Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 175–186 | Cite as

Thoughts on the Evaluation of Corporate Social Performance Through Projects

  • José Salazar
  • Bryan W. HustedEmail author
  • Markus Biehl
Article

Abstract

Corporate social performance (CSP) has become a widely applied concept, discussed in most large firms’ corporate reports and the academic literature alike. Unfortunately, CSP has largely been employed as a way of demonstrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) in practice, or to justify the business case for CSR in academia by relating some measure of CSP to some measure of financial performance. In this article, we discuss multiple shortcomings to these approaches. We argue that (1) CSR activities need to be managed and measured as projects and aggregated to the business or corporate level using a project portfolio; (2) appropriate measures need to be identified that move away from reporting the firm’s activities toward quantifying actual social outcomes achieved; and (3) given the types of projects prevalent in CSR, statistical evaluation methods common in other fields (ideally, pre-test post-test control group designs, such as used in medicine or propensity score matching for ongoing or past projects) should be employed to properly measure outcomes. We make a first, albeit imperfect, attempt at using such an approach with data collected on behalf of the Patrimonio Hoy project, a well-publicized CSR initiative carried out by Cemex in Mexico. We show that the results from this data reinforce concerns voiced earlier in this article.

Keywords

Corporate social performance Impact evaluation Measurement issues Project management Propensity score matching 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their heartfelt thanks to Cemex and the managers who supported this project and generously provided their time to researchers at various stages in its development. In addition, the authors would like to thank the JBE reviewer who provided substantial guidance to the improvement of this manuscript. The authors alone are responsible for any errors that may remain.

References

  1. Abbott, W., & Monsen, R. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 501–515.Google Scholar
  2. Aupperle, K. E., & Carroll, A. B. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2009). The experimental approach to development economics. Annual Review of Economics, 1(2), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, R., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18, 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Busby, J. S., & Williamson, A. (2000). The appropriate use of performance measurement in non-production activity: The case of engineering design. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(1), 336–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cemex. (2009). Crece tu patrimonio hoy. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.cemexmexico.com/se/se_ph.html.
  10. Cemex. (2011a). Sustainable development: History. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.cemex.com/su/su_oc_sh.aspx.
  11. Cemex. (2011b). Investor center: Reports. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.cemex.com/ic/ic_re.asp.
  12. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  13. Coldewey, C. (2005, June 25). BOP in action: Cemex’s Patrimonio Hoy. Retrieved May 25, 2010, from Worldchanging: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002949.html.
  14. Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kremer, M. (2007). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  15. Global Reporting Initiative. (2007). Performance indicators. Retrieved July 2008, from http://www.globalreporting.org/GRIPortal/GRIControls/G3Online/Tree/frmTree.aspx?IS=1.
  16. González, J. (2003). Estado, política social de vivienda y autoconstrucción: El sistema de consolidación habitacional en las urbanizaciones populares bajo el neoliberalismo (El caso del área metropolitana de Monterrey). Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, México.Google Scholar
  17. Granger, C. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene, W. (1993). Econometric analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Griffin, J. I., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrington, H. J., Conner, D. R., & Horney, N. L. (2000). Project change management: Applying change management to improvement projects. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, S. L., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herbst, K. (2002, Sept.). Enabling the poor to build housing: Pursuing profit and social development together. Changemakers.net Journal. Retrieved October 19, 2010, from www.changemakers.net/journal/02september/herbstep.cfm.
  23. Iracheta, A. (2001). México: Estudio sobre la Vivienda de Bajo Ingreso: Limitaciones en la Oferta de Vivienda. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan, D. L. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and theories of global governance: Strategic contestation in global issue arenas. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 432–451). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B., & Samad, H. A. (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation: Quantitative methods and practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  26. King, A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299.Google Scholar
  27. KLD Research and Analytics. (2009). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings. Retrieved February 2009, from http://www.kld.com/research/ratings_indicators.html.
  28. Kunz, I., & Romero, I. (2008). Naturaleza y dimensión del rezago habitacional en México. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio, 8(26), 415–449.Google Scholar
  29. London, T. (2009). Making better investments at the base of the pyramid. Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 106–113.Google Scholar
  30. Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People and profits: The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.Google Scholar
  35. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of what and who really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  36. Moore, G. (2001). Corporate social and financial performance: An investigation in the U.K. supermarket industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orlitzky, M. O., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.Google Scholar
  39. Prahalad, C. K. (2009). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  40. Pratt, C. B., & Lennon, G. (2001). What’s wrong with outcomes evaluation? Public Relations Quarterly, 46(4), 40–44.Google Scholar
  41. Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Russ-Eft, D., & Preskill, H. (2009). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. SAM Indexes GmbH. (2006). Dow Jones sustainability indexes. Retrieved August 2008, from http://www.sustainability-index.com/07_htmle/assessment/criteria.html.
  45. Sandoval, R. (2005). Block by block. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3(2), 34–37.Google Scholar
  46. Schreuder, H. (1981). Employees and the corporate social report: The Dutch case. The Accounting Review, 56(2), 294–308.Google Scholar
  47. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  48. Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158–166.Google Scholar
  49. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  50. Snedecor, G. W., & Cochran, W. (1980). Statistical methods (8th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tashman, P., & Rivera, J. (2010). Are members of business for social responsibility more socially responsible? The Policies Studies Journal, 38(3), 487–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taut, S., & Brauns, D. (2003). Resistance to evaluation: A psychological perspective. Evaluation, 9(3), 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tukel, O. I., & Rom, W. O. (2001). An empirical investigation of project evaluation criteria. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(3), 400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vanclay, F. (2004). The triple bottom line and impact assessment: How do TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA and EMS relate to each other? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 6(3), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.Google Scholar
  56. Wood, D. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Xanhon, K. J. (2005). Selling to the poor multinational firms are finding a surprisingly lucrative market in targeting low-income consumers. Time International, 165(23), 52.Google Scholar
  58. Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(December), 125–132.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Salazar
    • 1
  • Bryan W. Husted
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Markus Biehl
    • 2
  1. 1.Economics Department/ITESMTecnológico de MonterreyMonterreyMexico
  2. 2.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations