Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reciprocity in Corporate Social Responsibility and Channel Performance: Do Birds of a Feather Flock Together?

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is more and more important in the supply chain. Drawing from the stakeholder theory and channel relational reciprocity literature, we develop and empirically support a theoretical framework. Our framework predicts that CSR reciprocity between buyer and seller firms in a supply chain affects channel tie intensity and channel sales performance (main effects) and that market competition may amplify these influences (moderated effects). The framework reveals important implications regarding the role of reciprocal CSR for channel relationship management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004). Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 68, 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. W., & Weitz, B. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 18–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bask, A., & Kuula, M. (2011). Measuring supply chain level environmental sustainability—nokia case. International Journal of Business Insights and Transformation, 3(3), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D. E., Spekma, R. E., Kamauff, J. W., & Werhane, P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains: A procedural justice perspective. Long Range Planning, 40, 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, L. P., & Sengtupa, S. (1993). Organizing successful co-marketing alliances. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushee, B., & Noe, C. (2000). Corporate disclosure practices, institutional investors, and stock return volatility. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, 171–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C., & Jennings, M. (2004). The role of purchasing in corporate social responsibility: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Business Logistics, 25(1), 145–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 895–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M., Mena, C., Khan, O., & Yurt, O. (2011). Approaches to managing global sourcing risk. Supply Chain Management, 16(2), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T., Jr. (1996). The impact of corporate behavior on perceived product value. Marketing Letters, 7(2), 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, R., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987). Output sector munificence effects on the internal political economy of marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 347–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, G. L., Maltz, E., Antia, K. D., & Rindfleisch, A. (2009). Distributor sharing of strategic information with suppliers. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. H. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gravereau, V. P., Konopa, L. J., & Grimm, J. L. (1978). Attitudes of industrial buyers toward selected social issues. Industrial Marketing Management, 7(2), 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruca, T. S., & Rego, L. L. (2005). Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 69, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu, F., & Li, J. Q. (2007). The credibility of voluntary disclosure and insider stock transactions. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(4), 771–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hietbrink, J. J. C., Berens, G., & van Rekom, J. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in a business purchasing context: The role of CSR type and supplier product share size. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(4), 284–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppner, J., & Griffith, D. (2011). The role of reciprocity in clarifying the performance payoff of relational behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 920–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, K., & Robinson, D. (2006). Industry concentration and average stock returns. Journal of Finance, 61(4), 1927–1956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, F. S., & Gassenheimer, J. B. (1987). Marketing and exchange. Journal of Marketing, 51, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jap, S., & Anderson, E. (2007). Testing a life-cycle theory of cooperative interorganizational relationships: Movement across stages and performance. Management Science, 53(2), 260–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethic and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanji, G. K., & Chopra, P. K. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in a global economy. Total Quality Management, 21(2), 119–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, D. R., Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D. (2009). Special topic forum on sustainable supply chain management: Introduction and reflections on the role of purchasing management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(4), 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68, 16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73, 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Donthu, N. (2006). Marketing’s credibility: A longitudinal investigation of marketing communication productivity (MCP) and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 4, 70–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Homburg, C., & Wieseke, J. (2010). Customer satisfaction, analyst stock recommendations, and firm value. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1041–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Rindfleisch, A., & Tse, D. (2007). Working with rivals: The impact of competitor alliances on financial performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R. F., & Brown, J. R. (1996). Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 60, 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32, 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market orientation–performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mefford, R. N. (2011). The economic value of a sustainable supply chain. Business and Society Review, 116(1), 109–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P., & Poist, R. (2002). Socially responsible logistics: An exploratory study. Transportation Journal, 41(4), 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2010). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspectives. Journal of Marketing, 65, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, E., & Roth, A. V. (2004). Towards a theory of competitive progression: Evidence from high-tech manufacturing. Production and Operations Management, 13(4), 354–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salam, M. A. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in purchasing and supply chain. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samaha, S. A., Palmatier, R. W., & Dant, R. P. (2011). Poisoning relationships: Perceived unfairness in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). Core issues in sustainable supply chain management—a Delphi study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8), 455–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A., Iyer, G. R., Mehrotra, A., & Krishnan, R. (2010). Sustainability and business-to-business marketing: A framework and implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 330–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. A. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 463–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., & Kirchoff, J. F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility reports: A thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(1), 19–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuli, K. R., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Kohli, A. K. (2010). Ties that bind: The impact of multiple types of ties with a customer on sales growth and sales volatility. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 36–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D., & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vurro, C., Dacin, M. T., & Perrini, F. (2010). Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., He, J., & Mahoney, J. T. (2009). Firm-specific knowledge resources and competitive advantage: The role of economic- and relationship-based employee governance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal, 30(12), 1265–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69, 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA

    Xueming Luo

  2. Fudan University, Yangpu, China

    Qinqin Zheng

Authors
  1. Xueming Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qinqin Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xueming Luo.

Appendix

Appendix

In this research, the robust regression model with the Newey-West covariance matrix was used to reduce the threats of serial correlation and heteroscedasticity. The formula is as follows:

$$ \hat{\Upsigma }{\text{Newey}}{-}{\text{West}} = \frac{T}{T - k}\left( {X^{\prime}X} \right)^{ - 1} \Omega \left( {X^{\prime}X} \right)^{ - 1} , $$

where T is the number of observations and k is the number of regressors, and \( \Omega = \frac{T}{T - k}\left[ {\sum_{t = 1}^{T} {\varepsilon_{t}^{2} x_{t} x^{\prime}_{t} + \sum_{v = 1}^{q} {\left( {\left( {1 - \frac{v}{q + 1}} \right)\sum_{t = v + 1}^{T} {\left( {x_{t} \varepsilon_{t} \varepsilon_{t - v} x^{\prime}_{t - v} + x_{t - v} \varepsilon_{t - v} \varepsilon_{t} x^{\prime}_{t} } \right)} } \right)} } } \right], \) and q (truncation lag) = the number of autocorrelations for the dynamics of residual u t and q = floor (4(T/100)2/9).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luo, X., Zheng, Q. Reciprocity in Corporate Social Responsibility and Channel Performance: Do Birds of a Feather Flock Together?. J Bus Ethics 118, 203–213 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1582-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1582-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation