Corporate social performance (CSP) has been a prominent concept in the management literature dealing with the social role and impacts of the corporation; it has been promulgated as a unifying paradigm for the field. However, the concept of CSP is still lacking strong theoretical foundations and empirical validity, suggesting that the paradigmatic status of CSP might be lost. In this paper, the authors draw on Hirsch and Levin’s (1999) life cycle approach to explore the development of CSP as a concept, explain why it has so recurrently failed to deliver on these dimensions, and offer possible routes for future research that may potentially ameliorate this problem.
Agle, B.R., & Kelley, P.C. ( 2001). Ensuring validity in the measurement of Corporate Social Performance: lessons from Corporate United Way and PAC campaigns. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 271-284.
2.
Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K., & Sonnefeld, J.A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507-525.
3.
Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. ( 2005). A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de Gestion des Res-sources Humaines, 57, 18-41.
4.
Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B., & Hatfield, J.D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability . Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
5.
de Bakker, G.A., Groenwegen, P., & 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.
6.
Barnett, M.L. ( 2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794-816.
7.
Berthelot, J.-M. ( 2001). Epistémologie des sciences sociales [Social sciences epistemology]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
8.
Callon, M., & Muniesa, F. ( 2005). Economic markets as calculated and calculative devices . Organization Studies, 26(8), 1229-1250.
9.
Carroll, A.B. ( 1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
10.
Carroll, A.B. ( 1994). Social issues in management research. Expert’s view, analysis and commentary. Business & Society, 33(1), 5-9.
11.
Carroll, A.B. ( 1999). Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
12.
Chatterji, A., & Levine, D. ( 2006). Breaking down the wall of codes: Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. California Management Review, 48(2), 29-51.
13.
Cheit, E.F. ( 1978). What is the field of Business & Society and where is it going? In E. Epstein & D. Votaw (Eds.), Rationality, legitimacy and responsibility: the search for new directions in Business & Society (pp. 183-202). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing.
14.
Clarkson, M.B.E. ( 1991). Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: The stakeholder management model. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy (pp. 331-358). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
15.
Clarkson, M.B.E. ( 1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review , 20(1), 92-117.
16.
Déjean, F., Gond, J.-P., & Leca, B. ( 2004). Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emergent industry. Human Relations, 57(6), 740-765.
17.
Donaldson, T. ( 1994). When integration fails: The logic of prescription and description in business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly , 4(2), 157-170.
18.
Donaldson, T. ( 1999). Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 237-241.
19.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. ( 1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
20.
Entine, J. ( 2003). The myth of social investing. A critique of its practice and consequence for corporate social performance research. Organization and Environment, 16(3), 352-368.
21.
Epstein, E., & Votaw, D. (Eds.). (1978). Rationality, legitimacy and responsibility: the search for new directions in Business & Society . Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing .
22.
Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R.I. ( 2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8-24.
23.
Frederick, W.C. ( 1978). From CSR 1 to CSR 2: The maturing of Business and Society thought, (Working Paper). Pittsburgh, PA: Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.
Friedman, M. ( 1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 33, 122-126.
26.
Gerde, V.W., & Wokutch, R.E. ( 1998). 25 years and going strong. A content analysis of the first 25 years of the Social Issues in Management Division Proceedings. Business & Society, 37(4), 414-446.
27.
Ghoshal, S. ( 2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75-91.
28.
Gond, J.-P. ( 2001). L’éthique est-elle profitable? [Are ethics profitable?]Revue Française de Gestion, 136, 77-85.
29.
Gond, J.-P., & Matten, D. ( 2007, August). Capturing the corporation-society interface: Toward a pluralistic view of CSR. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.
30.
Griffin, J.J., & Mahon, J.F. ( 1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate. Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5-31.
31.
Harrison, J.S., & Freeman, R.E. ( 1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 42(5), 479-485.
32.
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.
33.
Hirsch, P.M., & Levin, D.Z. ( 1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10(2), 199-212.
34.
Husted, B.W. ( 2000). A contingency theory of corporate social performance . Business & Society, 39(1), 24-48.
35.
Husted, B.W., & Allen, D.B. ( 2001, August). Toward a model of corporate social strategy formulation . Paper presented at the Academy of Management , Washington, DC.
36.
Igalens, J., & Gond, J.-P. ( 2005). Measuring Corporate Social Performance in France: A critical and empirical analysis of ARESE data. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 131-148.
37.
Jensen, M.C. ( 2001). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8-21.
38.
Jones, T.M. ( 1983). An integrating framework for research in business and society. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 559-665.
39.
Jones, M.T. ( 1996). Missing the forest for the trees. A critique of the social responsibility concept and discourse. Business & Society , 35(1), 7-41.
40.
Johnson R.A., & Greening, D.W. (1999). The effect of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance . Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564-576.
41.
Khun, T.S. ( 1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
Lewis, M.W. ( 2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide . Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
43.
Lockett, A., & McWilliams, A. (2005). The balance of trade between disciplines: Do we effectively manage knowledge? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(2), 139-150.
44.
Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. ( 2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115-136.
45.
Margolis, J.D., Elfenbein, H.A., & Walsh, J.P. ( 2007, August). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance . Paper presented at the Academy of Management , Philadelphia.
46.
Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. ( 2001a). Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives by business? (Working Paper 01-058). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
47.
Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. ( 2001b). People and profits? The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. ( 2003). Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives by business? Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
49.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. ( 2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166-179.
50.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. ( 2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal , 21(5), 603-609.
51.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. ( 2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
52.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., & Wright, M. ( 2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications . Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18.
53.
Mitnick, B.M. ( 1993). Organizing research in corporate social performance: The CSP system as core paradigm. In J. Pasquero & D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the International Association for Business and Society (pp. 2-15). San Diego, CA: International Association for Business and Society.
54.
Mitnick, B.M. ( 1995). Systematics and CSR. The theory and processes of normative referencing. Business & Society, 34(1), 5-33.
55.
Mitnick, B.M. ( 2000). Commitment, revelation and the testament of belief: the metrics of measurement of CSP. Business & Society, 39(4), 419-465.
56.
Newton, T., & Harte, G. ( 1997). Green business: Technicist kitsch? Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 75-98.
57.
Orlitzky, M. ( 2007). Doing well by doing good: Objective findings, subjective assumptions, or selective amplification?Best paper proceedings of the annual meeting of the academy of management [CD]. Philadelphia: Academy of Management.
58.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., & Rynes, S.L. ( 2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis . Organization Studies, 24(3): 103-441.
59.
van Oosterhout, J.H., & Heugens, P.P.M.R. (2008). Much ado about nothing. A conceptual critique of CSR. In A. Crane , A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel, The Oxford handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 197-224). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
60.
Poole, M.S., & Van De Ven, A.H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.
61.
Porter, T.M. ( 1996a). Making things quantitative. In M. Power (Ed.), Accounting and science, natural inquiry and commercial reason (pp. 36-56). New York: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Porter, T.M. ( 1996b). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
63.
Power, M. ( 2004). Counting, control and measurement: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765-783.
64.
Preston, L.E. ( 1975). Corporation and society. The search for a paradigm. Journal of Economic Literature, 13(2), 434-454.
65.
Preston, L.E., & O’Bannon, D.P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship. A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429.
66.
Putnam, H. ( 2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy, and other essays . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
Roman, R.M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B.R. ( 1999). The relationship between social and financial performance . Repainting a portrait. Business & Society, 38(4), 109-125.
68.
Rowley, T.J., & Berman, S.2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397-418.
69.
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.
70.
Schepers, D.H., & Sethi, S.P. ( 2003). Do socially responsible funds actually deliver what they promise? Bridging the gap between the promise and performance of socially responsible funds. Business and Society Review, 108(1), 11-32.
71.
Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. ( 2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096-1120.
72.
Sethi, S.P. ( 1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63-75.
73.
Swanson, D.L. ( 1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the Corporate Social Performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 43-64.
74.
Swanson, D.L. ( 1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 506-521.
75.
Tirole, J. ( 2001). Corporate governance. Econometrica, 69(1), 1-36.
76.
Treviño, L.K., & Weaver, G.R.1994. Business ETHICS/BUSINESS ethics: One field or two? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2): 113-128.
77.
Ullmann, A. ( 1985). Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(1/2), 540-557.
78.
Victor, B., & Stephens, C.U. (1994). Business ethics: A synthesis of normative philosophy and empirical science. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 145-155
79.
Vogel, D. ( 2005). The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings institution Press.
80.
Waddock, S.A. ( 2003). Myths and realities of social investing. Organization and Environment, 16(3), 369-380.
81.
Waddock, S.A. ( 2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109(1), 5-42.
82.
Waddock, S.A., & Graves, S.B. ( 1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.
83.
Waddock, S.A., & Mahon, J. ( 1991). Corporate social performance revisited: dimensions of efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency. In E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 12, 231-262.
84.
Walsh, J.P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J.D. (2003). Social issues and management: Our lost cause found. Journal of Management, 29(6), 859-882.
85.
Wartick, S.L., & Cochran, P.L. ( 1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model . Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758-769.
86.
Weaver, G.R., Treviño, L.K., & Cochran, P.L. ( 1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices . Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539-552.
87.
Werhane, P.H. ( 1994). The normative/descriptive distinction in methodologies of business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 175-180.
88.
Windsor, D. ( 2001). The future of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(3), 225-256.
89.
Wokutch, R.E., & McKinney, E.W. (1991). Behavioral and perceptual measures of corporate social performance. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (pp. 309-330). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
90.
Wood, D.J. ( 1991a). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691-718.
91.
Wood, D.J. ( 1991b). Toward improving Corporate Social Performance. Business Horizons, 34(4), 66-73.
92.
Wood, D.J., & Jones, R.E. ( 1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research in corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267.
