We argue that corporate social performance (CSP) has become a legitimizing identity (brand) for researchers in the business and society field, but it has not developed into a viable theoretical or operational construct. Because measuring CSP is contingent on the operational setting (industry, issues, etc.), it is difficult to produce worthwhile comparisons across studies or generalizing beyond the boundaries of a specific study. The authors suggest that researchers remove the CSP label from their operational variables, and instead narrowly define their studies in operational terms. They provide aworking example of the proposed research direction by examining the theory underlying the popular CSP–financial performance (FP) debate. In the authors’ conceptualization, stakeholder action provides the underlying logic connecting CSP-FP, and we recast the research question to investigate the conditions under which stakeholders will take action to influence the focal organization and when those actions will influence the CSP-FP link.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baucus, M. S.
(1989). Why firms do it and what happens to them: Areexamination of the theory of illegal corporate behavior. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 11, 93-118.
2.
Bendheim, C. L.
, Waddock, S. A.,& Graves, S. B. (1998). Determining best practice in corporate- stakeholder relations using data envelopment analysis: An industry-level study. Business & Society, 37, 306-338.
3.
Berman, S. L.
, Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488-506.
4.
Bromiley, P.
, & Marcus, A. (1989). The deterrent to dubious corporate behavior: Profitability, probability, and safety recalls. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 233-250.
5.
Carroll, A. B.
(1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
6.
Carroll, A. B.
(1994). Social issues in management research: Experts’ views, analysis and commentary. Business & Society, 33, 5-29.
7.
Chen, K. H.
,& Metcalf, R. W. (1980). The relationship between pollution control record and financial indicators revisted. Accounting Review, 55, 168-177.
8.
Clarkson, M.B.E.
(1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
9.
Coleman, J. S.
(1990). Foundations of social theory.Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
10.
Davidson, W. N.
, & Worrell, D. L. (1988). The impact of announcements of corporate illegalities on shareholder returns. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 195-200.
11.
Davis, K.
(1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312-322.
12.
Domini Social Investments.
(1997). Domini Social Investments: 1997 social screening criteria and proxy voting guidelines.Boston: Domini Social Investments.
13.
Fogler, H. R.
, & Nutt, F. (1975). A note on social responsibility and stock valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 155-166.
14.
Frederick, W. C.
(1978). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business and society thought (Working paper). Philadelphia: University of Pittsburgh.
15.
Freedman, M.
, & Jaggi, B. (1982). Pollution disclosures, pollution performance, and economic performance. Omega, 10, 167-176.
16.
Freeman, R. E.
(1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-421.
17.
Friedman, M.
(1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Frooman, J.
(1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191-205.
19.
Griffin, J. J
,& Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36, 5-31.
20.
Gulati, R.
(1995). Social structure and alliance formation: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 619-652.
21.
Hoffer, G. E.
, Pruitt, S. W.,& Reilly, R. J. (1988). The impact of product recalls on the wealth of sellers: A reexamination. Journal of Political Economy, 96, 663-670.
22.
Hoffman, A. J.
(1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351-371.
23.
Ingram, R. W.
(1978). An investigation of the information content of (certain) social responsibility disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 16, 270-285.
24.
Johnson, R. A.
, & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564-577.
25.
Jones, T. M.
(1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review, 22(3), 59-67.
26.
Jones, T. M.
(1991). Ethical decision-making by individuals in organizations—An issuecontingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366-395.
27.
Jones, T. M.
(1995a). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
28.
Jones, T. M.
(1995b). Instrumental stakeholder theory and paradigm consensus in business and society: Advances on the methodological front. IABS Proceedings, 6, 637-641.
29.
Kogut, B.
(1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 319-332.
30.
McAdam, D.
(1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency. 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Miles, R. A.
(1987). Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
Mitchell, R. K.
, Agle, B. R., Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
33.
Mitnick, B.
(1993, March 19-21). Organizing research in corporate social performance: The CSP system as core paradigm. Paper presented as a showcase session at the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society (IABS), San Diego, CA.
34.
Mitnick, B. M.
(1995). Systematics and CSR: The theory and processes of normative referencing. Business & Society, 34, 5-33.
35.
Oliver, C.
(1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241-265.
36.
Olson, M. J.
(1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
Parsons, T.
(1951). The social system. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
38.
Porter, M. E.
(1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
39.
Post, J. E.
, & Baer, E. (1980). Analyzing complex policy problems: The social performance of the infant formula industry. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 2, 157-196.
40.
Preston, L. E.
, & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship: A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429.
41.
Preston, L. E.
, & Post, J. E. (1975). Private management and public policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
42.
Reed, L.
, Getz, K., Collins, D., Oberman, W., & Toy, R. (1990). Theoretical models and empirical results: Areviewand synthesis of JAI volumes 1-10. In J. Post (Ed.), Corporation and society research: Studies in theory and measurement(pp. 27-62). Greenwich: CT: JAI.
43.
Reilly, R. J.
, & Hoffer, G. E. (1983). Will retarding the information flow on automobile recalls affect consumer demand?Economic Inquiry, 21, 444-447.
44.
Rowley, T. J.
(1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: Anetwork theory of stakeholder influence. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887-910.
45.
Rowley, T. J.
, Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 369-386.
46.
Sartori, G.
(1970). Concept in misinformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64, 1033-1053.
47.
Scott, W. R.
(1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, open systems(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
48.
Shane, P. B.
, & Spicer, B. H. (1983). Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. Accounting Review, 58, 521-538.
49.
Shin, G. W.
(1994). The historical making of collective action: The Korean peasant uprising of 1946. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1596-1624.
50.
Swanson, D. L.
(1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20, 43-64.
51.
Ullman, A. H.
(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.
52.
Wartick, S. L.
, & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758-769.
53.
Wood, D. J.
(1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
54.
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, 229-267.
55.
Zald, M. N.
,& McCarthy, J. D. (1987). Social movements in an organizational society. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
