We develop a competitive contingency model of the relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance, focusing on the moderating effects of industry-based factors. We conceptualize corporate social performance as a form of strategic differentiation and predict that the positive link between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance is strongest when a firm competes in an environment that is not conducive to corporate social performance. Analyses of data from roughly 2500 publicly traded firms between 2002 and 2009 support the moderating effects of industry munificence and social orientation. We discuss the implications of our contingency model for firms seeking a competitive advantage through corporate social performance.
AgarwalNC (1979) On the interchangeability of size measures. Academy of Management Journal22(2): 404–409.
2.
AgleBRMitchellRKSonnenfeldJA (1999) Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal42(5): 507–525.
3.
AguinisHGlavasA (2012) What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management38(4): 932–968.
4.
AldrichH (1979) Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
Aragón-CorreaJASharmaS (2003) A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review28(1): 71–88.
6.
AupperleKECarrollABHatfieldJD (1985) An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of management Journal28(2): 446–463.
7.
BallingerGA (2004) Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organizational Research Methods7(2): 127–150.
8.
BansalP (2005) Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal26(3): 197–218.
9.
BarnettML (2007) Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review32(3): 794–816.
10.
BarnettMLSalomonRM (2012) Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal33(11): 1304–1320.
11.
BarneyJB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17(1): 99–120.
12.
BaumJASinghJV (1994) Organizational niches and the dynamics of organizational mortality. American Journal of Sociology100(2): 346–380.
13.
Boutin-DufresneFSavariaP (2004) Corporate social responsibility and financial risk. The Journal of Investing13(1): 57–66.
14.
BoydBK (1995) CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal16(4): 301–312.
15.
BrammerSMillingtonA (2008) Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal29(12): 1325–1343.
16.
BrushTHArtzKW (1999) Toward a contingent resource-based theory: The impact of information asymmetry on the value of capabilities in veterinary medicine. Strategic Management Journal20(3): 223–250.
17.
BurgelmanR (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science2: 239–262.
18.
CalofJL (1994) The relationship between firm size and export behavior revisited. Journal of International Business Studies25(2): 367–387.
19.
CarrollAB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons34(4): 39–48.
20.
CastrogiovanniGJ (1991) Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review16(3): 542–565.
21.
CastrogiovanniGJ (2002) Organization task environments: Have they changed fundamentally over time?Journal of Management28(2): 129–150.
22.
CavacoSCrifoP (2014) CSR and financial performance: complementarity between environmental, social and business behaviours. Applied Economics46(27): 3323–3338.
23.
CertoSTSemadeniM (2006) Strategy research and panel data: Evidence and implications. Journal of Management32(3): 449–471.
24.
ChatterjiAKLevineDIToffelMW (2009) How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility?Journal of Economics & Management Strategy18(1): 125–169.
25.
ChenHZengSLinH, et al. (2017) Munificence, dynamism, and complexity: How industry context drives corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment26(2): 125–141.
26.
ChildJ (1972) Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology6(1): 1–22.
27.
ChinMKHambrickDCTrevinoLK (2013) Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly58(2): 197–232.
28.
ClarksonMBE (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review20(1): 92–117.
29.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2001) Green paper: Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. COM(2001) 366 final, 18July. Brussels: CEC.
30.
CoombsJEGilleyKM (2005) Stakeholder management as a predictor of CEO compensation: Main effects and interactions with financial performance. Strategic Management Journal26(9): 827–840.
31.
CottrillMT (1990) Corporate social responsibility and the marketplace. Journal of Business Ethics9(9): 723–729.
32.
CovinJGSlevinDP (1989) Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal10(1): 75–87.
33.
CyertRMMarchJG (1963) A Behaviorial Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34.
DavidPBloomMHillmanAJ (2007) Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal28(1): 91–100.
35.
DeckopJRMerrimanKKGuptaS (2006) The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. Journal of Management32(3): 329–342.
36.
DeephouseDL (1999) To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal20(2): 147–166.
DonaldsonTPrestonLE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review20(1): 65–91.
39.
DrazinRVan de VenAH (1985) Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly30(4): 514–539.
40.
DuSLBhattacharyaCBSenS (2010) Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews12(1): 8–19.
41.
EisenhardtK (1989) Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal32(3): 543–576.
GollIRasheedAA (2004) The moderating effect of environmental munificence and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm performance. Journal of Business Ethics49(1): 41–54.
47.
GravesSBWaddockSA (1994) Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal37(4): 1034–1046.
48.
GrossackIM (1965) Towards an integration of static and dynamic measures of industry concentration. The Review of Economics and Statistics47(3): 301–308.
49.
HarrisonJSFreemanRE (1999) Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal42(5): 479–485.
50.
HartTASharfmanM (2015) Assessing the concurrent validity of the revised Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini corporate social performance indicators. Business & Society54(5): 575–598.
51.
HendersonADMillerDHambrickDC (2006) How quickly do CEOs become obsolete? Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal27(5): 447–460.
52.
HillmanAJKeimGD (2001) Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line?Strategic Management Journal22(2): 125–139.
53.
HomburgCWorkmanJPKrohmerH (1999) Marketing’s influence within the firm. Journal of Marketing63(2): 1–17.
54.
HoughJRWhiteMA (2004) Scanning actions and environmental dynamism: Gathering information for strategic decision making. Management Decision42(6): 781–793.
55.
HullCERothenbergS (2008) Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal29(7): 781–789.
56.
JayachandranSKalaignanamKEilertM (2013) Product and environmental social performance: Varying effect on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal34(10): 1255–1264.
57.
JonesTM (1995) Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review20(2): 404–437.
58.
KeatsBWHittMA (1988) A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal31(3): 570–598.
59.
KobrinSJ (1991) An empirical analysis of the determinants of global integration. Strategic Management Journal12(S1): 17–31.
60.
KohP-SQianCWangH (2014) Firm litigation risk and the insurance value of corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal35(10): 1464–1482.
61.
LawrencePRLorschJW (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly12(1): 1–47.
62.
LiangKYZegerSL (1986) Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika73: 13–22.
63.
LoughranTRitterJ (2004) Why has IPO underpricing changed over time?Financial Management33: 5–37.
64.
LuoXMBhattacharyaCB (2006) Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing70(4): 1–18.
65.
MackeyAMackeyTBBarneyJB (2007) Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review32(3): 817–835.
66.
McWilliamsASiegelD (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?Strategic Management Journal21(5): 603–609.
67.
MarcusAAGoodmanRS (1991) Victims and shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal34(2): 281–305.
68.
MargolisJDElfenbeinHAWalshJP (2007) Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Unpublished working paper, 1November. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
NasonRSBacqSGrasD (2018) A behavioral theory of social performance: Social identity and stakeholder expectations. Academy of Management Review43(2): 259–283.
73.
OgdenSWatsonR (1999) Corporate performance and stakeholder management: Balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U.K. privatized water industry. Academy of Management Journal42(5): 526–538.
74.
OrlitzkyM (2001) Does firm size confound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance?Journal of Business Ethics33(2): 167–180.
75.
OrlitzkyMSchmidtFLRynesSL (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies24(3): 403–441.
76.
PeressJ (2008) Media coverage and investors’ attention to earnings announcements. Working paper, 15 December. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2723916
77.
PrakashA (2000) Responsible care: An assessment. Business & Society39(2): 183–209.
78.
PfefferJSalancikGR (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
79.
PorterME (1996) What is strategy?Harvard Business Review74(6): 61–78.
80.
PetrenkoOVAimeFRidgeJHillA (2016) Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal37(2): 262–279.
81.
PriemRLButlerJELiSL (2013) Toward reimagining strategy research: Retrospection and prospection on the 2011 AMR decade award article. Academy of Management Review38(4): 471–489.
82.
QianGLiL (2003) Profitability of small- and medium-sized enterprises in high-tech industries: The case of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal24(9): 881–887.
83.
RobertsPWDowlingGR (2002) Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal23(12): 1077–1093.
84.
RowleyTBermanS (2000) A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society39(4): 397–418.
85.
RussoMVFoutsPA (1997) A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal40(3): 534–559.
86.
ScottWR (1995) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
87.
SharmaSVredenburgH (1998) Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal19(8): 729–753.
88.
SiegelDSVitalianoDF (2007) An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy16(3): 773–792.
89.
StawBMSzwajkowskiE (1975) The scarcity-munificence component of organizational environments and the commission of illegal acts. Administrative Science Quarterly20(3): 345–354.
90.
SweeneyLCoughlanJ (2008) Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications14(2): 113–124.
91.
TantaloCPriemRL (2016) Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal37: 314–329.
92.
TosiHLSlocumJW (1984) Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of Management10(1): 9–26.
93.
TurbanDBGreeningDW (1997) Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal40(3): 658–672.
94.
UotilaJMaulaMKeilT, et al. (2009) Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal30(2): 221–231.
95.
Van BeurdenPGösslingT (2008) The worth of values—A literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics82(2): 407–424.
96.
WaddockSAGravesSB (1997) The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal18(4): 303–319.
97.
WaltersBAKrollMWrightP (2010) The impact of TMT board member control and environment on post-ipo performance. Academy of Management Journal53(3): 572–595.
98.
WangHLChoiJ (2013) A new look at the corporate social-financial performance relationship: The moderating roles of temporal and interdomain consistency in corporate social performance. Journal of Management39(2): 416–441.
99.
WangHLChoiJPLiJT (2008) Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organization Science19(1): 143–159.
100.
WangQDouJJiaS (2016) A meta-analytic review of corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: The moderating effect of contextual factors. Business & Society55(8): 1083–1121.
101.
WiersemaMFBantelKA (1993) Top management team turnover as an adaptation mechanism: The role of the environment. Strategic Management Journal14(7): 485–504.
102.
WinnMIMacDonaldPZietsmaC (2008) Managing industry reputation: The dynamic tension between collective and competitive reputation management strategies. Corporate Reputation Review11(1): 35–55.
103.
WongEMOrmistonMETetlockPE (2011) The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal54(6): 1207–1228.
104.
WoodDJ (1991) Social issues in management: Theory and research in corporate social performance. Journal of Management17(2): 383–406.
105.
WoodDJJonesRE (1995) Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis3(3): 229–267.
106.
WowakAJHambrickDCHendersonAD (2011) Do CEOs encounter within-tenure settling up? A multiperiod perspective on executive pay and dismissal. Academy of Management Journal54(4): 719–739.
