BénabouR.TiroleJ. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77, 1-19.
2.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1971). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
3.
Capelle-BlancardG.PetitA. (2017). The weighting of CSR dimensions: One size does not fit all. Business & Society, 56, 919-943. doi:10.1177/0007650315620118
4.
CarrollR. J.PrimoD. M.RichterB. K. (2016). Using item response theory to improve measurement in strategic management research: An application to corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 66-85.
5.
ChatterjiA. K.FindleyM.JensenN. M.MeierS.NielsonD. (2016). Field experiments in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 116-132.
6.
DehejiaR. H.WahbaS. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151-161.
7.
DengX.KangJ. K.LowB. S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 110, 87-109.
8.
DufloE.GlennersterR.KremerM. (2008). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. In SchultzT.StraussJ. (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (Vol. 4, pp. 3895-3962). New York, NY: North Holland.
9.
El GhoulS.GuedhamiO.KwokC.MishraD. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35, 2388-2406.
10.
FlammerC. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science, 61, 2549-2568.
11.
FlammerC.BansalP. (2017). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/smj.2629
12.
FlammerC.KacperczykA. (2016). The impact of stakeholder orientation on innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Science, 62, 1982-2001.
13.
FowlerF. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). London, England: SAGE.
14.
Garcia-CastroR.AriñoM. A.CanelaM. A. (2010). Does social performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 107-126.
15.
HamiltonB. H.NickersonJ. A. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1, 51-78.
16.
HarrisonJ. S.BosseD. A.PhillipsR. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58-74.
17.
HartT. A.SharfmanM. (2015). Assessing the concurrent validity of the revised Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini corporate social performance indicators. Business & Society, 54, 575-598.
18.
HenriquesI.HustedB. W.MontielI. (2013). Spillover effects of voluntary environmental programs on greenhouse gas emissions: Lessons from Mexico. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 296-322.
19.
HiscoxM. J.SchwartzC.ToffelM.2009. Evaluating the impact of SA8000 certification. In LeipzigerD. (Ed.), SA8000: The first decade: Implementation, influence, and impact (pp. 1-11). London, England: Greenleaf.
20.
KhandkerS. R.KoolwalG. B.SamadH. A. (2009). Handbook on impact evaluation: Quantitative methods and practices. Washington, DC: World Bank.
21.
KistruckG. M.SutterC. J.LountR. B.SmithB. R. (2013). Mitigating principal-agent problems in base-of-the-pyramid markets: An identity spillover perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 659-682.
22.
LiangH.RenneboogL. (2017). On the foundations of corporate social responsibility. The Journal of Finance, 72, 853-910.
23.
MattenD.MoonJ. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404-424.
24.
MattinglyJ. E. (2017). Corporate social performance: A review of empirical research examining the corporation-society relationship using Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini social ratings data. Business & Society, 56, 796-839. doi:10.1177/0007650315585761
25.
MattinglyJ. E.BermanS. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business & Society, 45, 20-46.
26.
RavallionM. (2001). The mystery of the vanishing benefits: An introduction to impact evaluation. The World Bank Economic Review, 15, 115-140.
27.
RostK.EhrmannT. (2017). Reporting biases in empirical management research: The example of win-win corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 56, 840-888. doi:10.1177/0007650315572858
28.
RowleyT.BermanS. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39, 397-418.
29.
ShahzadA. M.SharfmanM. P. (2017). Corporate social performance and financial performance sample-selection issues. Business & Society, 56, 889-918. doi:10.1177/0007650315590399
30.
SharfmanM. (1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287-296.
31.
StrikeV.GaoJ.BansalP. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 850-862.
32.
WaddockS. A.GravesS. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
33.
ZhaoX.MurrellA. J. (2016). Revisiting the corporate social performance-financial performance link: A replication of Waddock and Graves. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 2378-2388.