Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Does It Pay to be Good? Moderators and Mediators in the Corporate Sustainability–Corporate Financial Performance Relationship: A Critical Review

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

Abstract

In this paper, we review the literature on moderators and mediators in the corporate sustainability (CS)–corporate financial performance (CFP) relationship. We provide some clarity on what has been learned so far by taking a contingency perspective on this much-researched relationship. Overall, we find that this research has made some progress in the past. However, we also find this research stream to be characterized by three major shortcomings, namely low degree of novelty, missing investment in theory building, and a lack of research design and measurement options. To address these shortcomings, we suggest avenues for future research. Beyond that we also argue for a stronger emphasis on the strategic perspective of CS. In particular, we propose future research to take a step back and aim for an integration of the CS–CFP relationship into the strategic management literature.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The keywords used were corporate sustainability and corporate financial performance. Corporate sustainability was alternatively substituted with (corporate) social performance, (corporate) environmental performance, corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability performance, sustain*, and CSP. Corporate financial performance was substituted with organizational effectiveness, organizational performance, profitability, economic success, outcomes, and CFP.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 314–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. R., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1984). Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy, and business performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, P., Geylani, P., & Roberts, J. (2012). Corporate social and financial performance re-examined: Industry effects in a linear mixed model analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3), 367–388.

    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 

  • Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B., & Zajac, E. J. (1994). Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public administration quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. (2006). High noon in the automotive industry. Berlin: Springer.

    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 

  • Bettis, R. A., Helfat, C., & Shaver, J. M. (2014). Replication in strategic management. Call for papers for a special issue: Replication in strategic management. http://smj.strategicmanagement.net/pdf/SMJ_Call_for_Papers_Replication_Special_Issue_7_12_13.pdf.

  • Bhattacharya, C., Sen, S., & Korschun, D. (2012). Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco, B., Guillamón-Saorín, E., & Guiral, A. (2013). Do non-socially responsible companies achieve legitimacy through socially responsible actions? The mediating effect of innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. (1975). A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18(2), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragdon, J. H., & Marlin, J. (1972). Is pollution profitable. Risk management, 19(4), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325–1343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breton-Miller, L., & Miller, D. (2006). Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 731–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P. (1990). On the use of finance theory in strategic management. Advances in Strategic Management, 6, 71–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, T., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2011). How hot is your bottom line? Linking carbon and financial performance. Business and Society, 50(2), 233–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaganti, R., & Damanpour, F. (1991). Institutional ownership, capital structure, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12(7), 479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 917–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, J. S., Shin, Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. S. (2013). How does corporate ethics contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of collective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39(4), 853–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social-responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 42–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Perceived behavioral-attributes of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 24(1), 86–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations - Perceived behavioral-attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 439–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B. L., Ketchen, D. J, Jr, & Slater, S. F. (2011). Toward a “theoretical toolbox” for sustainability research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 86–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Fowler, H. R., Slater, D. J., Johnson, J. L., Ellstrand, A. E., & Romi, A. M. (2013). Beyond “does it pay to be green?” A meta-analysis of moderators of the CEP–CFP relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 353–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 514–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., & Rajiv, S. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities: Methodology and empirical application. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 277–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E. (1997). Strategic agenda building in organizations. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making (pp. 81–107). Cambridge, MA: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of twenty first century business. Mankato, MN: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up (pp. 1–16). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7), 561–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 758–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C. (2014). Does product market competition foster corporate social responsibility? Evidence from trade liberalization. Strategic Management Journal,. doi:10.1002/smj.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Influence of personality on ecological consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(3), 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). In The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine (pp. 122–126).

  • Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, R. J., & Shen, W. (2010). The relationship between accounting and market measures of firm financial performance: How strong is it? Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(4), 514–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, K. M., Worrell, D. L., Davidson Iii, W. N., & 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(6), 1199–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: A critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 421–434.

    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(4), 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J. J., Eijffinger, S. C., & Smid, J. (2004). Benchmarking of corporate social responsibility: Methodological problems and robustness. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1(1), 201–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1034–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halme, M., & Laurila, J. (2009). Philanthropy, integration or innovation? Exploring the financial and societal outcomes of different types of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3), 325–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(1), 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1994). Corporate divestiture intensity in restructuring firms: Effects of governance, strategy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1207–1251.

    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(7), 781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting errors and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation among large firms: Lessons from the Spanish experience. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 594–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & Salazar, J. D. J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayachandran, S., Kalaignanam, K., & Eilert, M. (2013). Product and environmental social performance: Varying effect on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34(10), 1255–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Journal influence in the field of management: an analysis using Salancik’s index in a dependency network. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1392–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.-E., & Johnson, K. K. (2013). The impact of moral emotions on cause-related marketing campaigns: A cross-cultural examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Statman, M. (2012). Do corporations invest enough in environmental responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. P. (1996). The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42(8), 1199–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurapatskie, B., & Darnall, N. (2013). Which corporate sustainability activities are associated with greater financial payoffs? Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(1), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankoski, L. (2008). Corporate responsibility activities and economic performance: A theory of why and how they are connected. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8), 536–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. D. P. (2008). A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, R. T. (1981). ‘Determinants’ of organizational performance: An interdisciplinary review. Strategic Management Journal, 2(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Malkiel, B. G., & Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. The Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383–417.

    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 

  • Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & 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, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

  • Marom, I. Y. (2006). Toward a unified theory of the CSP–CFP link. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey Global Institute. (2012). The world at work: Jobs, pay, and skills for 3.5 billion people. Boston: McKinsey Global Institute.

    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 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1480–1495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003). Challenge versus advantage in family business. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 127–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment, 21(3), 245–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. The Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(SSI), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 766–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business and Society, 50(1), 6–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsato, R. J. (2006). When does it pay to be green? California Management Review, 48(2), 128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1518–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Papania, L. (2008). The missing link between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Stakeholder salience and identification. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(2), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, J. E. (1986). Environments as moderators of the relationship between strategy and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2012). Measurement issues in environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR): Toward a transparent, reliable, and construct valid instrument. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, F. L. (1998). Environmental product differentiation: Implications for corporate strategy. California Management Review, 40(4), 43–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143–156.

  • Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. J. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda. USA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreck, P. (2011). Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: New evidence and analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(2), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, D. A., & Cording, M. (2006). A corporate social performance-corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 540–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2013). The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm value: The role of customer awareness. Management Science, 59(5), 1045–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Vitaliano, D. F. (2007). An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 773–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 626–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. J. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taneja, S. S., Taneja, P. K., & Gupta, R. K. (2011). Researches in corporate social responsibility: A review of shifting focus, paradigms, and methodologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 343–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Z., Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2012). How corporate social responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR–financial performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1274–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, J. (1984). On the efficiency of the financial system. Lloyds Bank Annual Review, 153, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Beurden, P., & Gössling, T. (2008). The worth of values—A literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Laan, G., Van Ees, H., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2008). Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. The Journal of Marketing, 52, 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801–814.

    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 

  • Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1703–1725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10), 1135–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. L., & Choi, J. (2013). A new look at the corporate social–financial performance relationship: The moderating roles of temporal and interdomain consistency in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 39(2), 416–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2d ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Social-issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management, 17(2), 383–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., Oviatt, B., & Minyard, K. (1993). Effect of corporate ownership and board structure on corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1993, 336–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, Strategy & Organizational Behaviour, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 10, Building 1323 Room 424, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Sylvia Grewatsch

  2. Department of Business Administration, Strategy & Organizational Behaviour, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 10, Building 1323 Room 422, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Ingo Kleindienst

Authors
  1. Sylvia Grewatsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ingo Kleindienst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia Grewatsch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grewatsch, S., Kleindienst, I. When Does It Pay to be Good? Moderators and Mediators in the Corporate Sustainability–Corporate Financial Performance Relationship: A Critical Review. J Bus Ethics 145, 383–416 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2852-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2852-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation