Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 299–310 | Cite as

Corporate Social and Financial Performance: An Extended Stakeholder Theory, and Empirical Test with Accounting Measures

  • Gerwin Van der LaanEmail author
  • Hans Van Ees
  • Arjen Van Witteloostuijn
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Although agreement on the positive sign of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance is observed in the literature, the mechanisms that constitute this relationship are not yet well-known. We address this issue by extending management’s stakeholder theory by adding insights from psychology’s prospect decision theory and sociology’s resource dependence theory. Empirically, we analyze an extensive panel dataset, including information on disaggregated measures of social performance for the S&P 500 in the 1997–2002 period. In so doing, we enrich the extant literature by focusing on stakeholder heterogeneity, perceptional framing, and disaggregated measures of corporate social performance.

Keywords

panel data analysis prospect decision theory resource dependence theory social responsibility stakeholder theory 

References

  1. Bhargava A., Franzini L., Narendranathan W. 1982. Serial Correlation and The Fixed Effects Model. Review of Economic Studies 49: 533–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Casciaro T., Piskorski M. J. 2005. Power Imbalance, Mutual Dependence, and Constraint Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 167–199Google Scholar
  3. Clarkson M. B. E. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis K. 1973. The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities . Academy of Management Journal 16: 312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fombrun C., Shanley M. 1990. What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy Academy of Management Journal 33: 233–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forbes D. P., Miliken F. J. 1999. Cognition and Corporate Governance: Understanding Boards of Directors as Strategic Decision-Making Groups Academy of Management Review 24: 489–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fryxell G. E., Wang J. 1994. The Fortune Corporate ‹Reputation’ Index: Reputation for What? Journal of Management 20: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godfrey P. C. 2005. The Relationship Between Corporate Philantropy and Shareholder Wealth: A Risk Management Perspective. Academy of Management Review 30: 777–798Google Scholar
  9. Greve H. R. 2003. Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Hambrick D. C., Mason P. A. 1984. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review 9: 193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillman A. J., Keim G. D. 2001. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s The Bottom Line? Strategic Management Journal 22: 125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jawahar I. M., McLaughlin G. L. 2001. Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach. Academy of Management Review 26: 397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahneman D., Tversky A. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk Econometrica 47: 263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Margolis J. D., Walsh J. P. 2003. Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 268–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McWilliams A., Siegel D. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review 26: 117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Orlitzky M. 2001. Does Firm Size Confound the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance? Journal of Business Ethics 33: 167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orlitzky M., Schmidt F. L., Rynes S. L. 2003. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24: 403–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pava M. L., Krausz J. 1996. The Association Between Corporate Social-Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 321–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik: 1978. 'The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Reprint 2003 (Stanford University Press, Stanford)Google Scholar
  20. Schmidt F. L. 1992. What Do Data Really Mean? American Psychologist 47: 1173–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sharfman M. 1996. The Construct Validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg, & Domini Social Performance Ratings Data. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Westphal J. D., Zajac E. J. 1994. Substance and Symbolism in CEOs’ Long-Term Incentive Plans. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Westphal J. D., Zajac E. J. 1998. The Symbolic Management of Stockholders: Corporate Governance Reforms and Shareholder Reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly 43: 127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wood D. J. 1991a. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review 16: 691–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood D. J. 1991b. Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management 17: 383–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wood D. J., Jones R. E. 1995. Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3: 229–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zajac E. J., Westphal J. D. 1995. Accounting for The Explanations of CEO Compensation: Substance and symbolism Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 283–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerwin Van der Laan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hans Van Ees
    • 1
  • Arjen Van Witteloostuijn
    • 2
  1. 1.International Economics and BusinessUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of ManagementUniversity of AntwerpenAntwerpenBelgium

Personalised recommendations