Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 140, Issue 3, pp 537–549 | Cite as

Can Ivory Towers be Green? The Impact of Organization Size on Organizational Social Performance

Article
  • 260 Downloads

Abstract

Organizations differ tremendously in the extent to which they engage in socially responsible behavior and the extent to which this behavior is evaluated by stakeholders. This research examines the complex role of organization size as a driver of perceptions of an organization’s socially responsible behavior and its social performance. Using a unique data set of 302 organizations in the higher education industry, we find that the strength of the organization size–organizational social performance (OSP) relationship is contingent on whether the organization is autonomous from community stakeholders and resource pressures. Our results show that the organization size–OSP relationship is stronger when stakeholders in the organization’s community are more involved in the organization itself and decision-making processes, and that this relationship is weaker when greater financial and human resources are available to the organization.

Keywords

Higher education industry Organizational autonomy Organization size Organizational social performance Stakeholder theory 

References

  1. ACUP Climate Commitment (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2014 from http://acupcc.org/about/commitment.
  2. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amato, L. H., & Amato, C. H. (2007). The effects of firm size and industry on corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(3), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attig, N., El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Suh, J. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and credit ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 679–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basil, D., Runte, M., Basil, M., & Usher, J. (2011). Company support for employee volunteerism: Does size matter? Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2008). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37–44.Google Scholar
  9. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2006). Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics: (A European Review), 15(1), 6–18.Google Scholar
  10. Brower, J., & Mahajan, V. (2013). Driven to be good: A stakeholder theory perspective on the drivers of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, K. H., & Metcalf, R. W. (1980). The relationship between pollution control record and financial indicators revisited. Accounting Review, 55(1), 168–177.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, B. (2001). The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy, and achievement. Higher Education Management, 13(2), 9–24.Google Scholar
  14. Cowton, C. J. (1998). The use of secondary data in business ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., Ferrell, L. K., Ferrell, O. C., & Pinney, C. C. (2011). Market-oriented sustainability: A conceptual framework and propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darnall, N., & Edwards, D. Jr. (2006). Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2388–2406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  20. Global Reporting Initiative (2014). Forward thinking future focus. Retrieved January 26, 2015 from https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-CombinedReport-2013-2014-forward-thinking-future-focus.pdf.
  21. 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(4), 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jayachandran, S., Kalaignanam, K., & Eilert, M. (2013). Product and environmental social performance: Varying effect on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34(10), 1255–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Critical mass of women on BODs, multiple identities, and corporate philanthropic disaster response: Evidence from privately owned Chinese firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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(5), 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kanani, R. (2014). How to measure social impact: New research and insights. Forbes, Retrieved March 15, 2014 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimkanani/2014/03/15/how-to-measure-social-impact-new-research-and-insights/.
  28. Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). What’s in a name? An analysis of the strategic behavior of family firms. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kennedy, P. (2003). A guide to econometrics (5th ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kraatz, M. S., Ventresca, M. J., & Deng, L. (2010). Precarious values and mundane innovations: Enrollment management in American liberal arts colleges. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1521–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemons, J. (1995). Sustainable development and environmental protection: A perspective on current trends and future options for universities. Environmental Management, 19(2), 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leonidou, C. N., Katsikeas, C. S., & Morgan, N. A. (2013). “Greening” the marketing mix: do firms do it and does it pay off? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 182–200.Google Scholar
  34. Lowry, R. C. (2001). Governmental structure, trustee selection and public university prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 845–861.Google Scholar
  35. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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(6), 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Luria, S. E., & Luria, Z. (1970). The role of the university: Ivory tower, service station, or frontier post? Daedalus, 99(1), 75–83.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Margolis, J.D., Elfenbein, H. A., and Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good… and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Working paper.Google Scholar
  40. Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  43. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (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.Google Scholar
  44. Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nikolaeva, R., & Bicho, M. (2011). The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orlitzky, M. (2001). Does firm size confound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Small, D. A., & Simonsohn, U. (2008). Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 532–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 195–204.Google Scholar
  53. Tilcsik, A., and Marquis, C. (2013). Punctuated generosity: How mega-events and natural disasters affect corporate philanthropy in U.S. communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  54. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.Google Scholar
  55. Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T, Jr. (2009). Donation behavior toward in-groups and out-groups: The role of gender and moral identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.David Nazarian College of Business and EconomicsCalifornia State University – NorthridgeNorthridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations