Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 80, Issue 4, pp 755–769 | Cite as

The Impact of Corporate Social Performance on a Firm’s Multinationality

  • Cyril Bouquet
  • Yuval Deutsch


Using panel data of 4,244 company years, we examine whether and how corporate social performance (CSP) affects a firm’s capacity to achieve profitable sales in foreign markets. Based on our extension of instrumental stakeholder theory into the international arena, we hypothesized a U-shaped relationship between CSP and multinationality. Results supported our contention that multinational enterprises (MNEs) need to be substantially committed to social performance objectives if they are to recoup the cost of their CSP investments, and improve their capacity to compete in foreign markets. MNEs engaged in intermediate levels of CSP achieve lower levels of multinationality than firms operating at either anchor of the social performance continuum. In addition, this study demonstrates that CSP moderates a well-established relationship in international business literature – the relationship between R&D investment and a firm’s multinationality. Implications for research and practice are discussed.


corporate social performance international business multinationality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



Financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is greatly appreeciated.


  1. Albinger H. S., Freeman S. J. 2000 Corporate Social Performance and Attractiveness as an Employer to Different Job Seeking Populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3): 243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amit R., Schoemaker P. 1993 Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aragon-Correa J. A., Sharma S. 2003. A Contingent Resource-Based View of Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1): 71–88Google Scholar
  4. Bansal P. 2005. Evolving Sustainably: A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Sustainable Development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3): 197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bansal P., Roth K. 2000 Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 717–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barney J. B. 1991 Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney, J. B., Hansen M. H. 1994 Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bettman J. R., Weitz B. A. 1983 Attributions in the Board Room: Causal Reasoning in Corporate Annual Reports. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 145–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouquet C. 2005 Building Global Mindsets: An Attention Perspective. London: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowman E. H. 1978. Strategy, Annual Reports, and Alchemy. California Management Review, 20(3): 64–71Google Scholar
  11. Brannen M. Y. 2004. When Mickey Loses Face: Recontextualization, Semantic Fit, and the Semiotics of Foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 593–616Google Scholar
  12. Bromley, D. B. 1993 Reputation, Image and Impression Management. Chichester: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  13. Bull C. 1987. The Existence of Self-Enforcing Implicit Contracts. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(1): 147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll A. B. 2004. Managing Ethically with Global Stakeholders: A Present and Future Challenge. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2): 114–120Google Scholar
  15. Caves R. E. 1996. Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Christmann P. 2004. Multinational Companies and the Natural Environment: Determinants of Global Environmental Policy Standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5): 747–760Google Scholar
  17. Clarkson M. B. E. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen J., Cohen P. 1983 Applied Multiple Regression: Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErbaumGoogle Scholar
  19. Dentchev N. A. 2004. Corporate Social Performance as a Business Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4): 397–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dierickx I., Cool K. 1989 Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science, 35: 1504–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Donaldson, T.: 1996. Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home, Harvard Business Review, Sept/OctGoogle Scholar
  22. Donaldson T., Lee Preston E. 1995. The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy Of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunning J. H. 1981. International Production and the Multinational Enterprise. London: Allen & UnwinGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunning J. H. 2003. Making Globalization Good: The Moral Challenges of Global Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Eden L., Lenway, S. 2001. Introduction to the Symposium Multinationals: The Janus Face of Globalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 383–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Entine J. 2003. The Myth of Social Investing: A Critique of its Practice and Consequences for Corporate Social Performance Research. Organization & Environment, 16(3): 352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franko L. G. 1989. Use of Minority and 50–50 Joint Ventures by U.S. Multinationals During the 1970’s. Journal of International Business Studies, 20: 19–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: PitmanGoogle Scholar
  29. Friedman, M.: 1970, `The Social Responsibility of a Firm is to Increase its Profits', New York Times Google Scholar
  30. Garten J. E. 1997. The Big Ten: The Big Emerging Markets and How They Will Change Our Lives. 1st ed. New York: BasicBooksGoogle Scholar
  31. Ghoshal S. 1987. Global Strategy: An Organizing Framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8(5): 425–440Google Scholar
  32. Gladwin T. N., Kennelly J. J., Krause T.-S. 1995. Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 874–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Graves S. B., Waddock S. A. 1994. Institutional Owners and Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4): 1034–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greene W. H. 1993. Econometric Analysis. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  35. Hillman A. J., Keim G. D. 2001. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2): 125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hitt M. A., Hoskisson R. E., Kim H. 1997. International Diversification: Effects on Innovation and Firm Performance in Product-Diversified Firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4): 767–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hosmer L. T. 1994. Strategic Planning as if Ethics Mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hu Y. S. 1995. The International Transferability of the Firm’s Advantages. California Management Review, 37(4): 73–88Google Scholar
  39. Hymer S. H. 1976. The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Investment. Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Jackson K. T. 1998. A Cosmopolitan Court for Transnational Corporate Wrongdoing: Why its Time has Come. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7): 757–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson R. A., Greening D. W. 1999 The Effects of Corporate Governance and Institutional Ownership Types on Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 564–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones T. M. 1995. Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaptein M. 2004. Business Codes of Multinational Firms: What do they Say? Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1): 13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kennedy P. 2003 A Guide to Econometrics. Cambridge: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Kogut B., Zander U. 1993. Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24: 625–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kogut B. 1985. Designing Global Strategies: Profiting from Operational Flexibility. Sloan Management Review, 27(1): 27–38Google Scholar
  47. Kolk A., van Tulder R. 2002. Child Labor and Multinational Conduct: A Comparison of International Business and Stakeholder Codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3): 291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kostova T., Zaheer S. 1999. Organizational Legitimacy under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kotabe M., Srinivasan S. S., Aulakh P. S. 2002. Multinationality and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of R&D and Marketing Capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1): 79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. KPMG Global Sustainability Services.: 2005. KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting Google Scholar
  51. Lewin A. Y., Sakano T., Stephens C. U., Victor B. 1995. Corporate Citizenship in Japan: Survey Results from Japanese Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(2): 83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lorenzetti M. 2002. Matters of Trust. Oil and Gas Journal, 14: 34Google Scholar
  53. Lu J. W., Beamish P. W. 2004. International Diversification and Firm Performance: The S-CURVE Hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 598–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luo Y. D. 2001. Toward a Cooperative View of MNC-host Government Relations: Building Blocks and Performance Implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 401–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Margolis J. D., Walsh J. P. 2003. Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McWilliams A., Siegel D. 2000 Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5): 603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McWilliams A., Siegel D. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mezias J. M. 2002 Identifying Liabilities of Foreignness and Strategies to Minimize their Effects: The Case of Labor Lawsuit Judgments in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3): 229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mitchell R. K., Agle B. R., Wood D. J. 1997. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morck R., Yeung B. 1991. Why Investors Value Multinationality. Journal of Business, 64(2): 165–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nahapiet J., Ghoshal S. 1998. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nehrt C. 1996. Timing and Intensity Effects of Environmental Investments. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7): 535–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ocasio, W.: 1997. Towards an Attention-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (Summer Special Issue): 187–206Google Scholar
  64. Osland J. S. 2003. Broadening the Debate - The Pros and Cons of Globalization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(2): 137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Palepu K. 1985. Diversification Strategy, Profit Performance and the Entropy Measure. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3): 239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pava M. L., Krausz J. 1997. Criteria for Evaluating the Legitimacy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(3): 337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Robertson C. J., Crittenden W. F. 2003. Mapping Moral Philosophies: Strategic Implications for Multinational Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4): 385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roth, K.: 2005, `Rules on Corporate Ethics Could Help, not Hinder, Multinationals', Financial Times. LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Rugman A. M., Verbeke A. 2003. Extending the Theory of the Multinational Enterprise: Internalization and Strategic Management Perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rugman A. M., Alain V. 2004. A Perspective on Regional and Global Strategies of Multinational Enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sethi S. P. 2003. Globalization and the Good Corporation: A Need for Proactive Co-existence. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1–2): 21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sharfman M. 1996. The Construct Validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini Social Performance Ratings Data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3): 287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Song M., Droge C., Hanvanich S., Calantone R. 2005. Marketing and Technology Resource Complementarity: An Analysis of their Interaction Effect in Two Environmental Contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3): 259–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Staw B. M., McKechnie P. I., Puffer S. M. 1983. The Justification of Organizational Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 582–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Szulanski, G.: 1996. `Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm', Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 27–43Google Scholar
  76. Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. The Economist.: 2005, `The good Company. Survey: Corporate Social Responsibility', January 20Google Scholar
  78. Turban D. B., Greening D. W. 1997. Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 658–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ullman A. A. 1985. Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3): 540–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Tulder R., Kolk A. 2001. Multinationality and Corporate Ethics: Codes of Conduct in the Sporting Goods Industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2): 267–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vernon R. 2001. Big Business and National Governments: Reshaping the Compact in a Globalizing Economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vernon R. 1998. In the Hurricanes Eye: The Troubled Prospects of Multinational Enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  83. Vernon R. 1977. Storm Over the Multinationals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  84. Vinod H. D., Rao P. M. 2000. R&D and Promotion in Pharmaceuticals: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Exploration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(4): 10–20Google Scholar
  85. Waddock S. A., Graves S. B. 1997. The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zaheer S. 1995. Overcoming the Liability of Foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zyglidopoulos S. C. 2002. The Social and Environmental Responsibilities of Multinationals: Evidence from the Brent Spar Case. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1–2): 141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations