Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Business Reputation and Labor Efficiency, Productivity, and Cost

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

Abstract

Assumed benefits from improved reputation are often used as motives to drive corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Are improved cost efficiencies among these reputation benefits? Cost efficiencies and cost management have become more relevant as revenue streams dry up in these tough economic times. Can a good reputation aid these efforts to develop cost efficiencies specifically when managing labor costs? Prior research hypothesizes that good reputation can create labor productivity and efficiency benefits. The purpose of this study is to empirically investigate reputation’s relationship with labor efficiency, labor productivity, and labor cost. Using a sample of highly reputable firms from Fortune’s America’s Most Admired Companies list and a corresponding matched sample of firms, we find that reputation is associated with improved labor efficiency and labor productivity. However, we do not find a significant association between reputation and reduced labor costs. Our study contributes to current research hypothesizing and finding efficiency benefits associated with good reputation. Documenting these potential reputation benefits has important implications for CSR activities and initiatives. It supports recent work that incorporates reputation into a more developed model of the relationship between CSR and performance (Vilanova et al.: 2009, Journal of Business Ethics 87, 57–69). This work is useful to businesses and supports strategies focused on “doing well by doing good” and maintaining healthy reputations.

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

References

  • Allouche, J. and Laroche, P.: 2005, ‘A Meta-Anaytical Investigation of the Relatinship between Corporate Social and Financial Performance’, Revue De Gestion Des Ressources Humaines 57, 18-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. and Smith, G.N.: 2006, ‘A Great Company can be a Great Investment’, Financial Analysts Journal 62(4), 86-93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R.D., Lee, S. and Potter, G.: 1996, ‘A Field Study of the Impact of a Performance-Based Incentive Plan’, Journal of Accounting & Economics 21(2), 195-226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R.D., Lee, S., Potter, G. and Srinivasan, D.: 2000, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Continuing Improvements Following the Implementation of a Performance-Based Compensation Plan’, Journal of Accounting & Economics 30(3), 315-350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. and Roth, K.: 2000, ‘Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness’, Academy of Management Journal 43(4), 717-736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J.: 1991, ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, Journal of Management 17(1), 99-120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, A.K., Lal, R., Srinivasan, V. and Staelin, R.: 1985, ‘Salesforce Compensation Plans: An Agency Theoretic Perspective’, Marketing Science 4(4), 267-291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beurden, P. and 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 

  • Blinder, A.J. (ed.): 1990, Paying for Productivity. A Look at the Evidence. (Washington D.C., The Brookings Institution).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, M. and Milkovich, G.T.: 1998, ‘Relationships among Risk, Incentive Pay, and Organizational Performance’, Academy of Management Journal 41(3), 283-297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S.E. and Sprinkle, G.B.: 2002, ‘The Effects of Monetary Incentives on Effort and Task Performance: Theories, Evidence, and a Framework for Research’, Accounting, Organizations & Society 27(4/5), 303-345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.B.: 1979, ‘A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, Academy of Management Review 4(4), 497-505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, A., Simkins, B. and Simpson, W.: 2003, ‘Corporate Governance, Board Diversity, and Firm Value’, The Financial Review 38, 33-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey, B., Metcalf, H. and Millward, N.: 1997, Employers’ use of Flexible Labor. (London, Policy Studies Institute).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chand, M. and Fraser, S.: 2006, ‘The Relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance: Industry Type as a Boundary Condition’, The Business Review, Cambridge 5(1), 240-245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. and Rhodes, E.: 1978, ‘Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units’, European Journal of Operational Research 2, 429-444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, A.: 1997, ‘Flexible Labor: Restructuring the American Work Force’, Monthly Labor Review 120(8), 3-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities: 2001, Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility.

  • Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M. and Tone, K.: 2000, Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. (Boston, MA, Kulwer Academic Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Damodaran, A.: 2003, In Search of Excellence! Are Good Companies Good Investments? Working Paper, New York University.

  • De Bakker, F., Groenewegen, P. and Den Hond, F.: 2005, ‘A Bibliometric Analysis of 30 Years of Research and Theory on Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Performance’, Business & Society 44(3), 283-317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I. and Cool, K.: 1989, ‘Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage’, Management Science 35, 1504-1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, G.R.: 2001, Creating Corporate Reputations. (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J.: 1998, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New Society Publishers, Stony Creek, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, Y.: 2005, ‘Ethical Branding and Corporate Reputation’, Corporate Communications 10(4), 341-350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C.: 1996, Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M.: 1990, ‘What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy’, Academy of Management Journal 33(2), 233-258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R.H.: 1985, Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status. (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeland, M.S., Anderson, G.F. and Schendler, C.: 1979, ‘National Input Price Index’, Health Care Financing Review 1(1), 37-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E.: 1999, ‘Divergent Stakeholder Theory’, Academy of Management Review 24(2), 233-236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J.: 1999, ‘Stakeholder Influence Strategies’, Academy of Management Review 24(2), 191-205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gössling, T. and Vocht, C.: 2007, ‘Social Role Conceptions and CSR Policy Success’, Journal of Business Ethics 74(4), 363-372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grey, B.: 1996, “Cross-Sectoral Partners: Collaborative Alliances among Business, Government and Communities”, in C. Huxham (ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage (London, Sage Publications).

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. and Mahon, J.: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate: Twenty Five Years of Incomparable Research’, Journal of Business and Society 36(1), 5-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groppelli, A.A. and Nikbakht, E.: 2000, Finance. 4th edition Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, M. and Jones, M.T.: 2006, ‘The Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Review’, The Business Review, Cambridge 5(2), 245-251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K.: 1989, ‘Strategic Intent’, Harvard Business Review 3, 63-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J.S. and Freeman, R.E.: 1999, ‘Stakeholders, Social Responsibility and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 479-485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herremans, I.M., Akathaporn, P. and McInnes, M.: 1993, ‘An Investigation of Corporate Social Responsibility and Economic Performance’, Accounting, Organizations & Society 18(7), 587-604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D., Rogovsky, N. and Dunfee, T.W.: 2002, ‘The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement: Corporate Social Initiatives’, California Management Review 44(2), 110-125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holme, L. and Watts, R.: 1999, Making Good Business Sense (The World Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva).

    Google Scholar 

  • Humble, J., Jackson, D. and Thomson, A.: 1994, ‘The Strategic Power of Corporate Values’, Long Range Planning 27(6), 28-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M.: 1995, ‘Instrumental Stakeholder Theory’, The Academy of Management Review 20(2), 404-437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A.C.: 1999, ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’, The Academy of Management Review 24(2), 206-221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner, B.E. and Payne, D.: 2002, ‘Evolution and Implementation: A Study of Values, Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 41, 297-311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juholin, E.: 2004, ‘For Business or the Good of all? A Finnish Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility’, Corporate Governance 4(3), 20-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, J.: 1993, Foundations of Corporate Success (Oxford University Press, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Landon, S. and Smith, C.E.: 1997, ‘Indicators by Consumers: The Case of Bordeaux Wine’, Journal of Consumer Policy 20(3), 289-323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazear, E.P.: 2000, ‘Performance Pay and Productivity’, American Economic Review 90(5), 1346-1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, R. M., R. Ruback and H. Tehranian: 1996, Does Corporate Quality Matter? Working Paper, Suffolk University.

  • McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D.: 2001, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective’, Academy of Management Review 26(1), 117-128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, J.M. and Pinker, E.J.: 2001, ‘Contingent Labor Contracting Under Demand and Supply Uncertainty’, Management Science 47(8), 1046-1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H.: 1993, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. (New York, Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayar, N. and Willinger, G.L.: 2001, ‘Financial Implications of the Decision to Increase Reliance on Contingent Labor’, Decision Sciences 32(4), 661-681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolai, L. A., J. D. Bazley and R. L. Brummet: 1976, The Measurement of Corporate Environmental Activity (National Association of Accountants, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., F. L. Schmidt and S. L. Rynes: 2003, “Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis”. Organization Studies (01708406) 24(3), 403–441.

  • Pinker, E.J. and Larson, R.C.: 2003, ‘Optimizing the use of Contingent Labor when Demand is Uncertain’, European Journal of Operational Research 144(1), 39-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J.M.: 1993, ‘A Status-Based Model of Market Competition’, American Journal of Sociology 98, 829-872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polivka, A.E.: 1996, ‘Contingent and Alternative Work Arrangements, Defined’, Monthly Labor Review 119(10), 3-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polivka, A.E. and Nardone, T.: 1989, ‘On the Definition of `contingent Work.’’, Monthly Labor Review 112(12), 9-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E.: 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. (New York, Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R.: 2006, ‘Strategy and Society: The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review 84(12), 78-92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. and Van Der Linde, C.: 1995, ‘Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate’, Harvard Business Review 73(5), 120-134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. and O’Bannon, D.P.: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis’, Business & Society 36(4), 419-429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruzan, P.: 2001, ‘The Question of Organizational Consciousness: Can Organizations have Values, Virtues and Visions?’, Journal of Business Ethics 29(3), 271-284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, R.C.: 1990, ‘Compensating Heterogeneous Salesforces: Some Explicit Solutions’, Marketing Science 9(4), 319-341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P.W. and Dowling, G.R.: 2002, ‘Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance’, Strategic Management Journal 23(12), 1077-1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, R.M., Hayibor, S. and Agle, B.R.: 1999, ‘The Relationship between Social and Financial Performance’, Business & Society 38(1), 109-125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosett, J.: 2001, ‘Equity Risk and the Labor Stock: The Case of Union Contracts’, Journal of Accounting Research 39(2), 337-364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosett, J.: 2003, ‘Labour Leverage, Equity Risk and Corporate Policy Choice’, European Accounting Review 12(4), 699-732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnietz, K.E. and Epstein, M.J.: 2005, ‘Exploring the Financial Value of Reputation for Corporate Responsibility during a Crisis’, Corporate Reputation Review 7(4), 327-345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C.: 1983, ‘Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 98, 659-679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sison, A.J.G.: 2000, ‘The Culutural Dimension of Codes of Corporate Governance: A Focus on the Olivencia Report’, Journal of Business Ethics 27, 181-192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N.C.: 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether Or how?’, California Management Review 45(4), 52-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroh, L.K., Brett, J.M., Baumann, J.P. and Reilly, A.H.: 1996, ‘Agency Theory and Variable Pay Compensation Strategies’, Academy of Management Journal 39(3), 751-767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuebs, M.T. and Sun, L.: 2009, ‘Corporate Reputation and Technical Efficiency: Evidence from the Chemical and Business Services Industries’, Journal of Applied Business Research 25(5), 21-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A. and Sheffrin, S.M.: 2003, Economics: Principles in Action. (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sum, N. and Ngai, P.: 2005, ‘Globalization and Paradoxes of Ethical Transnational Production: Code of Conduct in Chinese Workplace’, Competition & Change 9(2), 181-200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. and Arenas, D.: 2009, ‘Exploring the Nature of the Relationship between CSR and Competitiveness’, Journal of Business Ethics 87, 57-69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J.A., Rubin, P.A. and Callahan, T.J.: 1988, ‘Incentive Payment and Nonmanagerial Productivity: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis of Magnitude and Trend’, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 42(1), 47-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, K. and L. Smith: 2008, Does Corporate Reputation Translate into Higher Market Value? Working Paper, Texas Southern University.

  • Whetten, D. A., G. Rands and P. Godfrey: 2001, What are the Responsibilities of Business in Society? In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas and R. Whittington (eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management (London, Sage)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D.J.: 1991, ‘Corporate Social Performance Revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691-718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M.: 2006, ‘Corporate Social Performance, Corporate Financial Performance, and Firm Size: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of American Academy of Business 8(1), 163-171.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baylor University, Waco, TX, U.S.A.

    Marty Stuebs

  2. Ball State University, Muncie, IN, U.S.A.

    Li Sun

Authors
  1. Marty Stuebs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marty Stuebs.

Additional information

Data availability: All data used in this study are available from public sources.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stuebs, M., Sun, L. Business Reputation and Labor Efficiency, Productivity, and Cost. J Bus Ethics 96, 265–283 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0464-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0464-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation