Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 107–126 | Cite as

Does Social Performance Really Lead to Financial Performance? Accounting for Endogeneity

  • Roberto Garcia-CastroEmail author
  • Miguel A. Ariño
  • Miguel A. Canela


The empirical relationship between a firm’s social performance and its financial performance is still not well established in the literature. Despite more than 30 years of research and more than 100 empirical studies on the issue, the results are still mixed. We argue that the heterogeneous results found in previous studies are not due exclusively to problems related with the measurement instruments or the samples used. Instead, we posit that a more fundamental problem related with the endogeneity of social strategic decisions could be driving most of the empirical findings. We show that, using a panel data of 658 firms from 1991 to 2005, how some of the results found in previous research change, and some are even reversed when endogeneity is properly taken into account.


corporate social responsibility endogeneity financial performance social performance stakeholder management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agle, B. R., R. K. Mitchell and J. A. Sonnenfeld: 1999, ‹Who matters to CEOS? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 507-525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, G. J. and R. A. Buchholz: 1978, ‹Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance’, Academy of Management Journal 21(3), 479-486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aupperle, K. E., A. B. Carroll and J. D. Hatfield: 1985, ‹An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability’, Academy of Management Journal 28(2), 446-463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, C. F.: 2006, An introduction to modern econometrics using Stata (Stata Press, Texas).Google Scholar
  5. Baum, C. F., M. E. Schaffer and S. Stillman: 2007, Enhanced Routines for Instrumental Variables/GMM Estimation and Testing. Boston College Economics Working Paper No. 667.Google Scholar
  6. Berman, S. L., A. C. Wicks, S. Kotha and T. M. Jones: 1999, ‹Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and the firm financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 488-506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brammer, S. and A. Millington: 2006, ‹Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: an empirical analysis’, Business Ethics: A European Review 15(1), 6-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgstahler, D. and M. Eames: 2006, ‹Management of Earnings and Analysts’ Forecasts to Achieve Zero and Small Positive Earnings Surprises’, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 33(5&6), 633-652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campa, J. M. and S. Kedia: 2002, ‹Explaining the diversification discount’, Journal of Finance 57(4), 1731-1762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cochran, P. L. and R. A. Wood: 1984, ‹Corporate social responsibility and financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal 27, 42-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coffey, B. S. and G. E. Fryxell: 1991, ‹Institutional Ownership of Stock and Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Empirical Examination’, Journal of Business Ethics 10(6), 437-444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, J. C. and J. I. Porras: 1994, Built to last: successful habits of visionary companies, (HarperBusiness, New York).Google Scholar
  13. Coombs, J. E. and K. M. Gilley: 2005, ‹Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance’, Strategic Management Journal 26, 827-840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dechow, P. M.: 1994 ‹Accounting earnings and cash flows as measures of firm performance: The role of accounting accruals’, Journal of Accounting and Economics 18, 3-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eesley, C. and M. J. Lenox: 2006 ‹Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action’, Strategic Management Journal 27, 765-781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández, P.: 2002, Valuation methods and shareholder value creation , (Academic Press, San Diego CA).Google Scholar
  17. Garcia-Castro, R., M. A. Canela and M. A. Ariño: 2008, ‹Over the Long Run? Short-Run Impact and Long-Run Consequences of Stakeholder Management’, Business and Society, doi: 10.1177/0007650308315493.
  18. Ghoshal, S. and C. A. Bartlett: 1994, ‹Linking organizational context and managerial action: the dimensions of quality of management’, Strategic Management Journal 15(5), 91-112.Google Scholar
  19. Graves, S. B. and S. A. Waddock: 2000, ‹Beyond built to last…stakeholder relations in built to last companies’, Business and Society Review 105, 393-418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, W. H.: 1993, Econometric analysis, 2nd edition, (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
  21. Griffin J. J. and J. F. Mahon: 1997, The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate’, Business & Society 36(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, L.: 1982, ‹Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators’, Econometrica 50(3), 1029-1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamilton, B. H. and J. A. Nickerson: 2003, ‹Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research’, Strategic Organization 1(1), 51-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hausman, J.: 1978, ‹Specification tests in econometrics’, Econometrica 46, 1251-1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes, R. and W. J. Abernathy: 1980, ‹Managing our way to economic decline’, Harvard Business Review 58(4), 67-78.Google Scholar
  26. Heckman, J.: 1974, ‹Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply’, Econometrica 42, 679-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillman, A. J. and G. D. Keim: 2001, ‹Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal 22(2), 125-139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huselid, M. A.: 1995, ‹The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal 38(3), 635-672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Margolis, J. and J. Walsh: 2001, People and profits?, (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey).Google Scholar
  30. Margolis, J. and J. Walsh: 2003, ‹Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business’, Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268-305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Masten, S. E.: 1996, ‹Empirical research and transaction cost economic: challenges, progress, directions’, in J. Grownewegen (ed.), Transaction cost economics and beyond, (Kluwer, Boston MA,), pp. 43-64.Google Scholar
  32. Mattingly, J. E. and S. L. Berman: 2006, ‹Measurement of corporate social actions: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini rating data’, Business and society 45,(1), 20-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988, ‹Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal 31, 854-872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2000, ‹Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal 21, 603-609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchell, R. K, B. R. Agle and D. J. Wood: 1997, ‹Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts’, Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853-886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moskowitz, M.: 1972, ‹Choosing socially responsible stocks’, Business and Society Review 1, 71-75.Google Scholar
  37. Mundlak, Y.: 1978, ‹On the pooling of time series and cross section data’, Econometrica 46, 69-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ogden, S. and R. Watson: 1999, ‹Corporate performance and stakeholder management: balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U.K. privatized water industry’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 526-538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Orlitzky, M., F. Schmidt and S. Rynes: 2003, ‹Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis’, Organization Studies 24, 403-441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pava, M. and J. Krausz: 1996, ‹The association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the paradox of social cost’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 321-357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perez-Lopez, J. A.: 1993, ‹Fundamentos de la dirección de empresas’, (Ediciones Rialp, Madrid).Google Scholar
  42. Post, J. E., L. E. Preston and Sachs, S.: 2002, ‹Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view’, California Management Review 45(1), 6-28.Google Scholar
  43. Preston, L. E. and J. E. Post: 1975, ‹Measuring Corporate Responsibility’, Journal of General Management 2(3), 45-52.Google Scholar
  44. Rajagopalan, N. and G. M. Spreitzer: 1997, ‹Toward a Theory of Strategic Change: A Multi-lens Perspective and Integrative Framework’, Academy of Management Review 22(1), 48-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rehbein, K., S. Waddock and S. B. Graves: 2004, ‹Understanding shareholder activism: which corporations are targeted?’, Business & Society 43(3), 239-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roman, R., S. Hayibor and B. R. Agle: 1999, ‹The Relationship Between Social and Financial Performance’, Business & Society 38(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shaver, J. M.: 1998, ‹Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: does entry mode choice affect FDI survival?’, Management Science 44(4), 571-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shea, J.: 1997, ‹Instrument Relevance in Multivariate Linear Models: A Simple Measure’, The Review of Economics and Statistics 79(2), 348-352.Google Scholar
  49. Stern Stewart: 1996, The Stern Stewart Performance 1000, (Stern Stewart Management Services, New York).Google Scholar
  50. Stock, J. H. and M. Yogo: 2004, Testing For Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression’, Working Paper, Harvard University, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  51. Stock, J. H., J. H. Wright and M. Yogo: 2002, ‹A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments’, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 20, 518-529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ullmann, 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), 540-557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Villalonga, B.: 2004, ‹Does Diversification Cause the “Diversification Discount”?’, Financial Management 33(2), 5-27.Google Scholar
  54. Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997a, ‹Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations: Are they synonymous?’, Business & Society 36(3), 250-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waddock S. A. And S. B. Graves: 1997b, ‹The corporate social performance – financial performance link’, Strategic Management Journal 18 (4), 303-319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiggins, R. R. and T. W. Rueffli: 2002, ‹Sustained competitive advantage: temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance’, Organization Science 13, 82-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wooldridge, J. M.: 2002, Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Garcia-Castro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miguel A. Ariño
    • 2
  • Miguel A. Canela
    • 3
  1. 1.Carlos III UniversityGetafeSpain
  2. 2.IESE Business SchoolBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations