Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data

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

Abstract

Carroll (1991) encouraged researchers in Social Issues Management (SIM) to continue to measure Corporate Social Performance (CSP) from a variety of different perspectives utilizing a variety of different measures. In addition, Wolfe and Aupperle (1991) (and others) have asserted that there is no, single best way to measure CSP and that multiple measures and perspectives help develop the field. However, Pfeffer (1993) suggest that a lack of consistent measurement has constrained organization studies (and by implication, the field of social issues management,) in its development as a field. It may be in the best interest of social issues management researchers to try to development a common body of measures and data. Recently, Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini & Co. (KLD — a social choice investment advisory firm) has made available their social performance database. The KLD data have potential to become a widely accepted set of CSP measures. The purpose of this paper is to present a construct validity study comparing the KLD data to other measures of CSP.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  • Aupperle, K. E.: 1984, ‘An Empirical Measure of Corporate Social Performance’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 6, 627: 654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E.: 1991, ‘The Use of Forced Choice Survey Procedures in Assessing Corporate Social Orientation’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 269: 279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H. and M. Haire: 1975, ‘A Strategic Posture toward Corporate Social Responsibility’, California Management Review 18(2), 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1979, ‘A Three Dimensional Model of Corporate Social Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4, 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Measurement: A Comment on Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 385–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K. H. and R. W. Metcalf: 1980, ‘The Relationship between Pollution Control Record and Financial Indicators Revisited’, Accounting Review 55, 168–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, H. and F. Nutt: 1975, ‘A Note on Social Responsibility and Stock Valuation’, Academy of Management Journal 18, 155–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J. and R. S. Burt: 1991, ‘Interorganizational Contagion in Corporate Philanthropy’, Administrative Science Quarterly 36(1), 88–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. B. and S. A. Waddock: 1993, ‘Institutional Owners and Corporate Social Performance: Maybe Not So Myopic After All’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society — San Diego.

  • Kerlinger, F. N.: 1986, Foundations of Behavioral Research (Holt, Rinehard & Winston, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, L. D. and G. E. Fryxell: 1988, ‘An Empirical Study of the Predictors of Corporate Social Performance’, Journal of Business Ethics 7(12), 951–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lydenberg, S., A. T. Marlin and S. Strubb: 1985, Rating America's Corporate Conscience (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 31(4), 854–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Neil, H. M., C. B. Saunders and A. D. McCarthy: 1988, ‘Board Members, Corporate Social Responsiveness and Profitability: Are Tradeoffs Necessary?’, Journal of Business Ethics 8(5), 353–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J.: 1993, ‘Barriers to the Advancement of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable’, Academy of Management Review 18(4), 599–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkston, T. S. and A. B. Carroll (Forthcoming), ‘Corporate Citizenship Perspectives and Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.’, Journal of Business Ethics.

  • Ruf, B., K. Muralidhar and K. Paul: 1993, ‘Eight Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: Determination of Relative Importance Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process’, Best Papers Proceedings, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Atlanta.

  • Schwab, D. P.: 1980, ‘Construct Validity in Organizational Behavior’, in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior 2, 3–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, B. A. and G. S. Taylor: 1987, ‘A Within and Between Analysis of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance’, Akron Business and Economic Review 18(3), 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, B. H.: 1978, ‘Investors, Corporate Social Performance and Information Disclosure: An Empirical Study’, Accounting Review 53, 94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. and B. S. Coffey: 1992, ‘Board Composition and Corporate Philanthropy’, Journal of Business Ethics 11(10), 771–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L.: 1992, ‘The Relationship between Intense Media Exposure and Change in Corporate Reputation’, Business and Society 31(1), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. P.: 1985, Basic Content Analysis (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wokutch, R. E. and E. W. McKinney: 1991, ‘Behavioral and Perceptual Measures of Corporate Social Performance’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 309–330.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wokutch, R. E. and B. A. Spencer: 1987, ‘Corporate Saints and Sinners: The Effects of Philanthropic and Illegal Activity on Organizational Performance’, California Management Review 29, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R.: 1991, ‘The Uses of Content Analysis to Assess Corporate Social Responsibility’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 281–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R. and K. Aupperle: 1991, ‘Introduction to Corporate Social Performance: Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct’, in L. E. Post (ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy V12, 265–268.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Division of Management, University of Oklahoma, 73019-0450, Norman, OK, USA

    Mark Sharfman

Authors
  1. Mark Sharfman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Mark P. Sharfman is Assistant Professor of Strategic Management at the University of Oklahoma. His research interests are in corporate social performance, the firm/business environment relationship and measurement issues. He has published his research in the Academy of Management Review, Decision Sciences, Journal of Management and the Strategic Management Journal. He is a member the Academy of Management, International Association for Business and Society and Strategic Management Society.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sharfman, M. The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. J Bus Ethics 15, 287–296 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382954

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382954

Keywords

Search

Navigation