Abstract
Although agreement on the positive sign of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance is observed in the literature, the mechanisms that constitute this relationship are not yet well-known. We address this issue by extending management’s stakeholder theory by adding insights from psychology’s prospect decision theory and sociology’s resource dependence theory. Empirically, we analyze an extensive panel dataset, including information on disaggregated measures of social performance for the S&P 500 in the 1997–2002 period. In so doing, we enrich the extant literature by focusing on stakeholder heterogeneity, perceptional framing, and disaggregated measures of corporate social performance.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bhargava A., Franzini L., Narendranathan W. 1982. Serial Correlation and The Fixed Effects Model. Review of Economic Studies 49: 533–549
Casciaro T., Piskorski M. J. 2005. Power Imbalance, Mutual Dependence, and Constraint Absorption: A Closer Look at Resource Dependence Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 167–199
Clarkson M. B. E. 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92–117
Davis K. 1973. The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities . Academy of Management Journal 16: 312–322
Fombrun C., Shanley M. 1990. What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy Academy of Management Journal 33: 233–258
Forbes D. P., Miliken F. J. 1999. Cognition and Corporate Governance: Understanding Boards of Directors as Strategic Decision-Making Groups Academy of Management Review 24: 489–505
Fryxell G. E., Wang J. 1994. The Fortune Corporate ‹Reputation’ Index: Reputation for What? Journal of Management 20: 1–14
Godfrey P. C. 2005. The Relationship Between Corporate Philantropy and Shareholder Wealth: A Risk Management Perspective. Academy of Management Review 30: 777–798
Greve H. R. 2003. Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hambrick D. C., Mason P. A. 1984. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review 9: 193–206
Hillman A. J., Keim G. D. 2001. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s The Bottom Line? Strategic Management Journal 22: 125–139
Jawahar I. M., McLaughlin G. L. 2001. Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach. Academy of Management Review 26: 397–414
Kahneman D., Tversky A. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk Econometrica 47: 263–291
Margolis J. D., Walsh J. P. 2003. Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 268–305
McWilliams A., Siegel D. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review 26: 117–127
Orlitzky M. 2001. Does Firm Size Confound the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance? Journal of Business Ethics 33: 167–180
Orlitzky M., Schmidt F. L., Rynes S. L. 2003. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24: 403–441
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: 321–357
Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik: 1978. 'The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Reprint 2003 (Stanford University Press, Stanford)
Schmidt F. L. 1992. What Do Data Really Mean? American Psychologist 47: 1173–1181
Sharfman M. 1996. The Construct Validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg, & Domini Social Performance Ratings Data. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 287–296
Westphal J. D., Zajac E. J. 1994. Substance and Symbolism in CEOs’ Long-Term Incentive Plans. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 367–390
Westphal J. D., Zajac E. J. 1998. The Symbolic Management of Stockholders: Corporate Governance Reforms and Shareholder Reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly 43: 127–153
Wood D. J. 1991a. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review 16: 691–718
Wood D. J. 1991b. Social Issues in Management: Theory and Research in Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management 17: 383–406
Wood D. J., Jones R. E. 1995. Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3: 229–267
Zajac E. J., Westphal J. D. 1995. Accounting for The Explanations of CEO Compensation: Substance and symbolism Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 283–308
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Van der Laan, G., Van Ees, H. & Van Witteloostuijn, A. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: An Extended Stakeholder Theory, and Empirical Test with Accounting Measures. J Bus Ethics 79, 299–310 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9398-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9398-0