Recently, the authors presented a bibliometric analysis of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance, which included a list of frequently cited articles in these fields. This list caused some questions, and therefore this research note aims to supplement and discuss the findings presented in the original study to (a) explain the composition of the dataset used, (b) highlight some problems pertaining to bibliometric research, and (c) underline why such studies nevertheless are useful, also in business and society research.
Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 501-515.
2.
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, 507-525.
3.
Alexander, G. J., & Buchholz, R. A. (1978). Corporate social responsibility and stock-market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 479-486.
4.
Arlow, P. (1991). Personal characteristics in college students evaluations of business ethics and corporate social-responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(1), 63-69.
5.
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, 446-463.
6.
Baumann, H. (2003). Publish and perish? The impact of citation indexing on the development of new fields of environmental research. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(3-4), 13-26.
7.
Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. (1975). Strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18(2), 49-58.
8.
Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality?Strategic Management Journal, 26, 239-257.
9.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.
10.
Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29, 495-502.
11.
Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5, 105-125.
12.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
13.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Towards the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39-48.
14.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38, 268-295.
15.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
16.
Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42-56.
17.
de Bakker, F. G. A., Groenewegen, P.,& den Hond, F. (2005). Abibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44, 283-317.
18.
DiMaggio, P. J.,& Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
19.
Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting?Public Relations Review, 24, 305-319.
20.
Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034-1046.
21.
Greening, D. W., & Gray, B. (1994). Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 467-498.
22.
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.
23.
Hill, V.,& Carley, K. M. (1999). An approach to identifying consensus in a subfield: The case of organizational culture. Poetics, 27, 1-30.
24.
Ingwersen, P. (2000). The international visibility and citation impact of Scandinavian research articles in selected Social Science fields: The decay of a myth. Scientometrics, 49(1), 39-61.
25.
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, 564-576.
26.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory. A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
27.
Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. P. (1996). The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science, 42, 1199-1214.
28.
Liu, M. (1993). Progress in documentation. The complexities of citation practice: A review of citation studies. Journal of Documentation, 49, 370-408.
29.
McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A.,& Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854-872.
30.
McWilliams, A.,& Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603-609.
31.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.
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.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 653-683.
34.
Moed, H. F. (2002). The impact-factors debate: The ISI's uses and limits. Nature, 415(6873), 731-732.
35.
Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between corporate social-responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 321-357.
36.
Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 595-612.
37.
Robertson, D. C. (1993). Empiricism in business ethics. Suggested research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 585-599.
38.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 225-243.
39.
Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytical framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64.
40.
Spicer, B. H. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. The Accounting Review, 53, 94-111.
41.
Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 195-204.
42.
Sturdivant, F. D.,& Ginter, J. L. (1977). Corporate social responsiveness: Management attitudes and economic performance. California Management Review, 19(3), 30-39.
43.
Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20, 43-64.
44.
Thomson. (2005). Glossary of Thomson scientific terminology. Key Words Plus. Retrieved on September 26, 2005, from http://www.isinet.com/glossary/K
45.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658-672.
46.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance—Financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
47.
Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758-769.
48.
Weaver, G. R., Trevino, 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, 539-552.
49.
Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?Scientometrics, 62(1), 117-131.
50.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
51.
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 229-267.
