Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 360–385 | Cite as

Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives

Article

Abstract

Drawing on transaction cost theories and the resource-based view of a firm, we posit that the value of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives is greater in countries where an absence of market-supporting institutions increases transaction costs and limits access to resources. Using a large sample of 11,672 firm-year observations representing 2445 unique firms from 53 countries during 2003–2010 and controlling for firm-level unobservable heterogeneity, we find supportive evidence that CSR is more positively related to firm value in countries with weaker market institutions. We also provide evidence on the channels through which CSR initiatives reduce transaction costs. We find that CSR is associated with improved access to financing in countries with weaker equity and credit markets, greater investment and lower default risk in countries with more limited business freedom, and longer trade credit period and higher future sales growth in countries with weaker legal institutions. Our findings provide new insights on non-market mechanisms such as CSR through which firms can compensate for institutional voids.

Keywords

institutions and international business institutional void corporate social responsibility transaction costs firm value 

Abstract

Prenant appui sur les théories des coûts de transaction et l'approche par les ressources d'une entreprise, nous postulons que la valeur des initiatives en matière de responsabilité sociale des entreprises (RSE) est plus élevée dans les pays où l'absence d'institutions de soutien au niveau du marché augmente les coûts de transaction et limite l'accès aux ressources. Utilisant un large échantillon de 11.672 observations entreprise-année représentant 2.445 entreprises uniques de 53 pays au cours de la période 2003-2010 et contrôlant l’hétérogénéité inobservable au niveau de la firme, nous trouvons des preuves que la RSE est plus positivement liée à la valeur des entreprises dans les pays à faibles institutions de marché. Nous fournissons également des données sur les canaux par lesquels les initiatives en matière de RSE réduisent les coûts de transaction. Nous constatons que la RSE est associée à un meilleur accès au financement dans les pays à faibles marchés d’actions et de crédit, à des investissements plus importants et à un risque de défaut plus faible dans les pays où la liberté d'entreprise est plus limitée, et à une période de crédit commercial plus longue et à une croissance des ventes futures plus élevée dans les pays avec des institutions juridiques plus faibles. Nos résultats fournissent de nouveaux éclairages sur les mécanismes non marchands, tels que la RSE, à travers lesquels les entreprises peuvent compenser les vides institutionnels.

Abstract

Partiendo de las teorías de costos de transacción y la teoría basada en recursos de la empresa, nosotros postulamos que el valor de las iniciativas de responsabilidad social empresarial (RSE) es mayor en países en donde la ausencia de instituciones de apoyo al mercado aumenta los costos de transacción y limita el acceso a recursos. Usando una amplia muestra de 11.672 observaciones empresa-año representando a 2445 empresas únicas de 53 países en el período 2003-2010 y controlando por heterogeneidad no observable a nivel de la empresa, encontramos evidencia para apoyar que la RSE está más relacionada positivamente al valor empresarial en países con instituciones de mercado más débiles. También damos evidencia sobre los canales mediante los cuales las iniciativas de RSE reducen los costos de transacción. Encontramos que la RSE está asociada con un mejor acceso a financiación en países con mercados de valores y de crédito más débiles, mayor inversión y un menor riesgo de incumplimiento en países con libertad empresarial más limitad, y el periodo de crédito comercial más extenso, y más crecimiento de ventas futuras en países con instituciones legales más débiles. Nuestros hallazgos dan nuevos entendimientos de los mecanismos de no mercado, como la RSE a través del cual las empresas pueden compensar los vacíos institucionales.

Abstract

Baseando-se em teorias de custos de transação e na visão baseada em recursos da firma, postulamos que o valor das iniciativas de responsabilidade social corporativa (CSR) é maior em países onde a ausência de instituições de apoio ao mercado aumenta os custos de transação e limita o acesso aos recursos. Usando uma grande amostra de 11.672 observações empresa-ano, representando 2445 empresas distintas de 53 países durante 2003-2010 e controlando a heterogeneidade não observável no âmbito da empresa, encontramos evidências confirmatórias que a CSR é mais positivamente relacionada com o valor da empresa em países com instituições de mercado mais fracas. Nós também fornecemos evidências sobre os canais através dos quais as iniciativas de CSR reduzem custos de transação. Nós concluímos que a CSR está associada com um melhor acesso a financiamento em países com mercados de ações e de crédito mais fracos, maior investimento e menor risco de solvência em países com liberdade comercial mais limitada, e período de crédito comercial mais longo e crescimento de vendas futuras superior em países com instituições legais mais fracas. Nossos resultados fornecem novas perspectivas sobre mecanismos não-mercadológicos tais como a CSR, através da qual as empresas podem compensar vazios institucionais.

Abstract

借鉴公司的交易成本理论和资源基础观, 我们假定企业社会责任 (CSR) 活动的价值在市场支持制度缺乏致使交易成本增加和资源使用受限的国家更大。使用2003-2010年期间来自53个国家代表2445家独特公司的11,672个公司年观察数据大样本, 并控制公司层面不可观察的异质性, 我们发现了在较弱市场制度的国家中CSR与公司价值观之间更加正相关的支持性证据。我们还提供了CSR活动减少交易成本渠道的证据。我们发现CSR与改善的融资渠道在股票和信贷市场较弱的国家相关: 在商务自由更有限的国家, 投资越大, 违约风险越低; 在法律机制更弱的国家, 贸易信贷期越长, 未来销售额增长越高。我们的发现对像CSR这样的非市场机制提供了新的见解, 通过它公司可以弥补制度孔隙。

Supplementary material

41267_2016_18_MOESM1_ESM.doc (146 kb)
online appendix

References

  1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 17–40.Google Scholar
  2. Akerlof, K. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Qualitative uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 448–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angrist, J., & Pischke, J. 2008. Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, D. P. 2001. Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10(1): 7–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belkaoui, A. 1976. The impact of the disclosure of the environmental effects of organizational behavior on the market. Financial Management, 7(2): 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. 2010. Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bragdon Jr., J. H., & Marlin, J. A. 1972. Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19(4): 9–18.Google Scholar
  9. Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. 2006. Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3): 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakrabarty, S. 2009. The influence of national culture and institutional voids on family ownership of large firms: A country level empirical study. Journal of International Management, 15(1): 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang, S. J., & Hong, J. 2000. Economic performance of group affiliated companies in Korea: Intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. 2006. Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards of symbolic versus substantive implementation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 863–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Fan, J., & Lang, L. 2002. Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 57(6): 2741–2771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarkson, M. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 92–117.Google Scholar
  16. Cleary, S. 1999. The relationship between firm investment and financial status. Journal of Finance, 54(2): 673–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Econometrica, 4(16): 386–405.Google Scholar
  18. Coase, R. H. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. 2002. Funding growth in bank-based and market-based financial systems: Evidence from firm-level data. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3): 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. 2011. Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1): 59–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C., & Rajwani, T. 2012. Advancing nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3): 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. 2011. Corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage: Overcoming the trust barrier. Management Science, 57(9): 1528–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Durnev, A., & Kim, E. H. 2005. To steal or not to steal: Firm attributes, legal environment, and valuation. Journal of Finance, 60(3): 1461–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. 2011. Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9): 2388–2406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. 1997. Industry costs of equity. Journal of Financial Economics, 43(2): 153–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisman, R., & Khanna, T. 2004. Facilitating development: The role of business groups. World Development, 32(4): 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flammer, C. 2015. Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science, 61(11): 2549–2568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foss, K., & Foss, N. J. 2005. Resources and transaction costs: How property rights economics furthers the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6): 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freedman, M., & Stagliano, A. J. 1991. Differences in social-cost disclosures: A market test of investor reactions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4(1): 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times, 13 September: 122–126.Google Scholar
  32. Gelb, D. S., & Strawser, J. A. 2001. Corporate social responsibility and financial disclosures: An alternative explanation for increased disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Griffin, D., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., Li, K., & Shao, L. 2015. National culture, corporate governance practices, and firm performance. Working Paper, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
  35. Gubbi, S. R., Aulakh, P. S., Ray, S., Sarkar, M. B., & Chittoor, R. 2010. Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firms create shareholder value? The case of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3): 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gwartney, J. D., Hall, J. C., & Lawson, R. 2014. Economic freedom of the world: 2014 annual report. Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
  37. Hart, S. L. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 986–1014.Google Scholar
  38. Hill, C. W., & Jones, G. R. 1989. Strategic management: An integrated approach. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  39. Hillegeist, S. A., Keating, E. K., Cram, D. P., & Lundstedt, K. G. 2004. Assessing the probability of bankruptcy. Review of Accounting Studies, 9(1): 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hillman, A., & Keim, G. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2): 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprises: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 838–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Imai, K., & Kim, I. S. 2014. On the use of linear fixed effects regression estimators for causal inference. Working Paper, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  43. Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. 2012. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9): 834–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(3): 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones, G. R., & Hill, C. W. L. 1988. Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choice. Strategic Management Journal, 9(2): 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404–437.Google Scholar
  48. Karna, A., Täube, F., & Sonderegger, P. 2013. Evolution of innovation networks across geographical and organizational boundaries: A study of R&D subsidiaries in the Bangalore IT cluster. European Management Review, 10(4): 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41–51.Google Scholar
  50. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 2000a. The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 268–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000b. Emerging market business groups, foreign investors and corporate governance. In R. Morck (Ed), Concentrated ownership 265–294. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 2000c. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 2010. Winning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  54. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 2011. Winning in emerging markets: Spotting and responding to institutional voids. World Financial Review, May–June: 18–20.Google Scholar
  55. Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G., & Bullock, R. 2010. Winning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  56. Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G., & Sinha, J. 2005. Strategies that fit emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 83(6): 4–19.Google Scholar
  57. Kim, Y., Li, H., & Li, S. 2014. Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
  58. Kim, Y., Park, M. S., & Wier, B. 2012. Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review, 87(3): 761–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Klapper, L. F., & Love, I. 2004. Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emerging markets. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(5): 703–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., & Alchian, A. A. 1978. Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2): 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kuppuswamy, V., Serafeim, G., & Villalonga, B. 2014. The effect of institutional factors on the value of corporate diversification. In B. Villalonga (Ed), Finance and strategy:, Advances in Strategic Management (Vol 31): 37–68. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  62. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(2): 471–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6): 1113–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Larcker, D. F., & Rusticus, T. O. 2010. On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(3): 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Leff, N. 1978. Industrial organization and entrepreneurship in the developing countries: The economic groups. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 26(4): 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Luo, X., Wang, H., Raithel, S., & Zheng, Q. 2015. Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Luo, Y. 2006. Political behavior, social responsibility, and perceived corruption: A structuration perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 747–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. 2007. Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Working Paper, Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  71. McLean, R. D., Zhang, T., & Zhao, M. 2012. Why does the law matter? Investor protection and its effects on investment, finance, and growth. Journal of Finance, 67(1): 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5): 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117–127.Google Scholar
  74. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. 2009. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1): 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Miller, D., Lee, J., Chang, S., & Le Breton-Miller, I. 2009. Filling the institutional void: The social behavior and performance of family vs non-family technology firms in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5): 802–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1988. Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20(1–2): 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Myers, S. C. 1977. Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2): 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–266.Google Scholar
  80. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Rynes, S. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. 1996. The association between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3): 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Peng, M. W., Lee, S. H., & Wang, D. 2005. What determines the scope of the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatedness. Academy of Management Review, 30(3): 622–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Penrose, E. T. 1995 [1959]. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Porter, M. E. 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2): 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12): 56–68.Google Scholar
  87. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2006. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 78–92.Google Scholar
  88. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2011. Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2): 62–77.Google Scholar
  89. Reeb, D., Sakakibara, M., & Mahmood, I. P. 2012. From the editors: Endogeneity in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3): 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Reeve, T. 1990. The firm as a nexus of internal and external contracts. In M. Aoki, B. Gustafson, & O. E. Williamson (Eds), The firm as a nexus of treaties 133–161. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  91. Ricart, J. E., Enright, M. J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S. L., & Khanna, T. 2004. New frontiers in international strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(3): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Robins, J. A. 1992. Organizational considerations in the evaluation of capital assets: Toward a resource-based view of strategic investment by firms. Organization Science, 3(4): 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rodriguez, P., Siegel, D. S., Hillman, A., & Eden, L. 2006. Three lenses on the multinational enterprise: Politics, corruption, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 733–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1): 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Saxton, T. 1997. The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2): 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shane, P. B., & Spicer, B. H. 1983. Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. The Accounting Review, 58(3): 521–538.Google Scholar
  99. Siegel, J. 2009. Is there a better commitment mechanism than cross-listings for emerging economy firms? Evidence from Mexico. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7): 1171–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Spicer, B. H. 1978. Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. The Accounting Review, 53(1): 94–111.Google Scholar
  101. Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. 2006. Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 850–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. 2010. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6): 463–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Teece, D. J. 1982. Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1): 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Waddock, S., & Graves, S. 1997. The corporate social performance financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D., & Javidan, M. 2006. Components of transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8): 1703–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wang, T., & Bansal, P. 2012. Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10): 1135–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Williamson, O. 1975. Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  109. Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  110. Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2): 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Windsor, D. 2001. “Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective”: Some comments. Academy of Management Review, 26(4): 502–504.Google Scholar
  112. Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 691–718.Google Scholar
  113. Wright, P., & Ferris, S. 1997. Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1): 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Yao, D. A. 1988. Beyond the reach of the invisible hand: Impediments to economic activity, market failures, and profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1): 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Young, S. L., & Makhija, M. V. 2014. Firms’ corporate social responsibility behavior: An integration of institutional and profit maximization approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7): 670–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zhang, M., Ma, L., Su, J., & Zhang, W. 2014. Do suppliers applaud corporate social responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4): 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Zhou, X. 2001. Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance: Comment. Journal of Financial Economics, 62(3): 559–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Campus Saint-Jean, University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Moore School of Business, University of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations