Advertisement

Reexamining Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Value: The Inverted-U-Shaped Relationship and the Moderation of Marketing Capability

  • Wenbin Sun
  • Shanji Yao
  • Rahul Govind
Original Paper
  • 275 Downloads

Abstract

In the literature, CSR’s roles on firm performance are found to be positive, negative, or neutral. This inconclusive pattern suggests there may be a more complicated mechanism at work than the traditional focus on simple linear associations. We propose and test an inverted-U-shaped relationship between CSR and shareholder value, the fundamental measure of firm performance. Further, we incorporate a critical firm attribute, marketing capability, to moderate the nonlinear link between CSR and shareholder value, thereby exploring a previous understudied area involving the interplay between CSR and market-side competency. The results show that an initial increase in CSR engagement positively drives firm shareholder value, but the effect turns negative when a firm pursues excessive CSR engagement. Notably, however, this negative association does not apply to firms that have a high marketing capability. Our research generates meaningful implications for a stakeholder view of CSR, strategic management, firm valuation, resource-based theories, and business practices.

Keywords

CSR U-shaped relationship Shareholder value Marketing capability Moderating effects 

Notes

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 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
  2. Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Barcos, L., Barroso, A., Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and inventory policy. International Journal of Production Economics, 143(2), 580–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R., Hasan, I., & Kobeissi, N. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder’s value. Journal of Business Research, 65(11), 1628–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bharadwaj, A. S., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Konsynski, B. R. (1999). Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin’s q. Management Science, 45(7), 1008–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chung, K. H., & Pruitt, S. W. (1994). A simple approximation of Tobin’s q. Financial Management, 23(3), 70–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, M. J., Gulen, H., & Schill, M. J. (2008). Asset growth and the cross-section of stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1609–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demsetz, H., & Villalonga, B. (2001). Ownership structure and corporate performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 7(3), 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., & Rajiv, S. (1999). Success in high-technology markets: Is marketing capability critical? Marketing Science, 18(4), 547–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2492–2509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2008). Effect of service transition strategies on firm value. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  21. Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gruca, T. S., & Rego, L. L. (2005). Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 1–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1177–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2015). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 641–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hough, J. R. (2006). Business segment performance redux: a multilevel approach. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hsiao, C. (2005). Why panel data? The Singapore Economic Review, 50(02), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resources management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jo, H., & Na, H. (2012). Does CSR reduce firm risk? Evidence from controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karnani, A. (2007). Doing well by doing good—Case study: ‘Fair & Lovely’ whitening cream. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1351–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 570–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kotabe, M., Srinivasan, S. S., & Aulakh, P. S. (2002). Multinationality and firm performance: The moderating role of R&D and marketing capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krasnikov, A., & Jayachandran, S. (2008). The relative impact of marketing, research-and-development, and operations capabilities on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, R. P., & Grewal, R. (2004). Strategic responses to new technologies and their impact on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Madden, T. J., Fehle, F., & Fournier, S. (2006). Brands matter: An empirical demonstration of the creation of shareholder value through branding. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marom, I. Y. (2006). Toward a unified theory of the CSP–CFP link. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maury, B., & Pajuste, A. (2005). Multiple large shareholders and firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(7), 1813–1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.Google Scholar
  47. Minor, D., & Morgan, J. (2011). CSR as reputation insurance: Primum non nocere. California Management Review, 53(3), 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Minton, B. A., & Schrand, C. (1999). The impact of cash flow volatility on discretionary investment and the costs of debt and equity financing. Journal of Financial Economics, 54(3), 423–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mishra, S., & Modi, S. B. (2013). Positive and negative corporate social responsibility, financial leverage, and idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2009). Brand portfolio strategy and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nath, P., Nachiappan, S., & Ramanathan, R. (2010). The impact of marketing capability, operations capability and diversification strategy on performance: A resource-based view. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oxelheim, L., & Randøy, T. (2003). The impact of foreign board membership on firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27(12), 2369–2392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Russo, A., & Perrini, F. (2010). Investigating stakeholder theory and social capital: CSR in large firms and SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(2), 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Sénéchal, S., Georges, L., & Pernin, J. L. (2014). Alliances between corporate and fair trade brands: Examining the antecedents of overall evaluation of the co-branded product. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shinkle, G. A., & Kriauciunas, A. P. (2010). Institutions, size and age in transition economies: Implications for export growth. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: A framework for analysis. The Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 434–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sun, W., & Price, J. M. (2016). The impact of environmental uncertainty on increasing customer satisfaction through corporate social responsibility. European Journal of Marketing, 50(7/8), 1209–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Teoh, S. H., Welch, I., & Wazzan, C. P. (1999). The effect of socially activist investment policies on the financial markets: Evidence from the South African boycott. The Journal of Business, 72(1), 35–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thompson, S. B. (2011). Simple formulas for standard errors that cluster by both firm and time. Journal of Financial Economics, 99(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Udayasankar, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vlachos, P. A., Theotokis, A., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Sales force reactions to corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1207–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vorhies, D. W., Morgan, R. E., & Autry, C. W. (2009). Product-market strategy and the marketing capabilities of the firm: Impact on market effectiveness and cash flow performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(12), 1310–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  75. Wright, P., & Ferris, S. P. (1997). Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zott, C. (2003). Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intra-industry differential firm performance: insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helzberg School of ManagementRockhurst UniversityKansas CityUSA
  2. 2.Nanjing Tech UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.School of MarketingUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations