Direct tests between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance (FP) have been argued to be spurious. Following this line of argument, the present study tests a mediated model in understanding the CSR–FP relationship. Specifically, we posit that reputation and customer satisfaction mediate fully the CSR–FP relationship. Based on the results from a sample of 280 Australian firms, the findings suggest that CSR is linked with FP. However, the effect is indirect: while CSR is linked to both reputation and customer satisfaction, reputation alone mediates the CSR–FP relationship. The results are interesting, suggesting that to reduce ambiguity surrounding the CSR–FP relationship scholars need to significantly expand studies that address moderating and mediating variables. Discussion is given to these findings along with paths for future research.
AdamsJS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 267–299.
2.
AguileraRVRuppDEWilliamsCA. (2007) Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review32: 836–863.
3.
AndersonEWFornellCLehmannDR (1994) Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing58: 53–66.
4.
AndersonEWFornellCRustRT (1997) Customer satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: Differences between goods and services. Marketing Science16: 129–145.
5.
AupperleKECarrollABHatfieldJD (1985) An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal28: 446–463.
6.
BarneyJ (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17: 99–120.
7.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychology: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51: 1171–1182.
8.
BasdeoDKSmithKGGrimmCM. (2006) The impact of market actions on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal27: 1205–1219.
9.
BentlerPM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin107: 238–246.
10.
BhoteKR (1996) Beyond Customer Satisfaction to Customer Loyalty. New York: American Management Association.
11.
BirchD (2002) CSR in Australia: Some ups, some downs. Journal of Corporate Citizenship5: 73–84.
12.
BlackLMaraisMAllenderJ. (2011) The State of CSR in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility.
13.
BrammerSPavelinS (2004) Building a good reputation. European Management Journal22: 704–713.
14.
BrammerSPavelinS (2006) Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies43: 435–455.
15.
BrancoMCRodriguezLL (2006) Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics69: 111–132.
16.
BrownBPerryS (1994) Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s ‘most admired’ companies. Academy of Management Journal37: 1346–1359.
17.
BrownTJDacinPA (1997) The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing61: 68–84.
18.
BrownTJLogsdonJM (1999) Corporate reputation and organization identity as constructs for business and society research. In: WoodDJWindsorD (eds) IABS proceedings (Tenth annual conference). Paris: International Association for Business and Society, pp. 168–173.
19.
CarrollAB (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review4: 497–505.
20.
CarrollAB (1999) Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society38: 268–295.
21.
CarrollAB (2004) Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. Academy of Management Executive18: 114–120.
22.
ClarksonMBE (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review20: 92–117.
23.
DavisK (1973) The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal16: 312–322.
24.
DawesJ (1999) The relationship between subjective and objective company performance measures in market orientation research: Further empirical evidence. Marketing Bulletin10: 65–75.
25.
DawesJ (2002) Market orientation and company profitability: Further evidence incorporating longitudinal data. Australian Journal of Management25: 173–199.
26.
EntineJ (2003) The myth of social investing: A critique of its practice and consequences for corporate social performance research. Organization & Environment16: 352–368.
27.
FlanaganDJO’ShaughnessyKC (2005) The effect of layoffs on firm reputation. Journal of Management31: 445–463.
28.
FombrunCShanleyM (1990) What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal33: 233–258.
29.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equations with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18: 39–50.
30.
FornellCMithasSMorgesonFVIII. (2006) Customer satisfaction and stock prices: High returns, low risk. Journal of Marketing70: 3–14.
31.
FryxellGEWangJ (1994) The fortune corporate ‘reputation’ index: Reputation for what?Journal of Management20: 1–14.
32.
GalbreathJ (2002) Twenty-first century management rules: The management of relationships as intangible assets. Management Decision40: 116–126.
33.
GalbreathJ (2008) The benefits of corporate social responsibility: An empirical study. ANZAM Conference proceedings (22nd annual conference). Auckland: Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, pp. 1–24.
34.
GalbreathJGalvinP (2008) Firm factors, industry structure and performance variation: New empirical evidence to a classic debate. Journal of Business Research61: 109–117.
35.
GassenheimerJBHoustonFSDavisJC (1998) The role of economic value, social value, and perceptions of fairness in interorganizational relationship retention decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science26: 322–337.
36.
GreeningDWTurbanDB (2000) Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society39: 254–280.
37.
GriffinJJMahonJF (1997) The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society36: 5–31.
38.
GrucaTSRegoLL (2005) Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing69: 115–130.
39.
Hennig-ThurauTGwinnerKPGremierDD (2002) Understanding the relationship between marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research4: 60–75.
40.
HosmerLT (1995) Trust: The connecting link between organization theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review20: 379–403.
41.
HuseMHoskissonRZattoniA. (2011) New perspectives on board research: Changing the research agenda. Journal of Management and Governance15: 5–28.
42.
JamaliD (2008) A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics82: 213–231.
43.
JarvisCBMacKenzieSBPodsakoffPM. (2003) A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research30: 199–218.
44.
JonesT (1995) Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review20: 404–437.
45.
KothaSRajgopalSRindovaV (2001) Reputation building and performance: An empirical analysis of the top-50 pure internet firms. European Management Journal19: 571–586.
46.
LeeDDFaffRWLangfield-SmithK (2009) Revisiting the vexing question: Does superior corporate social performance lead to improved financial performance?Australian Journal of Management34: 21–49.
47.
LozanoJM (2008) CSR or RSC? (beyond the Humpty Dumpty syndrome). Society and Business Review3: 191–206.
48.
LuoXBhattacharyaCB (2006) Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing70: 1–18.
49.
MaignanIFerrellOC (2000) Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics23: 283–297.
50.
MaignanIFerrellOC (2001) Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: An investigation of French businesses. Journal of Business Research51: 37–51.
51.
MaignanIFerrellOCHultGTM (1999) Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Academy of Marketing Science Journal27: 455–469.
52.
MargolisJDElfenbeinHAWalshJP (2008) Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Working Paper, Harvard University.
53.
MargolisJDWalshJP (2003) Misery loves company: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly48: 265–305.
54.
MattenDMoonJ (2008) ‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review33: 404–424.
55.
McKinsey & Company (2006) Global survey of business executives. The McKinsey Quarterly, January: pp. 1–10.
56.
MontielI (2008) Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability. Organization & Environment21: 245–269.
57.
NederhofAJ (1984) Visibility of response as mediating factor in equity research. Journal of Social Psychology122: 211–215.
58.
NederhofAJ (1985) Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology15: 263–280.
59.
NguyenNLeblancG (2001) Corporate image and corporate reputation in consumers’ retention decision in services. Journal of retailing and Consumer Services8: 227–236.
60.
OliverRL (1997) Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
61.
OliverRLSwanJE (1989) Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach. Journal of Marketing53: 21–35.
62.
OrlitzkyM (2001) Does organizational size confound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance?Journal of Business Ethics33: 167–180.
63.
OrlitzkyMSchmidtFLRyneSL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies24: 403–441.
64.
OrlitzkyMSiegelDSWaldmanDA (2011) Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business & Society50: 6–27.
65.
O’ShaughnessyKCGedajlovicEReinmoellerP (2007) The influence of firm, industry and network on the corporate social performance of Japanese firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management24: 283–303.
66.
PingRAJr (1993) The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. Journal of Retailing69: 320–352.
67.
PinkstonTSCarrollAB (1994) Corporate citizenship perspectives and foreign direct investment in the US. Journal of Business Ethics13: 157–169.
68.
PinkstonTSCarrollAB (1996) A retrospective examination of CSR orientations: Have they changed?Journal of Business Ethics15: 199–206.
69.
PodsakoffPMOrganDW (1986) Self reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management12: 531–544.
70.
PorterMEKramerMR (2006) Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review84: 78–92.
71.
PrahaladCK (1997) Corporate governance or corporate value added? Rethinking primacy of shareholder value. In: ChewD (ed.) Studies in International Corporate Finance and Governance Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, 46–56.
72.
RobertsPWDowlingGR (2002) Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal23: 1077–1093.
73.
RowleyTBermanS (2000) A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society39: 397–418.
74.
SchererAGPalazzoG (2007) Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review32: 1096–1120.
75.
ShamsieJ (2003) The context of dominance: An industry-driven framework for exploiting reputation. Strategic Management Journal24: 199–215.
76.
ShethHBabiakKM (2010) Beyond the game: Perceptions and practices of corporate social responsibility in the professional sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics91: 433–450.
77.
ShumPYamS (2011) Ethics and law: Guiding the invisible hand to correct corporate social responsibility externalities. Journal of Business Ethics98: 549–571.
78.
SimonsTLPelledLHSmithKA (1999) Making use of difference: Diversity, debate and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal42: 662–673.
79.
SpanosYELioukasS (2001) An examination of the causal logic of rent generation: Contrasting Porter’s competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective. Strategic Management Journal22: 907–934.
80.
SpectorPEBrannickMT (1995) The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research. In: CooperCLRobertsonIT (eds) International Review of Industrial Organizational Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley, 249–274.
81.
SpenceM (2002) Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review92: 434–459.
82.
TaylorA (2003) Rediscovering customer satisfaction. Business Horizons46: 3–14.
83.
TurbanDBGreeningDW (1997) Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal40: 658–672.
84.
UllmannA (1985) Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review10: 450–477.
85.
van BeurdenPGösslingT (2008) The worth of values: A literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics82: 407–424.
86.
Van MarrewijkM (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics44: 95–105.
87.
Van OosterhoutJHeugensPPMAR (2008) Much ado about nothing: A conceptual critique of corporate social responsibility. In: CraceAMcWilliamsAMattenD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–223.
88.
VorhiesDWHarkerM (2000) The capabilities and performance advantages of market-driven firms: An empirical examination. Australian Journal of Management25: 145–171.
89.
WaddockSA (2003) Myths and realities of social investing. Organization & Environment16: 369–380.
90.
WalshGDinnieKWiedmannK-P (2006) How do corporate reputation and customer satisfaction impact customer defection? A study of private energy customers in Germany. Journal of Services Marketing20: 412–420.
91.
WalshGMitchellV-WJacksonPR. (2009) Examining the antecedents and consequences of corporate reputation: A customer perspective. British Journal of Management20: 187–203.
92.
WangYLoH-PHuiYV (2003) The antecedents of service quality and product quality and their influences on bank reputation: Evidence from the banking industry in China. Managing Service Quality13: 72–83.
93.
WebbE (2004) An examination of socially responsible firms’ board structure. Journal of Management and Governance8: 255–277.
94.
WeberM (2008) The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal26: 247–261.
95.
WeissAMAndersonEMacInnisDJ (1999) Reputation management as a motivation for sales structure decisions. Journal of Marketing63: 74–89.
96.
WilliamsonOE (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
97.
WisemanF (1972) Methodological bias in public opinion surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly36: 105–108.
98.
WoodDJ (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review16: 691–718.
99.
WoodDJ (2010) Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews12: 50–84.
100.
WoodDJJonesRE (1995) Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis3: 229–267.
