the dynamic relationship between CEO religiosity and business. Recognizing the potential for integration among these frameworks encourages a nuanced exploration beyond simplistic dichotomies, avoiding the exclusive categorization of religious convictions as solely beneficial or detrimental, as suggested by previous research (e.g., Chan-Serafin etal., 2013). Close theExisting Research Gaps The final suggestion for future research revolves around addressing the gaps identified in the CEO religiosity framework, particularly the lack of research on the antecedents of CEO religiosity. Drawing from the cognitive science of religion (e.g., Barrett & Lanman, 2008) and development psychology literature (e.g., Barnett, 1995; Levinson, 1986), researchers could explore the socialization and culturalization process that lead to specific religious beliefs of CEOs. The enduring influence of early exposure to religion may lead to ingrained beliefs that persist into adulthood, subtly guiding decision-making even when individuals distance themselves from their religious communities (Barrett & Lanman, 2008; Hamberg, 1991). Exploring these origins can provide a more comprehensive understanding of how CEO religiosity develops and influences behavior. Future research urgently needs to explore the antecedents of CEO religiosity comprehensively. Although some studies have examined aspects like CEOs’ upbringing or educational background (e.g., Adhikari & Agrawal, 2016; Chen etal., 2023), none have investigated explicitly whether a religious upbringing, socialization, or culturalization genuinely leads to CEO religiosity and to what extent this assumption holds. Closing this gap is crucial for gaining a nuanced understanding of the factors shaping CEO religiosity. CEO religiosity might also be influenced by their business experiences, with corporate misconduct potentially prompting CEOs, both religious and non-religious, to turn to religious teachings for guidance. The study by Connelly etal. (2022), which explores the role of CEO religiosity in appointment decisions following corporate misconduct, offers a valuable basis for further investigation into this aspect. Additionally, CEOs’ involvement in CSR could influence their religious convictions. As CEOs engage with diverse interest groups through CSR initiatives, often unrelated to core business operations, it could prompt CEOs to reflect on their religious beliefs. Existing reviews of religion suggest a similar possibility of a reverse relationship between entrepreneurship and religious orientation (Block etal., 2020; Kumar etal., 2022). Life-changing events, such as the loss of a close relative, near-death experiences, or severe illness, can act as catalysts for heightened religious inclination or a reassessment of a CEO’s religious adherence. For instance, the CEO Robert B. Pamplin, Jr. turned to a seminary after a cancer diagnosis and later became a nondenominational minister, authoring books related to religion (McCarthy, 1996). External events, like church scandals, may also lead CEOs to question their religious beliefs or prompt them to distance themselves from the church (Bottan & Perez-Truglia, 2015). 209 Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature… Secondly, the framework emphasizes that the mechanisms and contingencies of CEO religiosity remain insufficiently explored. While there is a general imperative to enhance our understanding of how CEO religiosity manifests in the corporate environment and the contextual conditions that shape it, future research should also delve deeper into CEOs’ personal characteristics that may influence the efficacy of their religious convictions, considering factors like firm or industry tenure, leadership style, gender, entrepreneurial attitudes, or managerial capabilities (Heubeck, 2023). Thirdly, despite being the most well-understood dimension, the outcomes of CEO religiosity require further exploration. Future research should investigate the role of CEO religiosity in addressing contemporary business challenges, such as digital transformation or the adoption of artificial intelligence technologies. Considering the substantial risks these issues pose for organizations and their leaders, variations in risk aversion might exist between religious and non-religious CEOs or among CEOs adhering to different religions. Additionally, future research should study the impact of CEO religiosity on the achievement of CEOs’ personal and professional objectives. Despite existing studies in this realm (e.g., Toney & Oster, 1998), further investigation may provide a more holistic comprehension of the business rationale shaping the decisions of religious CEOs. The CEO religiosity framework paves the way for future research into CEO religiosity by systematically structuring the current knowledge and offering several concrete directions for future studies. Thus, this framework can also facilitate a broader exploration of CEO religiosity, which is needed to establish this research stream within the business and management literature. Practical Implications This review’s practical implications highlight the substantial influence of personal religious convictions on the decision-making and behavior of CEOs in the corporate world. It demonstrates that differences in decision-making exist between different religions and among CEOs with different religious commitments, sometimes resulting in conflicting effects on their decisions and behaviors. The intention is not to advocate for CEOs to adopt a specific religion, as personal preferences are respected and beyond the scope of academic research. However, the article emphasizes the importance of CEOs being aware of how their religious beliefs can shape their preferences, values, biases, and behavioral patterns, impacting decisionmaking processes. This article identified three significant practical implications of CEO religiosity in the business context. Firstly, CEO religiosity consistently leads to more ethical and stakeholder-oriented decisions and behaviors, attributed to heightened moral principles. This suggests that religious CEOs can offer substantial benefits in weak institutional contexts or curbing misconduct and fraud. Non-religious CEOs may also seek ethical guidance from religious teachings. For boards of directors, personal religion may signal enhanced ethicality of the CEO, which might be critical for appointment decisions in specific industries. The second practical implication is that CEO religiosity tends to induce risk aversion in decision-making, with variations across religious orientations. Western religions like Protestantism and Catholicism, particularly Catholic CEOs, exhibit greater risk aversion. Significantly, this risk aversion correlates with diminished business performance metrics. Acknowledging this tendency, religiously affiliated CEOs should be mindful of their inclination toward risk aversion, and organizations can leverage this knowledge to encourage a corporate culture conducive to risktaking among religious CEOs. The third practical implication emphasizes that CEO religiosity is linked to heightened social and civic engagement. CEOs with personal religion should be aware of the social advantages associated with their affiliations, including entry into specific networks and enhanced trust in social interactions. Boards should also remain cognizant of potential biases toward same-religion appointments. In essence, CEOs are encouraged to recognize the impact of their religiosity not only in their personal lives but also in its potential benefits within social and business contexts. Limitations This review has several limitations. Firstly, the search process might have missed relevant articles due to specific databases, search strategies, or exclusion criteria. While significant efforts were made to follow best practices, potential oversights in non-English sources or articles without explicit search terms are acknowledged. Secondly, the criteria for journal quality were intentionally less restrictive to provide a comprehensive analysis of the nascent research stream. This approach also seeks to counteract potential Western-centric biases. Thirdly, new articles published after the search completion are not considered. Lastly, the limited number of studies may affect generalizability, suggesting an opportunity for future research to revisit this analysis with a different strategy or at a later time for expansion. 210 T.Heubeck Conclusion This article contributes to micro-foundational research by exploring CEO religiosity in the business context. It provides a systematic blueprint for future studies, synthesizing existing knowledge, identifying trends and gaps, offering methodological guidance, and supporting evidence-based decision-making. The review enhances conceptual clarity, develops theory, and stimulates scholarly discourse on personal religious convictions in organizational leadership. It sheds light on the paradoxical tensions of CEO religiosity and holds implications for management practice. By uncovering unexplored areas, this review serves as a foundation for further research into CEO religiosity. Acknowledgements The author expresses sincere gratitude to Harry J. Van Buren III, the Section Editor for Religion, Spirituality, and Business Ethics, for his invaluable guidance and support throughout the review process. Additionally, heartfelt appreciation is extended to the three anonymous reviewers whose insightful and constructive suggestions played a pivotal role in enhancing the quality and refinement of this article, ultimately shaping it into its final version. Their contributions have been instrumental in elevating the scholarly merit of this work. Use of large language modules The author acknowledges the use of ChatGPT (https:// chat. openai. com/) and Grammarly (https:// www. gramm arly. com/) to provide suggestions for revising the contents of this manuscript and check their grammatical correctness. After using these tools/services, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed. The author takes full responsibility for the content of the publication. Author Contributions The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Project DEAL enabled open access funding. No other funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. Data availability Data sharing is not applicable for this article. The data utilized were obtained from academic databases and publishers. For further details on the sources of the reviewed journal articles, please refer to the reference list. Declarations Conflict of Interest The author declares no relevant financial or nonfinancial conflicts of interest to disclose. He certifies that he has no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or nonfinancial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The author has no financial or proprietary interest in any material discussed in this article. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Abdul Rahman, R., Omar, N., Rahman, A., & Muda, R. (2018). Islamic ethical values of corporate top leadership and real earnings management. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(3), 869–884. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJLMA0320170029 Adhikari, B. K., & Agrawal, A. (2016). Does local religiosity matter for bank risk-taking? Journal of Corporate Finance, 38, 272–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jcorp fin. 2016. 01. 009 Agle, B. R., & Van Buren, H. J. V. (1999). God and mammon: The modern relationship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(4), 563–582. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 38579 35 Alazzani, A., Wan-Hussin, W. N., & Jones, M. (2019). Muslim CEO, women on boards and corporate responsibility reporting: Some evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 10(2), 274–296. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JIABR0120170002 Al-Ebel, A., Baatwah, S., & Al-Musali, M. (2020). Religiosity, accounting expertise, and audit report lag: Empirical evidence from the individual level. Cogent Business and Management, 7(1), 1823587. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1080/ 23 311 975. 20 20. 18235 87 Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0021 212 Ameli, S. R., & Molaei, H. (2012). Religious affiliation and intercultural sensitivity: Interculturality between Shia & Sunni Muslims in Iran. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 31–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijint rel. 2010. 11. 007 Amer, M. (2023). Systematic review of religiosity and social responsibility. Journal of Business and Socio-Economic Development. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JBSED0220230007 Ananthram, S., & Chan, C. (2016). Religiosity, spirituality and ethical decision-making: Perspectives from executives in Indian multinational enterprises. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(3), 843–880. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s104900169460-5 Arjoon, S. (2000). Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(2), 159–178. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10063 39112 331 Arli, D., van Esch, P., & Cui, Y. (2023). Who cares more about the environment, those with an intrinsic, an extrinsic, a quest, or an atheistic religious orientation? Investigating the effect of religious ad appeals on attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(2), 427–448. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055102205164-4 Audi, R. (2012). Virtue ethics as a resource in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 273–291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5840/ beq20 12222 20 Baatwah, S. R., Al-Qadasi, A. A., & Al-Ebel, A. M. (2020). Religiosity at the top: Does it interact with accounting expertise to limit real earnings management? Managerial Auditing Journal, 35(9), 1343–1377. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ MAJ1220192521 Barnard, T. P. (2004). Contesting Malayness: Malay identity across boundaries. NUS Press. Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3), 25–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 16023 66 211 Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature… Barrett, J. L., & Lanman, J. A. (2008). The science of religious beliefs. Religion, 38(2), 109–124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 10 16/j. relig ion. 20 08. 01. 007 Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. Oxford University Press. Baxamusa, M., & Jalal, A. (2016). CEO’s religious affiliation and managerial conservatism. Financial Management, 45(1), 67–104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ fima. 12080 Beatty, J. E., & Kirby, S. L. (2006). Beyond the legal environment: How stigma influences invisible identity groups in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(1), 29–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s106720059003-6 Bjarnason, D. (2007). Concept analysis of religiosity. Home Health Care Management & Practice, 19(5), 350–355. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10848 22307 300883 Block, J., Fisch, C., & Rehan, F. (2020). Religion and entrepreneurship: A map of the field and a bibliometric analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 70(4), 591–627. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1130101900177-2 Bottan, N. L., & Perez-Truglia, R. (2015). Losing my religion: The effects of religious scandals on religious participation and charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 129, 106–119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jpube co. 2015. 07. 008 Brahmana, R. K., & You, H. W. (2022). Do Muslim CEOs and Muslim stakeholders prefer Islamic debt financing? Global Finance Journal, 54, 100625. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfj. 2021. 100625 Brammer, S., Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2007). Religion and attitudes to corporate social responsibility in a large cross-country sample. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 229–243. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510069136-z Brenner, S. (2015). The risk preferences of U.S. executives. Management Science, 61(6), 1344–1361. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 2013. 1882 Breslin, D., & Gatrell, C. (2020). Theorizing through literature reviews: The miner-prospector continuum. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 139–167. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28120 943288 Cai, J., & Shi, G. (2019). Do religious norms influence corporate debt financing? Journal of Business Ethics, 157(1), 159–182. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510173701-5 Cai, Y., Kim, Y., Li, S., & Pan, C. (2019). Tone at the top: CEOs’ religious beliefs and earnings management. Journal of Banking & Finance, 106, 195–213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbank fin. 2019. 06. 002 Cameron, R. (2011). Mixed methods in business and management: A call to the ‘first generation.’ Journal of Management & Organization, 17(2), 245–267. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5172/ jmo. 2011. 17.2. 245 Chan, C., & Ananthram, S. (2019). Religion-based decision making in Indian multinationals: A multi-faith study of ethical virtues and mindsets. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3), 651–677. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510173558-7 Chan-Serafin, S., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (2013). How does religion matter and why? Religion and the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 24(5), 1585–1600. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 1120. 0797 Chantziaras, A., Dedoulis, E., Grougiou, V., & Leventis, S. (2020). The impact of religiosity and corruption on CSR reporting: The case of U.S. banks. Journal of Business Research, 109, 362–374. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2019. 12. 025 Chen, G., Luo, S., Tang, Y., & Tong, J. Y. (2023). Back to school: CEOs’ pre-career exposure to religion, firm’s risk-taking, and innovation. Journal of Management, 49(3), 881–912. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06322 10768 16 Chen, Y. (2012). Confucianism as religion: Controversies and consequences. Briston: Brill. Chen, Y., Chu, X., Park, J. C., & Soileau, J. S. (2022). CEO religious university affiliation and financial reporting quality. Accounting & Finance, 62(1), 417–468. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ acfi. 12794 Cho, F., & Squier, R. K. (2013). Religion as a complex and dynamic system. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 81(2), 357–398. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jaarel/ lft016 Chou, S. Y., Chang, T., & Han, B. (2016). A Buddhist application of corporate social responsibility: Qualitative evidence from a case study of a small Thai family business. Small Enterprise Research, 23(2), 116–134. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13215 906. 2016. 12213 59 Chowdhury, R. M. M. I., Arli, D., & Septianto, F. (2023). How religiosity affects attitudes toward brands that utilize LGBTQ-themed advertising. Journal of Business Ethics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055102305578-8 Christofi, M., Ηadjielias, E., Hughes, M., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2024). Advancing research methodologies in management: Revisiting debates, setting new grounds for pluralism. British Journal of Management, 35(1), 24–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 14678551. 12791 Connelly, B. L., Shi, W., Walker, H. J., & Hersel, M. C. (2022). Searching for a sign: CEO successor selection in the wake of corporate misconduct. Journal of Management, 48(4), 1035–1066. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06320 924119 Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage. Cui, J. H., & Jo, H. (2019). Pray local and act global? Christian religiosity in the U.S. and human rights. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(3), 361–378. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ beer. 12219 Dabić, M., Vlačić, B., Kiessling, T., Caputo, A., & Pellegrini, M. (2023). Serial entrepreneurs: A review of literature and guidance for future research. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(3), 1107–1142. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00472 778. 2021. 19696 57 Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. M., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2012). Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and nonpublished correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 221–249. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17446570. 2012. 01243.x Damaraju, N. L., & Makhija, A. K. (2018). The role of social proximity in professional CEO appointments: Evidence from caste/religionbased hiring of CEOs in India. Strategic Management Journal, 39(7), 2051–2074. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2787 DasGupta, R., & Pathak, R. (2022). Role of educational, regional and religious attributes of CEOs in performance of Indian family firms. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 18(5), 997– 1027. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJMF0620210268 der Duijn, M.-V., Schouten, C., Graafland, J., & Kaptein, M. (2014). Religiosity, CSR attitudes, and CSR behavior: An empirical study of executives’ religiosity and CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 437–459. Dion, K. L. (1983). Names, identity, and self. Names, 31(4), 245–257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1179/ nam. 1983. 31.4. 245 Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 1995. 95032 71992 Du, X. (2017). Religious belief, corporate philanthropy, and political involvement of entrepreneurs in Chinese family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 385–406. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510152705-2 Dyreng, S. D., Mayew, W. J., & Williams, C. D. (2012). Religious social norms and corporate financial reporting. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 39(7–8), 845–875. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 14685957. 2012. 02295.x 212 T.Heubeck Ellahie, A., Tahoun, A., & Tuna, İ. (2017). Do common inherited beliefs and values influence CEO pay? Journal of Accounting & Economics, 64(2), 346–367. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jacce co. 2017. 09. 002 Farmaki, A., Altinay, L., Christou, P., & Kenebayeva, A. (2020). Religion and entrepreneurship in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1), 148–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJCHM0220190185 Friedmann, C., Garg, R., & Holtbrugge, D. (2018). CEOs’ cultural and demographic attributes and organisational performance of Indian SMEs: An upper echelon approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(5), 483–512. Georgakakis, D., Heyden, M. L. M., Oehmichen, J. D. R., & Ekanayake, U. I. K. (2022). Four decades of CEO–TMT interface research: A review inspired by role theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 33(3), 101354. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2019. 101354 Graafland, J., Kaptein, M., & Schouten, C. M. D. (2006). Business dilemmas and religious belief: An explorative study among Dutch executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 53–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510069054-0 Grable, J., & Lytton, R. H. (1999). Financial risk tolerance revisited: The development of a risk assessment instrument. Financial Services Review, 8(3), 163–181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S10570810(99) 00041-4 Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Greenberg, A. (2000). The church and the revitalization of politics and community. Political Science Quarterly, 115(3), 377–394. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 26581 24 Guhathakurta, M., & Fazal, T. (2013). Amidst the winds of change: the Hindu minority in Bangladesh. South Asian history and culture (Vol. 3, pp. 288–301). London: Routledge. Hamberg, E. M. (1991). Stability and change in religious beliefs, practice, and attitudes: A Swedish panel study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(1), 63–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 13871 49 Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2007. 24345 254 Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 1984. 42776 28 Hanisch, M. (2024). Prescriptive theorizing in management research: A new impetus for addressing grand challenges. Journal of Management Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 13035 Harjoto, M. A., & Rossi, F. (2019). Religiosity, female directors, and corporate social responsibility for Italian listed companies. Journal of Business Research, 95, 338–346. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2018. 08. 013 Héliot, Y., Gleibs, I. H., Coyle, A., Rousseau, D. M., & Rojon, C. (2020). Religious identity in the workplace: A systematic review, research agenda, and practical implications. Human Resource Management, 59(2), 153–173. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hrm. 21983 Heubeck, T. (2023). Looking back to look forward: A systematic review of and research agenda for dynamic managerial capabilities. Management Review Quarterly. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1130102300359-z Heubeck, T. (2024). Walking on the gender tightrope: Unlocking ESG potential through CEOs’ dynamic capabilities and strategic board composition. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(3), 2020–2039. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 3578 Hiebl, M. (2021). Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research. Organizational Research Methods, 26(2), 229–261. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28120 986851 Hilary, G., & Hui, K. W. (2009). Does religion matter in corporate decision making in America? Journal of Financial Economics, 93(3), 455–473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jfine co. 2008. 10. 001 Hill, P. C. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham: Religious Education Press. Hillerbrand, H. J. (2004). Encyclopedia of protestantism: 4-volume set. Routledge. Hogg, M. A., Adelman, J. R., & Blagg, R. D. (2010). Religion in the face of uncertainty: An uncertainty-identity theory account of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 72–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10888 68309 349692 Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ AMR. 2000. 27916 06 Holtbrugge, D., & Garg, R. (2016). Indigenous Indian management philosophies: Key concepts and relevance for modern Indian Firms. In A. Malik & V. Pereira (Eds.), Indian culture and work organisations in transition (pp. 59–75). Routledge. Holzmann, P., & Gregori, P. (2023). The promise of digital technologies for sustainable entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 68, 102593. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2022. 102593 Hooy, C.-W., & Ali, R. (2017). Does a Muslim CEO matter in Shariah-compliant companies? Evidence from Malaysia. PacificBasin Finance Journal, 42, 126–141. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. pacfin. 2016. 08. 010 Hopfe, L. M., & Woodward, M. R. (2009). Religions of the world. Pearson Education. Hussain, A., Amore, R. C., & Oxtoby, W. (2018). World religions: Western traditions. Oxford University Press. Iguchi, H., Katayama, H., & Yamanoi, J. (2022). CEOs’ religiosity and corporate green initiatives. Small Business Economics, 58(1), 497–522. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1118702000427-8 Islam, M. M. N., Wu, D., Usman, M., & Nazir, M. I. (2021). The impact of CEO’s personal characteristics on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Bangladesh. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 12(1), 032–053. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14807/ ijmp. v12i1. 1237 Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0304405X(76) 90026-X Jiang, F. X., Jiang, Z., Kim, K. A., & Zhang, M. (2015). Familyfirm risk-taking: Does religion matter? Journal of Corporate Finance, 33, 260–278. https:// doi. or g/ 1 0. 101 6/j. j corp fin. 2015. 01. 007 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 19141 85 Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (2007). Moral rules, the moral sentiments, and behavior: Toward a theory of an optimal moral system. Journal of Political Economy, 115(3), 494–514. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 519927 Keupp, M. M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: A review and suggestions for developing the field. Journal of Management, 35(3), 600–633. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06308 330558 Kilman, S. (2010). Tyson’s Smith counts chickens. Wall Street Journal. https:// www. wsj. com/ artic les/ SB100 01424 05274 87034 31604 57546 80412 44773 052. Accessed 30 October 2023 213 Untangling theParadoxical Relationship Between Religion andBusiness: ASystematic Literature… King, R. (2013). Orientalism and religion: Post-colonial theory, India and “the mystic East". Routledge. Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(3), 1023–1042. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1136502000635-4 Kraus, S., Breier, M., Lim, W. M., Dabić, M., Kumar, S., Kanbach, D., etal. (2022). Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science, 16(8), 2577–2595. Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F. L., & Spitzer, J. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship: A research agenda on new business models for the twenty-first century. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(2), 353–375. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJEBR0620180425 Kumar, A., Page, J. K., & Spalt, O. G. (2011). Religious beliefs, gambling attitudes, and financial market outcomes. Journal of Financial Economics, 102(3), 671–708. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jfine co. 2011. 07. 001 Kumar, S., Sahoo, S., Lim, W. M., & Dana, L.-P. (2022). Religion as a social shaping force in entrepreneurship and business: Insights from a technology-empowered systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121393. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2021. 121393 Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2023). Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 3–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28122 11272 92 Kurt, Y., Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., & Yamin, M. (2020). The role of spirituality in Islamic business networks: The case of internationalizing Turkish SMEs. Journal of World Business, 55(1), 101034. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jwb. 2019. 101034 Kwok, D. W. P., Meschi, P.-X., & Bertrand, O. (2020). In CEOs we trust: When religion matters in cross-border acquisitions. The case of a multifaith country. International Business Review, 29(4), 101705. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ibusr ev. 2020. 101705 Lauderdale, D. S., & Kestenbaum, B. (2000). Asian American ethnic identification by surname. Population Research and Policy Review, 19(3), 283–300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10265 82308 352 Lee, K., McCann, D. P., & Ching, M. (2003). Christ and business culture: A study of Christian executives in Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 103–110. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 102 3/A: 10229 67300 183 Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41(1), 3–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003066X. 41.1.3 Li, W., Au, K. Y., He, A., & Song, L. (2015). Why do family-controlled firms donate to charity? The role of intrafamily succession intention, social status, and religiosity. Management and Organization Review, 11(4), 621–644. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ mor. 2015. 10 Liao, Z., Dong, J., Weng, C., & Shen, C. (2019). CEOs’ religious beliefs and the environmental innovation of private enterprises: The moderating role of political ties. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management, 26(4), 972–980. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ csr. 1737 Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., etal. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pmed. 10001 00 Liu, H., & Luo, J. (2021). Does a religious affiliation make the CEO more likely to use internal CSRs? Evidence from Chinese privately owned firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(9), 2013–2045. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 192. 2019. 16025 51 Liu, M., & Ji, D. (2022). An overview of the literature on upper echelons. Accounting Perspectives, 21(2), 331–386. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 19113838. 12288 Ma, L., Zhang, M., Gao, J., & Ye, T. (2020). The effect of religion on accounting conservatism. European Accounting Review, 29(2), 383–407. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09638 180. 2019. 16004 21 MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Science, 36(4), 422–435. Mahran, K., & Elamer, A. A. (2023). Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and corporate environmental sustainability: A systematic literature review and avenues for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bse. 3577 Maidl, L., Seemann, A.-K., Frick, E., Gündel, H., & Paal, P. (2022). Leveraging spirituality and religion in European for-profit-organizations: A systematic review. Humanistic Management Journal, 7(1), 23–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s4146302100110-4 Maoz, Z., & Henderson, E. A. (2013). The world religion dataset, 1945–2010: Logic, estimates, and trends. International Interactions, 39(3), 265–291. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03050 629. 2013. 782306 Maung, M., Miller, D., Tang, Z., & Xu, X. (2020). Value-enhancing social responsibility: Market reaction to donations by family vs. non-family firms with religious CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), 745–758. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055101904381-8 McCarthy, J. L. (1996). Through the needle’s eye: The spiritual CEO. ChiefExecutive.net. https:// chief execu tive. net/ throu ghtheneedl eseyethespiri tualceo__ trash ed/. Accessed 29 Jan 2024 McDaniel, S. W., & Burnett, J. J. (1990). Consumer religiosity and retail store evaluative criteria. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(2), 101–112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF027 26426 Miller, A. S. (2000). Going to hell in Asia: The relationship between risk and religion in a cross cultural setting. Review of Religious Research, 42(1), 5–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 35121 41 Miller, A. S., & Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34(1), 63–75. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 13865 23 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., TP Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pmed. 10000 97 Mueller, G. H. (1980). The dimensions of religiosity. Sociological Analysis, 41(1), 1–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 37098 55 Nash, L. L. (1994). Believers in business. Thomas Nelson Inc. Nash, L. L. (2004). Lasting success for the Christian in business. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 23(4), 43–67. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5840/ bpej2 00423 44 Nazrul, T., Esplin, A., Dow, K. E., & Folsom, D. M. (2022). Religiosity at the top and annual report readability. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(10), 485. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ jrfm1 51004 85 Nicolosi, G. (2013). Demographics of dividends. Journal of Corporate Finance, 23, 54–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jcorp fin. 2013. 07. 003 Nunziata, L., & Rocco, L. (2018). The Protestant ethic and entrepreneurship: Evidence from religious minorities in the former Holy Roman Empire. European Journal of Political Economy, 51, 27–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ejpol eco. 2017. 04. 001 Obregon, S. L., Lopes, L. F. D., Kaczam, F., da Veiga, C. P., & da Silva, W. V. (2022). Religiosity, spirituality and work: A systematic literature review and research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(2), 573–595. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1055102104856-7 214 T.Heubeck Oh, H., Bae, J., Currim, I. S., Lim, J., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Influence of CEOs’ religious affiliations on firms’ advertising spending and shareholder value. European Journal of Marketing, 55(5), 1440–1468. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ EJM0120190024 Ooi, C. A., & Hooy, C.-W. (2022). Muslim CEOs, risk-taking and firm performance. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 74, 101818. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. pacfin. 2022. 101818 Ooi, C. A., Setiawan, D., & Hooy, C.-W. (2021). Muslim CEOs and bank risk-taking: Evidence from Indonesia. Global Finance Journal, 50, 100507. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfj. 2019. 100507 Pargament, K. I., Kennell, J., Hathaway, W., Grevengoed, N., Newman, J., & Jones, W. (1988). Religion and the problem-solving process: Three styles of coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27(1), 90–104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 13874 04 Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377–393. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510121322-6 Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ibusr ev. 2020. 101717 Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), O1–O16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijcs. 12695 Peterson, G. R. (2001). Religion as orienting worldview. Zygon®, 36(1), 5–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 05912385. 00336 Popli, M., Ahsan, F. M., & Mukherjee, D. (2022). Upper echelons and firm internationalization: A critical review and future directions. Journal of Business Research, 152, 505–521. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2022. 07. 048 Putnam, R. D. (2014). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. In K. Blair, R. M. Murphy, & J. Almjeld (Eds.), Cross currents: Cultures, communities, technologies (pp. 249–258). Wadsworth. Rahim, R., Utama, C. A., & Rokhim, R. (2019). Does religion affect capital structure in Indonesia? Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 27(S2), 131–151. Reutter, K. K., & Bigatti, S. M. (2014). Religiosity and spirituality as resiliency resources: Moderation, mediation, or moderated mediation? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53(1), 56–72. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jssr. 12081 Richardson, C., & Ariffin, S. K. (2019). A leap of faith? Managerial religiosity and market entry decisions. Management International Review, 59(2), 277–305. Richardson, C., & Rammal, H. G. (2018). Religious belief and international business negotiations: Does faith influence negotiator behaviour? International Business Review, 27(2), 401–409. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ibusr ev. 2017. 09. 007 Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(2), 529–563. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage. Singh, R. K., & Singh, S. (2022). Spirituality in the workplace: A systematic review. Management Decision, 60(5), 1296–1325. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ MD1120201466 Smith, W. C. (1991). The meaning and end of religion. Fortress Press. Spector, P. E. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of crosssectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 125–137. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1086901809613-8 Surya, J., & Rahajeng, D. K. (2023). The impact of chief executive officers’ religiosity on banks’ financial performance in Indonesia. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 14(8), 1451–1466. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JIABR0720210210 Toney, F., & Oster, M. (1998). The leader and religious faith: The relationship between the exercise of religious faith by CEOS, and goal achievement, self-fulfillment, and social benefits. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 5(1), 135–147. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10717 91998 00500 112 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 14678551. 00375 U.S. Department of State. (2022). China 2022 international religious freedom report. https:// www. state. gov/ repor ts/ 2022reportoninter natio nalrelig iousfreed om/ china/. Accessed 17 January 2024 van Aaken, D., & Buchner, F. (2020). Religion and CSR: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Economics, 90(5), 917– 945. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1157302000977-z Vazquez, P. (2018). Family business ethics: At the crossroads of business ethics and family business. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 691–709. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510163171-1 Velte, P. (2020). Do CEO incentives and characteristics influence corporate social responsibility (CSR) and vice versa? A Literature Review. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(8), 1293–1323. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ SRJ0420190145 Vrontis, D., & Christofi, M. (2021). R&D internationalization and innovation: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 128, 812–823. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2019. 03. 031 Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 41343 70 Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Allen and Unwin. Yu, M. (2023). CEO duality and firm performance: A systematic review and research agenda. European Management Review, 20(2), 346–358. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ emre. 12522 Zuo, Y., Xu, W., Li, D., Fu, W., & Lin, B. (2022). Individualism and excess perk consumption: Evidence from China. Research in International Business and Finance, 62, 101745. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ribaf. 2022. 101745 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.