Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 287–296

The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data

  • Mark Sharfman
Article

Abstract

Carroll (1991) encouraged researchers in Social Issues Management (SIM) to continue to measure Corporate Social Performance (CSP) from a variety of different perspectives utilizing a variety of different measures. In addition, Wolfe and Aupperle (1991) (and others) have asserted that there is no, single best way to measure CSP and that multiple measures and perspectives help develop the field. However, Pfeffer (1993) suggest that a lack of consistent measurement has constrained organization studies (and by implication, the field of social issues management,) in its development as a field. It may be in the best interest of social issues management researchers to try to development a common body of measures and data. Recently, Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini & Co. (KLD — a social choice investment advisory firm) has made available their social performance database. The KLD data have potential to become a widely accepted set of CSP measures. The purpose of this paper is to present a construct validity study comparing the KLD data to other measures of CSP.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Aupperle, K. E.: 1984, ‘An Empirical Measure of Corporate Social Performance’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 6, 627: 654.Google Scholar
  2. Aupperle, K. E.: 1991, ‘The Use of Forced Choice Survey Procedures in Assessing Corporate Social Orientation’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 269: 279.Google Scholar
  3. Bowman, E. H. and M. Haire: 1975, ‘A Strategic Posture toward Corporate Social Responsibility’, California Management Review 18(2), 49–58.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three Dimensional Model of Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4, 497–505.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Measurement: A Comment on Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 385–401.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, K. H. and R. W. Metcalf: 1980, ‘The Relationship between Pollution Control Record and Financial Indicators Revisited’, Accounting Review 55, 168–177.Google Scholar
  7. Folger, H. and F. Nutt: 1975, ‘A Note on Social Responsibility and Stock Valuation’, Academy of Management Journal 18, 155–159.Google Scholar
  8. Galaskiewicz, J. and R. S. Burt: 1991, ‘Interorganizational Contagion in Corporate Philanthropy’, Administrative Science Quarterly 36(1), 88–99.Google Scholar
  9. Graves, S. B. and S. A. Waddock: 1993, ‘Institutional Owners and Corporate Social Performance: Maybe Not So Myopic After All’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society — San Diego.Google Scholar
  10. Kerlinger, F. N.: 1986, Foundations of Behavioral Research (Holt, Rinehard & Winston, New York).Google Scholar
  11. Lerner, L. D. and G. E. Fryxell: 1988, ‘An Empirical Study of the Predictors of Corporate Social Performance’, Journal of Business Ethics 7(12), 951–959.Google Scholar
  12. Lydenberg, S., A. T. Marlin and S. Strubb: 1985, Rating America's Corporate Conscience (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
  13. McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 31(4), 854–872.Google Scholar
  14. O'Neil, H. M., C. B. Saunders and A. D. McCarthy: 1988, ‘Board Members, Corporate Social Responsiveness and Profitability: Are Tradeoffs Necessary?’, Journal of Business Ethics 8(5), 353–357.Google Scholar
  15. Pfeffer, J.: 1993, ‘Barriers to the Advancement of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable’, Academy of Management Review 18(4), 599–611.Google Scholar
  16. Pinkston, T. S. and A. B. Carroll (Forthcoming), ‘Corporate Citizenship Perspectives and Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.’, Journal of Business Ethics.Google Scholar
  17. Ruf, B., K. Muralidhar and K. Paul: 1993, ‘Eight Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: Determination of Relative Importance Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process’, Best Papers Proceedings, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Atlanta.Google Scholar
  18. Schwab, D. P.: 1980, ‘Construct Validity in Organizational Behavior’, in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior 2, 3–43.Google Scholar
  19. Spencer, B. A. and G. S. Taylor: 1987, ‘A Within and Between Analysis of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance’, Akron Business and Economic Review 18(3), 7–18.Google Scholar
  20. Spicer, B. H.: 1978, ‘Investors, Corporate Social Performance and Information Disclosure: An Empirical Study’, Accounting Review 53, 94–111.Google Scholar
  21. Wang, J. and B. S. Coffey: 1992, ‘Board Composition and Corporate Philanthropy’, Journal of Business Ethics 11(10), 771–783.Google Scholar
  22. Wartick, S. L.: 1992, ‘The Relationship between Intense Media Exposure and Change in Corporate Reputation’, Business and Society 31(1), 33–42.Google Scholar
  23. Weber, R. P.: 1985, Basic Content Analysis (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA).Google Scholar
  24. Wokutch, R. E. and E. W. McKinney: 1991, ‘Behavioral and Perceptual Measures of Corporate Social Performance’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 309–330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wokutch, R. E. and B. A. Spencer: 1987, ‘Corporate Saints and Sinners: The Effects of Philanthropic and Illegal Activity on Organizational Performance’, California Management Review 29, 62–77.Google Scholar
  26. Wolfe, R.: 1991, ‘The Uses of Content Analysis to Assess Corporate Social Responsibility’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 281–307.Google Scholar
  27. Wolfe, R. and K. Aupperle: 1991, ‘Introduction to Corporate Social Performance: Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 265–268.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Sharfman
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Business Administration, Division of ManagementUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations