Journal of Business Ethics

, 89:409 | Cite as

Causality Between Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: Evidence from Canadian Firms

  • Rim Makni
  • Claude Francoeur
  • François Bellavance
Article

Abstract

This study assesses the causal relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and financial performance (FP). We perform our empirical analyses on a sample of 179 publicly held Canadian firms and use the measures of CSP provided by Canadian Social Investment Database for the years 2004 and 2005. Using the “Granger causality” approach, we find no significant relationship between a composite measure of a firm’s CSP and FP, except for market returns. However, using individual measures of CSP, we find a robust significant negative impact of the environmental dimension of CSP and three measures of FP, namely return on assets, return on equity, and market returns. This latter finding is consistent, at least in the short run, with the trade-off hypothesis and, in part, with the negative synergy hypothesis which states that socially responsible firms experience lower profits and reduced shareholder wealth, which in turn limits the socially responsible investments.

Keywords

corporate social performance financial performance causality environmental activities 

References

  1. Allouche, J. and P. Laroche: 2005a, ‘Responsabilité sociale et performance financière des entreprises: une synthèse de la littérature’, Actes du colloque organisé par CREFIGE et CERIT (Nancy), 17–19 MarsGoogle Scholar
  2. Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005b). A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 57, 18–40Google Scholar
  3. Ambec, S. and P. Lanoie: 2007, ‘When and Why Does It Pay to be Green?’, Working Paper, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL), Université Pierre Mendès-FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, L.J. (1997). Business ethics in Canada: Distinctiveness and directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(6), 591–604. doi: 10.1023/A:1005758211031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fama, E.F., & French, K.R. (1992). The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427–465. doi: 10.2307/2329112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fama, E.F., & French, K.R. (1993). Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 3–56. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(93)90023-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisman, R., G. Heal and V. Nair: 2005, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing Well by Doing Good?’, Working Paper, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman, R.E. 1984, Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach, (Pitman, Boston)Google Scholar
  9. Friedman, M. 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, The New York Times Magazine 13, 32–33Google Scholar
  10. Granger, C.W.J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 428–438Google Scholar
  11. Graves, S.B., & Waddock, S.A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034–1046. doi: 10.2307/256611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gujarati, D.N. 1995, ‘Basic Econometrics’, 3rd edition (McGraw Hill, New York)Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, J., & Freeman, R. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 479–487. doi: 10.2307/256971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hillman, A. J. and G. D. Keim: 2001, ‘Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line?’, Strategic Management Journal 22, 125–139. doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:2<125::AID-SMJ150>3.0.CO;2-HGoogle Scholar
  15. Mahoney, L., & Roberts, R.W. (2004). Corporate social performance: Empirical evidence on Canadian firms. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 9, 73–99Google Scholar
  16. Mahoney, L. and R. W. Roberts: 2007, ‘Corporate Social Performance, Financial Performance and Institutional Ownership in Canadian Firms’, Accounting Forum. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2007.05.001
  17. McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872. doi: 10.2307/256342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelling, E. and E. Webb: 2006, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Virtuous Circle Revisited’, Working Paper, Drexel University and Federal Reserve Bank of PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., & Rynes, S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. doi: 10.1177/0170840603024003910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Preston, L.E., & O’Bannon, D.P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: a typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36, 419–429. doi: 10.1177/000765039703600406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roberts, R.W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An Application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(92)90015-K CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ullman, 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), 540–557. doi: 10.2307/258135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vance, S. (1975). Are socially responsible firms good investment risks? Management Review, 64, 18–24Google Scholar
  24. Waddock, S. A. and S. M. Graves: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18(4), 303–319. doi:10. 1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-GGoogle Scholar
  25. Weidenbaum, M., & Sheldon, V. (1987). Takeovers and stockholders: winners and losers. California Management Review, 29(4), 57–168Google Scholar
  26. Williamson, O.E. 1967, The Economics of Discretionary Behaviour: Managerial Objectives in a Theory of the Firm, (Markham, Chicago)Google Scholar
  27. Williamson, O.E. 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, (Free Press, New York)Google Scholar
  28. Wu, M.-L. (2006). Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size: A meta-analysis. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(1), 163–171Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rim Makni
    • 1
  • Claude Francoeur
    • 2
  • François Bellavance
    • 2
  1. 1.FSEG SfaxSfaxTunisia
  2. 2.HEC MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations