Individuals, groups, and government units have developed considerable interested in evaluating the social performance of corporations. Evaluating corporate social performance (CSP) is important for researchers investigating the relationship between different organizational measures and CSP and for stakeholders employing social performance information in their decision making models. To assess CSP, an aggregate measure of CSP which incorporates both an independent assessment of actual performance and the individual value judgements of the stakeholder is needed. In this study, we propose a methodology for the development of a systematic measure of CSP using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. This multi-criteria decision making technique allows for the conversion of a multidimensional scale to a unidimensional scale, enabling analysis/comparison of companies both within the same industry and across industries. The technique is illustrated by developing a measure of CSP using several types of managers. The results indicate that there are large rank changes when individual value judgements are incorporated using relative importance weights.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, W.F., & Monsen, R. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosure as a method of measuring corporate social involvement, Academy of Management Journal, 22: 501–515.
2.
Alexander, G., & Buchholz, R. (1978). Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 479-486.
3.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1977). The Measurement of Corporate Social Performance, New York: AICPA.
4.
Anderson, J.C., & Frankle, A.W. (1980). Voluntary social reporting: An iso-beta portfolio analysis. The Accounting Review, 55: 467–479.
5.
Aupperle, K., Carroll, A., & Hatfield, J. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability, Academy of Management Journal, 28: 446–463.
6.
Arrington, C.E., Jensen, R.E., & Tokutani, M. (1982). Scaling of corporate multivariate performance criteria: Subjective composition versus the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 1: 95–123.
7.
Belkaoui, A., & Karpik, P.G. (1989). Determinants of Corporate Decision to Disclose Social Information. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 2: 36–51.
8.
Bhambri, A., & Sonnenfeld, J. (1988). Organization structure and corporate social performance: A field study in two contrasting industries, Academy of Management Journal, 31: 642–662.
9.
Bragdon, J. H., & Marlin, J.A. (1972). “Is Pollution Profitable?”Risk Management, 19: 9–18.
10.
Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance, Academy of Management Review, 4: 497–505.
11.
Cascio, W.F. (1981). Applied Psychology and Personnel Management. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall.
Chen, K.H., & Metcalf, R.W. (1984). The relationship between pollution control record and financial indicators revisited. The Accounting Review, 55: 168–177.
14.
Committee for Economic Development (1971). Social Responsibility of business corporations, CED, New York.
15.
Conine, T.F., & Madden, G.P. (1986). Corporate social responsibility and investment value, In W.D. Guth (Ed.) Handbook of Business Strategy 1986/1987 Yearbook. Boston, MA: Warren, Gorham & Lamont.
16.
David, H.A. (1988). The method of paired comparisons. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
Dobson, J. (1989). Corporate reputation: A free-market solution to unethical behavior. Business and Society, 28: 1–5.
18.
Dyer, J.S. (1990a). Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process, Management Science, 36: 249–258.
19.
Dyer, J.S. (1990b). A clarification of ’Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process.’Management Science, 36: 274–275.
20.
Epstein, M. (1993, April). The expanding role of accountants in society. Management Accountant, 22–26.
21.
Ernst & Ernst, (1973). Social Responsibility Disclosure, 1973 Survey., Cleveland, OH.
22.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy, Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233–258.
23.
Freedman, N., & Jaggi, B. (1982). “Pollution disclosures, pollution performance, and economic performance,”The International Journal of Management Science, 10: 167–176.
24.
Fryxell, G.E., & Wang, J. (1994). The Fortune corporate ‘reputation’ index: Reputation for what?Journal of Management, 20: 1–14.
25.
Harker, P.T., & Vargas, L.G. (1990). Reply to ’Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process’ by J.S. Dyer, Management Science, 36: 269–273.
26.
Harte, G., Lewis L., & Owen, D. (1991). Ethical investment and the corporate reporting function, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2: 227–253.
27.
IMSL (1989). Stat/library Fortran subroutines for statistical analyses (Vol. 3). Houston, TX: Problem Solving Software Systems.
28.
Ingram, R.W., & Frazier, K.B. (1976). Environmental performance and corporate disclosure, Journal of Accounting Research, 18: 614–622.
29.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica, 47: 263–291.
30.
Kedia, B.L., & Kuntz, E.C. (1981). The context of social performance: An empirical study of Texas banks. In L.E. Preston (Eds.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy (Vol. 3). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
31.
Kurtz, L., Lydenberg, S., & Kinder, P.D. (1992). The Domini social index: A new benchmark for social investors, In P. Kinder, S. Lydenberg & A. Domini, (Eds.), Social lnvestment Almanac. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
32.
McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, 31: 854–872.
33.
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magic number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on capacity for processing information, Psychological Review, 63: 81-97.
34.
Mintzer, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation, Management Science, 24: 934-948.
35.
Moskowitz, M. (1972). Choosing socially responsible stocks, Business and Society, 11: 71–75.
36.
Moskowitz, M. (1975). Profiles in corporate social responsibility, Business and Society, 13: 29–42.
37.
Nachmias, D., & Nachmias, C. (1987). Research Methods in the Social Sciences, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
38.
Preston, L.E., & Sapienza, H.J. (1990). Stakeholder management and corporate performance, The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19: 361–375.
39.
Rockness, J., & Williams, P.F. (1988). A descriptive study of social responsibility Mutual Funds, Accounting, Organization and Society, 13: 397–411.
40.
Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, New York: McGraw Hill.
41.
Saaty, T.L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process, Management Science, 32: 841–855.
42.
Saaty, T.L. (1990). An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper ’Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process,’Management Science, 36: 259–268.
43.
Schmidt, F.L., & Kaplan, L.B. (1971). Composite versus multiple criteria: A review and resolution of the controversy, Personnel Psychology, 24: 419–434.
44.
Sharfman, M. (1993). A construct validity study of the KLD social performance ratings data, International Association for Business and Society 1993 Proceedings.
45.
Shim, J.P. (1989). Bibliographical research on the analytic hierarchy process, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 23: 161–167.
46.
Spencer, B.A., & Taylor, G.S. (1987). A within and between analysis of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance, Akron Business and Economic Review, 18: 7–18.
47.
Ullmann, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms, Academy of Management Review, 10: 540–557.
48.
Vance, S. (1975). Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks?Management Review, 64: 18–24.
49.
Wartick, S.L., & Cochran, P.L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model, Academy of Management Review, 10: 758–769.
50.
Winkler, R.L. (1990). Decision modeling and rational choice: AHP and utility theory, Management Science, 36: 247–248.
51.
Wokutch, R.E., & Fahey, L. (1986). A value explicit approach for evaluating corporate social performance, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 5: 191–214.
52.
Wood, D. (1991a). Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of Management Review, 16: 691–718.
53.
Wood, D. (1991b). Social issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social performance, Journal of Management, 17: 383–406.
54.
Wood, D. (1991c). Toward improving corporate social performance, Business Horizons, 34: 66-73.
