The main objective of this research is to provide knowledge on the impact that nonparticipation in controversial business can have on corporate financial performance. Accordingly, the stakeholder theory perspective was adopted and the effect of nonparticipation in controversial business on corporatefinancial performance was tested by using market-based and accounting-based economic measures. In addition, the effect of primary stakeholders’ management activities on corporate financial performance was tested, whereby it can be seen whether this nonparticipation in controversial business reveals a different causal relationship with certain aspects of economic performance.
BackhausK. B.StoneB. A.HeinerK. (2002). Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Business & Society, 41, 292-318.
3.
BarneyJ. B.WrightM.KetchenD. J.Jr. (Special Issue Eds.) (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27, 625-641.
4.
BarnettM. L. (2005). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794-816.
5.
BeckN.KatzJ. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634-647.
6.
BermanS. L.WicksA. CKothaSJonesM. T. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488-506.
7.
BeurdenP.GösslingT. (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.
8.
BirdR.HallA. D.MomenteF.ReggianiF. (2007). What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the market?Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 189-206
9.
BouquetC.DeutschY. (2008). The impact of corporate social performance on a firm’s multinationality. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 755-769.
10.
BrammerS.MillingtonA. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325-1345.
11.
BrammerS. J.PavelinS. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 435-455.
12.
BrancoM. C.RodriguesL. L. (2007). Positioning stakeholder theory within the debate on corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 12(1), 5-15.
13.
BrownJ. T.DacinP. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.
14.
ClarksonM. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.
15.
CoffR. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10(2), 119-133.
16.
CoombsJ. E.GilleyK. M. (2008). Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 827-840.
17.
DohJ. P.GuayT. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 47-73.
18.
DonaldsonT.PrestonL. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
19.
FehleS.FournierS. M.MaddenT. J.ShriderD. G. (2008). Brand value and asset pricing. Quarterly Journal of Finance and Accounting, 47(1), 3-16.
20.
FombrunC.ShanleyM. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233-258.
21.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
22.
GravesS. B.WaddockS. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034-1046
23.
GriffinJ. J.MahonJ. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: 25 years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36, 5-31.
24.
GodfreyP. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, 777-798.
25.
HillmanA. J.KeimG. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125-139.
26.
HullC. E.RothenbergS. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781-789.
27.
Interbrand. (2009). Methodology for measuring best global brands. Interbrand. Retrieved from http://www.interbrand.com
28.
JonesT. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
29.
KacperczykA. (2009). With greater power comes greater responsibility? Takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 261-281.
30.
MaddenT. J.FehleF.FournierS. M. (2006). Brands matter: An empirical demonstration of the creation of shareholder value through branding. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 224-235.
31.
MargolisJ. D.WalshJ. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
32.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. 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.
McWilliamsA.SiegelD. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603-609.
34.
OrlitzkyM.BenjaminJ. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40, 369-396.
35.
OrlitzkyM.SchmidtF. L.RynesS. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403-441.
36.
PalazzoG.RichterU. (2005). CSR business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 387-401.
37.
PalazzoG.BasuK. (2007). The ethical backlash of corporate branding. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 333-346.
38.
PollockT. G.RindovaV. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 631-642.
39.
PorterM. E.KramerM. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92.
40.
PrahaladC. K.HamelG. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm?Strategic Management Journal, 15, 5-16.
41.
RehbeinK.WaddockS.GravesS. B. (2004). Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted?Business & Society, 43, 239-267.
42.
RiordanC. M.GatewoodR. D.BillJ. B. (1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 401-412.
43.
RomanR. M.HayiborS.AgleB. R. (1999). The relationship between social and financial performance: Repainting a portrait. Business & Society, 38(1), 109-125
44.
RufB. M.MuralidharK.BrownM. R.JanneyJ. J.PaulK. (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, 143-156.
45.
SchepersD. H. (2006). The impact of NGO network conflict on the corporate social responsibility strategies of multinational corporations. Business & Society, 45, 282-299.
46.
SchwartzM. S. (2003). The “ethics” of ethical investing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 195-213.
47.
SharfmanM. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287-296.
SotorrioL. L.SanchezJ. L. F. (2008). Corporate social responsibility of the most highly reputed European and North American firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 379-390.
50.
TurbanD. B.GreeningD. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658-672.
51.
UdayasankarK. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and firm size. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 167-175.
52.
TobinJ. (1969). A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 1(1), 15-29.
53.
WaddockS.GravesS. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
54.
WartickS.CochranP. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758-769.
55.
WoodD. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718
56.
WuM. (2006). Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8, 163-171.
