Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 112, Issue 2, pp 353–366 | Cite as

Beyond “Does it Pay to be Green?” A Meta-Analysis of Moderators of the CEP–CFP Relationship

  • Heather R. Dixon-Fowler
  • Daniel J. Slater
  • Jonathan L. Johnson
  • Alan E. Ellstrand
  • Andrea M. Romi
Article

Abstract

Review of extant research on the corporate environmental performance (CEP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) link generally demonstrates a positive relationship. However, some arguments and empirical results have demonstrated otherwise. As a result, researchers have called for a contingency approach to this research stream, which moves beyond the basic question “does it pay to be green?” and instead asks “when does it pay to be green?” In answering this call, we provide a meta-analytic review of CEP–CFP literature in which we identify potential moderators to the CEP–CFP relationship including environmental performance type (e.g., reactive vs. proactive performance), firm characteristics (e.g., large vs. small firms), and methodological issues (e.g., self-report measures). By analyzing these contingencies, this study attempts to provide a basis on which to draw conclusions regarding some inconsistencies and debates in the CEP–CFP research. Some of the results of the moderator analysis suggest that small firms benefit from environmental performance as much or more than large firms, US firms seem to benefit more than international counterparts, and environmental performance seems to have the strongest influence on market-measures of financial performance.

Keywords

Corporate environmental performance Corporate financial performance Environmental sustainability Meta-analysis 

References

Marked References (*) are Included in Meta-Analysis

  1. Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008). Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aragon-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. *Baker, W., & Sinkula, J. (2005). Environmental marketing strategy and firm performance: Effects on new product performance and market share. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4), 461–475.Google Scholar
  4. *Bansel, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic management journal, 26, 197–218.Google Scholar
  5. *Bansel, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 93–103.Google Scholar
  6. *Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126.Google Scholar
  7. *Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate response to institutional pressures: Do family controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 82–113.Google Scholar
  8. *Bragdon, J. H., & Marlin, J. A. T. (1972). Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19(4), 9–18.Google Scholar
  9. Bucholz, R. A. (1993). Principles of environmental management: The greening of business. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, M., & Hambrick, D. (1995). Speed, stealth and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 453–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. *Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 895–907.Google Scholar
  14. *Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost competitiveness: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 663–680.Google Scholar
  15. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.Google Scholar
  16. *Clarkson, P., Li, Y., & Richardson, G. (2004). The market valuation of environmental capital expenditures by pulp and paper companies. Accounting Review, 79, 329–353.Google Scholar
  17. *Clarkson, P., Li, Y., Richardson, G., & Vasvari, F. (2008). Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 33(4/5), 303–327.Google Scholar
  18. *Clemons, B. (2006). Economic incentives and small firms: Does it pay to be green? Journal of Business Research, 59, 492–500.Google Scholar
  19. *Coombs, J. E., & Gilley, K. M. (2005). Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 827–840.Google Scholar
  20. *Cormier, D., & Gordon, I. M. (2001). An examination of social environmental reporting strategies. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, 14: 587–616.Google Scholar
  21. D’Amboise, G., & Muldowney, M. (1988). Management theory for small business: Attempts and requirements. Academy of Management Review, 13, 226–240.Google Scholar
  22. Dean, T. J., Brown, R. L., & Bamford, C. E. (1998). Differences in large and small firms responses to environmental context: strategic implications from a comparative analysis of business formations. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 709–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. *Dooley, R. S., & Lerner, L. D. (1994). Pollution, profits, and stakeholders: The constraining effect of economic performance on CEO concern with stakeholder expectations. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 701–711.Google Scholar
  24. *Dowell, G., Hart, S., & Yeung, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science, 46, 1059–1074.Google Scholar
  25. Eden, L., Levitas, E., & Martinez, R. J. (1997). The production, transfer and spillover of technology: Comparing large and small, multinationals as technology producers. Small Business Economics, 9, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engardio, P., Capell, K., Carey, J., & Hall, K. (2007). Beyond the green corporation. Jan: Business Week. 29.Google Scholar
  27. Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: A review. Journal of Management, 33, 637–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fiegenbaum, A., & Karnani, A. (1991). Output flexibility: A competitive advantage for small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. *Fogler, H. R., & Nutt, F. (1975). A note on social responsibility and stock valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 155–160.Google Scholar
  30. *Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (1986). An analysis of the impact of corporate pollution disclosures included in annual financial statements on investors’ decisions. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 1, 193–212.Google Scholar
  31. Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (1994). Analysis of the association between pollution performance and input cost factors: The case of electric utility plants. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 13(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Freeman, R., & Evan, W. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Friedman, M. (1970, September). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13, 33.Google Scholar
  34. *Gilley, K. M., Worrell, D. L., & El-Jelly, A. (2000). Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: The differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management, 26, 1199–1216.Google Scholar
  35. Greer, J., & Bruno, K. (1996). Greenwash: The reality behind corporate environmentalism. New York: Apex Press.Google Scholar
  36. Griffin, J., & Mahon, J. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Business & Society, 36(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20, 996–1014.Google Scholar
  38. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoffman, A. J. (2001). From heresy to dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Howard, G. S. (1994). Why do people say nasty things about self-reports? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hunt, C. B., & Auster, E. R. (1990). Proactive environmental management: Avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Management Review, 31(2), 7–18.Google Scholar
  42. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. *Ingram, R. (1978). An investigation of the information content of (certain) social responsibility disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 16, 270–285.Google Scholar
  44. Jaffe, A. B., Peterson, S. R., Portney, P. R., & Stavins, R. N. (1995). Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: What does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1), 132–163.Google Scholar
  45. *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, 564–576.Google Scholar
  46. *Judge, W., & Elenkov, D. (2005). Organizational capacity for change and environmental performance: an empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 893–901.Google Scholar
  47. *Judge, W. Q., & Douglas, T. J. (1998). Performance implications of incorporating environmental issues into the strategic planning process: an empirical assessment, Journal of Management Studies, 35, 241–62.Google Scholar
  48. *King, A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48, 289–299.Google Scholar
  49. *Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. P. 1996. The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42, 1199–1214.Google Scholar
  50. *Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599–615.Google Scholar
  51. *Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 281–289.Google Scholar
  52. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Applied social research methods series (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. *Magness, V. (2006). Strategic posture, financial performance and environmental disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19, 540–563.Google Scholar
  54. *Majumdar, S. K., & Marcus, A. A. (2001). Rules versus discretion: The productivity consequences of flexible regulation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 170–179.Google Scholar
  55. *Makni, R., Francoeur, C., & Bellavance, F. (2009). Causality between corporate social performance and financial performance: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of Business Ethics 89(3), 409–422.Google Scholar
  56. Marcus, A., & Geffen, D. (1998). The dialectics of competency acquisition: Pollution prevention in electric generation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. *Marcus, A. A., & Goodman, R. S. (1986). Compliance and performance: Toward a contingency theory. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 8, 193–221.Google Scholar
  58. *Menguc, B., & Ozanne, L. (2005). Challenges of the green imperative: a natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation–business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 430–438.Google Scholar
  59. *Melnyk, S. A., Stroufe, R. P., & Calatone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21, 329–351.Google Scholar
  60. Nehrt, C. (1996). Timing and intensity effects of environmental investments. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 535–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. *Nelling, E., & Webb, E. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: A virtuous circle revisited. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 32(2), 197–209.Google Scholar
  62. Okada, K., & Sawai, M. (Eds.). (1999). Small firms, large concerns (p. 314). Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  63. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Rynes, S. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pasquero, J. (1991). Supraorganizational collaboration: The Canadian environmental experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 38–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environmental-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspective, 9(4), 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roome, N. (1992). Developing environmental management systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rockness, Schlachter, J., & Rockness, H. O. (1986). Hazardous waste disposal, corporate disclosure, and financial performance in the chemical industry. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 1, 167–191.Google Scholar
  69. *Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534–559.Google Scholar
  70. Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. *Shane, P. B., & Spicer, B. H. (1983). Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. The Accounting Review, 58, 521–538.Google Scholar
  73. Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sharma, S. (2001). Different strokes: Regulatory styles and environmental strategy in the North American oil and gas industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10, 344–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sharma, S., & Starik, M. (Eds.). (2002). Research in corporate sustainability: The evolving theory and practice of organizations in the natural environment. Northampton: Edward Elgar Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  76. Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 729–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–961.Google Scholar
  78. *Slater, D. J., & Dixon-Fowler, H. R. (2009). CEO international assignment experience and corporate social performance, Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 473–489.Google Scholar
  79. Spaeder, K. E. (2006, March). Think green: Entrepreneurs are turning environmental problems into opportunities. Entrepreneur Magazine. Retrieved January 3, 2008. http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2006/march/83592.html.
  80. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. *Spicer, B. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. Accounting Review, 53(1), 94–111.Google Scholar
  82. Starik, M., & Marcus, A. A. (2000). Introduction to the special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environmental. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Storey, D. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Tozzi, J. (2008, October and 31) Why small manufacturers are going green. Business Week.Google Scholar
  85. Trochim, W. (2001). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati: Automatic Dog Publishing.Google Scholar
  86. *Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.Google Scholar
  87. 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, 540–557.Google Scholar
  88. Wagner, (2007). Integration of environmental management with other managerial functions of the firm. Long Range Planning, 40, 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 46–52.Google Scholar
  90. Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758–769.Google Scholar
  91. Welsh, J., & White, J. (1981). A small business is not a little big business. Harvard Business Review, 59(4), 18–27.Google Scholar
  92. Wilson, D. B., & Lipsey, M. W. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Applied social research methods series, vol 49. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  93. Woo, C. Y. Y., & Cooper, A. C. (1981). Strategies of effective low share businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 2, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Yu, T. (2001). Toward a capabilities perspective of the small firm. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 185–197.Google Scholar
  95. *Yu, V., Ting, H. I., & Wu, Y. C. J. (2009). Assessing the greenness for European firms: A resource efficiency perspective. Management Decision, 47(7), 1065–1079.Google Scholar
  96. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2007). Initiatives and outcomes of green supply chain management implementation by Chinese manufacturers. Journal of Environmental Management, 85, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather R. Dixon-Fowler
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Slater
    • 2
  • Jonathan L. Johnson
    • 3
  • Alan E. Ellstrand
    • 4
  • Andrea M. Romi
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Management, Walker College of BusinessAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA
  2. 2.McAfee School of BusinessUnion UniversityJacksonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management, Sam M. Walton College of BusinessUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Management, Sam M. Walton College of BusinessUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  5. 5.Accounting Department, Kelley School of BusinessIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations