This paper extends research on corporate social performance by examining the relationship between extent of product diversification and corporate social performance. Findings indicate that firms which are highly diversified perform poorly on a measure of corporate social performance and that firms which maintain a more related set of business activities perform better on the same measure. Implications of the findings are discussed.
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.
AmitR.LivnatJ. (1988) Diversification strategies, business cycles and economic performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 99–110
3.
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.
4.
BarneyJ. B. (1991) Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?Academy of Management Review, 11, 656–665.
5.
BaucusM. S.NearJ. P. (1991) Can illegal corporate behavior be predicted? An event history analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 9–36.
6.
BoydB. K. (1995) CEO duality and firm performance: a contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 301–312.
7.
CarrollA. B. (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.
8.
CastrogiovanniG. J. (1991) Environmental munificence: a theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 7, 35–44.
9.
ClarksonM. B. E. (1991) Defining, evaluating and managing corporate social performance: the stakeholder management model. In PostJ. E. (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 331–358.
10.
CochranP. L.WoodR. A. (1984) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42–56.
11.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
DessG. G.BeardD. W. (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52–73.
13.
FombrunC.ShanleyM. (1990) What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.
14.
FreemanR. E. (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
15.
GatewoodR. D.CarrollA. B. (1991) Assessment of ethical performance of organization members: a conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 16, 667–690.
16.
GravesS. B. (1988) Institutional ownership and corporate R&D in the computer industry. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 417–428.
17.
GravesS. B.WaddockS. A. (1992) Responses of institutional investors to corporate social performance measures. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, Las Vegas, NV, 338–342.
18.
HillC. W. L.KelleyP. C.AgleB. R.HittM. A.HoskissonR. E. (1992) An empirical examination of the causes of corporate wrongdoing in the United States. Human Relations, 45, 1055–1076.
19.
KeatsB.HittM. (1988) A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro-organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 570–598.
20.
MahoneyJ.PandianJ. R. (1992) The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363–380.
21.
McGuireJ. B.SundgrenA.SchneeweisT. (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872.
22.
MoskowitzM. R. (1975) Profiles in corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 13, 29–42.
23.
PrahaladC. K.HamelG. (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79–91.
24.
RobinsJ.WiersemaM. F. (1995) A resource-based approach to the multibusiness firm: empirical analysis of portfolio interrelationships and corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 277–299.
25.
RufB. M.MuralidharK.PaulK. (1993) Eight dimensions of corporate social performance: determination of relative importance using the analytic hierarchy process. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, 326–330.
26.
SharfmanM. (1993) A construct validity study of the KLD social performance data. Proceedings of the International Association of Business and Society, 4, 551–556.
27.
SteinerG. A.SteinerJ. F. (1994) Business, government, and society: a managerial perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
SturdivantF. D.GlnterJ. L. (1977) Corporate social responsiveness. California Management Review, 19, 30–39.
29.
SutcuffeK. M. (1995) What executives notice: accurate perceptions in to management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1360–1378.
30.
ThomasA. S.SimerlyR. L. (1995) Internal determinants of corporate social performance: the role of top managers. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Vancouver, British Columbia, 411–415.
31.
WholeyD.BrittainJ. (1989) Characterizing environmental variation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 867–882.
32.
WoodD. J. (1991) Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.
33.
WoodD. J.JonesR. E. (1995) Stakeholder mismatching: a theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 229–267.
