Prior studies of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firms' financial results have produced inconsistent results. This study reexamined the relationship using multiple measures of 110 firms' financial performance. The traditional measures of performance provide inconsistent results across different economic environmental contexts. An alternative performance measure based on stakeholders' response was tested. The results of testing this measure were consistent across the two contexts.
References
1.
AbbottW. F.MonsenJ. R. (1979) On the measurement of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 501–515.
2.
AckermanR. W. (1973) How companies respond to social demands. Harvard Business Review, 51, 88–98.
3.
AldrichH. E. (1979) Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
AlexanderG. J.BuchholzR. A. (1978) Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 479–486.
5.
ArlowP.GannonM. J. (1982) Social responsiveness, corporate structure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 7, 235–241.
6.
AstleyW. G. (1984) Toward an appreciation of collective strategy. Academy of Management Review, 9, 526–535.
7.
AupperleK. E.CarrollA. B.HatfieldJ. D. (1985) An empirical investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446–463.
8.
BrighamE. F. (1985) Financial management. New York: Dryden.
9.
BrittainJ. W.FreemanJ. H. (1980) Organizational proliferation and density dependent selection. In KimberlyJ. R.MilesR. H. (Eds.), The organization life cycle. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 291–338.
10.
BromileyP.MarcusA. (1989) The deterrent to dubious corporate behavior: Profitability, probability and safety recalls. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 233–250.
11.
CameronK. S.WhettenD. A.KimM. U. (1987) Organizational dysfunctions of decline. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 126–138.
12.
CastrogiovanniG. J. (1991) Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 16, 542–565.
13.
CertoS. C. (1992) Modern management. (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
ChakravarthyB. S. (1982) Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7, 35–44.
CochranP. L.WoodR. A. (1984) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42–56.
17.
DessG. G.BeardD. W. (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52–73.
18.
DillW. (1958) Environments as an influence on managerial autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 409–443.
19.
DonaldsonG.LorschJ. (1983) Decision making at the top: The shaping of strategic direction. New York: Basic Books.
20.
FombrunC.ShanleyM. (1990) What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.
21.
GatewoodR. D.CarrollA. B. (1991) Assessment of ethical performance of organization members: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 16, 667–690.
22.
GinsbergA.VenkatramanN. (1985) Contingency perspectives on organizational strategy: A critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 421–434.
23.
HansenG. S.WernerfeltB. (1989) Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 399–411.
24.
HayR.GrayE. (1974) Social responsibility of management. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 136–145.
25.
HuffA. S. (1980) Evocative metaphors. Human Systems Management, 1, 219–228.
26.
McGuireJ. B.SundgrenA.SchneeweisT. (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872.
27.
MoskowitzM. (1972) Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business and Society, 1, 71–75.
28.
MoskowitzM. (1975) Profiles in corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 13, 29–42.
29.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978) The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
30.
QuinnJ.MintzbergH.JamesR. (1987) The strategy process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
31.
SproutA. L. (1991) America's most admired corporations. Fortune, 123 (No. 3, February 11), 52.
32.
StarikM.CarrollA. B. (1990) In search of beneficence: Reflections on the connections between firm social and financial performance. International Association for Business and Society Proceedings1990. Pp. 1–15.
33.
SteinerG. A.SteinerJ. F. (1991) Business, government, and society: A managerial perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.
34.
SturdivantF. D.GinterJ. L. (1977) Corporate social responsiveness. California Management Review, 19, 30–39.
UllmannA. (1985) Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540–577.
37.
VanceS. (1975) Are socially responsible firms good investment risks?Management Review, 64, 18–24.
38.
VenkatramanN.RamanujamV. (1987) Measurement of business economic performance: An examination of method convergence. Journal of Management, 13, 109–122.
39.
WartickS. L. (1988) How issues management contributes to corporate performance. Business Forum, 13(2), 16–22.
40.
WernerS. B. (1992) The movement for reforming American business ethics: A twenty-year perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 61–70.
41.
WokutchR. E.SpencerB. A. (1987) Corporate saints and sinners: The effects of philanthropic and illegal activity on organizational performance. California Management Review, 29, 77–88.
42.
WooC. Y. Y.WillardG. (1983) Performance representation in business policy research: Discussion and recommendation. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual National Meetings of the Academy of Management, Dallas.
43.
WoodD. J. (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.
