This study examined the relationship between institutional investors and corporate social performance. Using corporate social performance data from the Fortune database, we demonstrated that institutional investors do not influence the social orientation of corporations. Further, the data seem to indicate that institutional investors are myopic with respect to a corporation's social position. However, there is support for the view that corporate social performance is an integral part of achieving a better match between an organization and the environment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottW. F.MonsenJ. R. (1979) On the measurement of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 501–515.
2.
AupperleK. E.CarrollA. B.HatfieldJ. D. (1985) An empirical investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446–463.
3.
BarnardC. I. (1938) The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press.
4.
BerleA.MeansG. (1932) The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.
5.
ChagantiR.DamanpourF. (1991) Institutional ownership, capital structure, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 479–491.
6.
De AngeloH.De AngeloL. (1985) Managerial ownership of voting rights: a study of public organizations with dual classes of common stock. Journal of Financial Economics, 14, 33–69.
7.
DonaldsonG. (1985) Managing corporate wealth. New York: Praeger.
8.
DonaldsonG.LorschJ. (1983) Decision making at the top: the shaping of strategic direction. New York: Basic Books.
9.
DowlingG. R. (1986) Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Management, 15, 109–115.
10.
DruckerP. F. (1991) Reckoning with the pension fund revolution. Harvard Business Review, 69(2) (March/April), 106–114.
11.
FinchP. (1992) The Business Week 1000. Business Week, Special Issue, January, 12–19.
12.
FombrunC. J. (1986) Structural dynamics within and between organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 403–421.
13.
FombrunC. J.ShanleyM. (1990) What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.
14.
FreemanE. M. (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
15.
FriedmanM. (1962) Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, EL: Univer. of Chicago Press.
16.
GatewoodR. D.CarrollA. B. (1991) Assessment of ethical performance of organization members: a conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 16, 667–690.
17.
GravesS. B. (1988) Institutional ownership and corporate R&D in the computer industry. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 417–428.
18.
GravesS. B.WaddockS. A. (1992) Responses of institutional investors to corporate social performance measures. In Academy of Management Proceedings. Las Vegas, NV: Academy of Management. Pp. 338–342
19.
HillC. W. L.SnellS. A. (1988) External control, corporate strategy, and firm performance in research-intensive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 577–590.
20.
JacobsM. T. (1991) Short term America: the cause and cures of our business myopia. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
21.
JensenM. C.RubackR. S. (1983) The market for corporate control. Journal of Financial Economics, 11, 5–50.
22.
McGuireJ. B.SundgrenA.SchneeweisT. (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872.
23.
MeznarM. B.ChrismanJ. J.CarrollA. B. (1990) Social responsibility and strategic management: toward an enterprise strategy classification. In Academy of Management Proceedings. San Francisco, CA: Academy or Management. Pp. 332–336.
24.
MintzbergH. (1983) Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NT: Prentice-Hall.
25.
MitroffI. I. (1987) Business not as usual. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26.
MoskowitzM. R. (1975) Profiles in corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 13, 29–42.
27.
NortonR. (1991) Who owns this company, anyway?Fortune, 124(3), 131–142.
28.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
29.
SchermerhornJ. (1989) Management for productivity. New York: Wiley.
30.
SturdivantF. D.GinterJ. L. (1977) Corporate social responsiveness. California Management Review, 19, 30–39.
31.
UllmannA. (1985) Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540–557.
32.
WallaceA. (1988) Institutions' proxy power grows. The New York Times, 137(47,557), D1.
33.
WartickS. L. (1988) How issues management contributes to corporate performance. Business Forum, 13(2), 16–22.
34.
WernerS. B. (1992) The movement for reforming American business ethics: a twenty-year perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 61–70.
35.
WilsonR. (1985) Reputations in games and markets. In RothA. E. (Ed.), Game-theoretic models of bargaining. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp. 65–84.
36.
WoodD. J. (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.
