Deep-diving into the relationship between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial PerformanceA comprehensive investigation of previous research

  1. David Robles-Elorza 1
  2. Leire San-Jose 1
  3. Sara Urionabarrenetxea 1
  1. 1 University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Spain
Revista:
European Research on Management and Business Economics

ISSN: 2444-8834

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 29

Número: 2

Páginas: 1-12

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1016/J.IEDEEN.2022.100209 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: European Research on Management and Business Economics

Resumen

Corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) have been studied widely in the last fifteen years. These major efforts in research and publication might have been expected to produce aligned results but is it not the case; this paper aims to study why there is no consensus among them. By using the bibliometric data obtained from Scopus, this paper looks at four bibliometric indicators (journals, authors, countries, areas) for published work. We look for papers between 1977 and 2018 and identify a total of 371. The findings reveal that there are at least five key journals publishing in CSP-CFP relationship. There is a lack of co-occurrence between authors, regarding areas, two distinct perspectives are detected: one based on sustainability and social responsibility and the other linked more closely to marketing, and both perspectives can be connected via stakeholder theory. It contributes using bibliometric approach, it shows a reason to align the results around the relationship between CSP-CFP and open the windows to create a theory. Finally, the findings of this paper provide insights to the researchers on the development of social responsibility. The disparity of results in this line enriches analysis but does not outcome in a single line of contribution to science, thus decreasing the potential for channelling studies into a single theory. This only seems possible if contributions can be focused on the nexus that unites them: stakeholder theory.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, 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. doi:10.5465/256973.
  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505. doi:10.5465/amr.1979.4498296.
  • Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994.
  • Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 42–56. doi:10.5465/255956. Crowther, D., & Aras, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility. London: Bookboon.
  • De Bakker, F. G. A., Groenewegen, 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. doi:10.1177/0007650305278086.
  • Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2003). Making the business case for sustainability: Linking social and environmental actions to financial performance. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 9(Spring), 79–96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jcorpciti.9.79.
  • Feng, Y., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. H. (2017). Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 158(1 August), 296–307. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.018 . Fu, G., & Jia, M. (2012). On the reasons for the vexing CSP-CFP relationship: Methodology, control variables, stakeholder groups, and measures: The review of 63 studies from 1990s. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(12), 130–137. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n12p130.
  • 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. doi:10.1177/000765039703600102.
  • Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215. doi:10.1007/BF02457380.
  • Hood, W. W., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 291–314. doi:10.1023/A:10179199 24342.
  • Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Cavezzali, E. (2018). Does it pay to be sustainable? Looking inside the black box of the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1198–1211. doi:10.1002/csr.1631.
  • Isaksson, L. E., & Woodside, A. G. (2016). Modeling firm heterogeneity in corporate social performance and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3285–3314. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.021.
  • Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio-Economic Review, 10(1), 85–108. doi:10.1093/ser/mwr025.
  • Lin, W. L., Ho, J. A., Ng, S. I., & Lee, C. (2019). Does corporate social responsibility lead to improved firm performance? The hidden role of financial slack. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(7), 957–982. doi:10.1108/SRJ-10-2018-0259.
  • Low, M. P., & Siegel, D. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of employee-centred corporate social responsibility research in the 2000s. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(5), 691– 717. doi:10.1108/SRJ-09-2018-0243.
  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5<603::AID-SMJ101>3.0.CO;2-3.
  • Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424. doi:10.5465/amr.2008.31193458.
  • Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J, & Mengu€c, B. (2005). Corporate reputation, stakeholders and the ¸ social performance-financial performance relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 1184–1198. doi:10.1108/03090560510610798.
  • Newman, M. E. (2004). Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. Physical Review, 69(6), 0661331–0661335. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.69.066133.
  • Newman, M. E., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review, 69(2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113 026113:15.
  • OECD. (2019). International Migration and Displacement Trends and Policies Report to the G20. Paris, France: OECD.
  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910.
  • Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419–429. doi:10.1177/000765039703600406.
  • Ranjbar-Sahraei, B., & Negenborn, R. R. (2017). Research Positioning & Trend Identification—A Data-Analytics Toolbox. Leiden, Neterhland: TU Delft, Leiden Universtiy editorial.
  • Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143–156. doi:10.1023/A:1010786912118.
  • Sinkovics, N. (2016). Enhancing the foundations for theorising through bibliometric mapping. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 327–350. doi:10.1108/IMR-10-2014-0341.
  • Sroufe, R., & Gopalakrishna-Remani, V. (2019). Management, social sustainability, reputation, and financial performance relationships: An empirical examination of US firms. Organization & Environment, 32(3), 331–362. doi:10.1177/ 1086026618756611.
  • Valenzuela, L. M., Merigo, J. M., Johnston, W. J., Nicolas, C., & Jaramillo, J. F. (2017). Thirty years of the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(1), 1–17. doi:10.1108/JBIM-04- 2016-0079.
  • Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Lindahl, J. M. M., & Nielsen, A. (2019). Ethics and entrepreneurship: A bibliometric study and literature review. Journal of Business Research, 99 (June), 226–237. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.050.
  • Van Beurden, P., & Gossling, 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. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9894-x.
  • Van de Velde, E., Vermeir, W., & Corten, F. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3), 129–138. doi:10.1108/14720700510604760.
  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651. doi:10.1002/asi.21075.
  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. ISSI Newsl, 7, 50–54.
  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice (pp. 285−320). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  • Venturelli, A., Caputo, F., Leopizzi, R., & Pizzi, S. (2019). The state of art of corporate social disclosure before the introduction of non-financial reporting directive: Across country analysis. Social Responsibility Journal, 15(4), 409–423. doi:10.1108/SRJ-12-2017-0275.
  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance−financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319. doi:10.1002/(SICI) 1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G.
  • Waddock, S. A., & Mahon, J. F. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited: Dimensions of efficacy, effectiveness, and efficiency. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 231–262.
  • Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002.
  • Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769. doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4279099.
  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718. doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279616.
  • Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229–267. doi:10.1108/eb028831.
  • Zhao, X., & Murrell, A. J. (2016). Revisiting the corporate social performance-financial performance link: A replication of Waddock and Graves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2378–2388. doi:10.1002/smj.2579.
  • Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397–418. doi:10.1177/000765030003900404.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet