Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 207–211 | Cite as

Corporate social responsibility and economic performance

  • Catherine J. M. PaulEmail author
  • Donald S. Siegel


We describe some perspectives on corporate social responsibility (CSR), in order to provide a context for considering the strategic motivations and implications of CSR. Based on this framework, which is based on characterizing optimal firm decision-making and underlies most existing work on CSR, we propose an agenda for further theoretical and empirical research on CSR. We then summarize and relate the articles in this special issue to the proposed agenda.


Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Total Factor Productivity (TFP) Environmental performance 

JEL Classifications

L15 L21 M14 



We thank participants at the October 2004 International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility Workshop on Corporate Social Responsibility at the University of Nottingham for their insightful comments on a previous version of this paper. The second author also gratefully acknowledges financial support from the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility at the University of Nottingham.


  1. Bagnoli M, Watts S (2003) Selling to socially responsible consumers: competition and the private provision of public goods. J Econ Manag Strategy 12:419–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball E, Fare R, Grosskopf S, Zaim O (2005) Accounting for externalities in the meaurement of productivity growth: the malmquist cost productivity measure. Struct Change Econ Dyn 16(3):374–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron D (2001) Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy. J Econ Manag Strategy 10:7–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer PW (1990) Decomposing TFP growth in the presence of cost inefficiency, nonconstant returns to scale, and technological progress. J Prod Anal 1:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapple W, Morrison Paul CJ, Harris R (2005) Manufacturing and corporate environmental responsibility: cost implications of voluntary waste minimisation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 16(3):347–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denny M, Fuss M, Waverman L (1981) The measurement and interpretation of total factor productivity in regulated industries, with an application to Canadian telecommunications. In: Productivity measurement in regulated industries, Academic Press, New York, pp 179–218Google Scholar
  7. Dowell G, Hart S, Yeung B (2000) Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value?. Manage Sci 46(8):1059–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Granderson G (1997) Parametric analysis of cost inefficiency and the decomposition of productivity growth for regulated firms. Appl Econ 29:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffin JJ, Mahon JF (1997) The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: twenty-five years of incomparable research. Busi Soc 36(1):5–31Google Scholar
  10. McWilliams A, Siegel D (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Manage J 21(5):603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manage Rev 26(1):117–127Google Scholar
  12. Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organ Stud 24(3):403–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Paul CJM (2001) Market and cost structure in the U.S. beef packing industry: a plant-level analysis. Am J Agric Econ 83(1):64–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Siegel D (2001) Do British companies really need a minister to make them socially responsible? Parliamentary Brief 7:7–8, (Special Supplement on Business and the Community)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management, Department of Management and MarketingUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations