Product and environmental social performance: Varying effect on firm performance

Corporate social performance (CSP) consists of actions in different domains that vary in the information they provide stakeholders, and hence, in their effect on firm performance. To demonstrate this, the authors examine the impact of CSP on firm performance in two areas—the product and the environment, referred to as product social performance (PSP) and environmental social performance (ESP), respectively. PSP has a stronger positive impact on firm performance compared to ESP. The findings using disaggregated measures of PSP and ESP indicate negativity bias in that PSP weakness has a stronger negative impact on firm performance compared to PSP strength. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  S. Brammer,et al.  Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance , 2008 .

[2]  Leena Lankoski.  Differential Economic Impacts of Corporate Responsibility Issues , 2009 .

[3]  Samuel B. Graves,et al.  The corporate social performance-financial performance link , 1997 .

[4]  Stephen W. Pruitt,et al.  A Simple Approximation of Tobin's Q , 1994 .

[5]  Homer H. Johnson,et al.  Does it pay to be good? Social responsibility and financial performance , 2003 .

[6]  B. Lev,et al.  Is Doing Good Good for You? How Corporate Charitable Contributions Enhance Revenue Growth , 2008 .

[7]  Xueming Luo,et al.  Satisfaction, Complaint, and the Stock Value Gap , 2008 .

[8]  Mooweon Rhee,et al.  THE LIABILITY OF GOOD REPUTATION: A STUDY OF PRODUCT RECALLS IN THE U.S. AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY. , 2003 .

[9]  John Mcconnell,et al.  Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value , 1990 .

[10]  Cynthia A. Montgomery,et al.  Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin's q , 1988 .

[11]  Patricia M. Dechow,et al.  The Quality of Accruals and Earnings: The Role of Accrual Estimation Errors , 2002 .

[12]  Judith D. Singer,et al.  Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models , 1998 .

[13]  John Kane,et al.  The Politics of Moral Capital , 2001 .

[14]  M. Friedman.  The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits , 2007 .

[15]  Paul C. Godfrey,et al.  The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis , 2009 .

[16]  John J. Skowronski,et al.  Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. , 1987 .

[17]  Min Ding,et al.  Counting chickens before the eggs hatch: Associating new product development portfolios with shareholder expectations in the pharmaceutical sector , 2008 .

[18]  R. Wolfinger.  Heterogeneous Variance-Covariance Structures for Repeated Measures , 1996 .

[19]  P. Bansal,et al.  Being good while being bad: social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms , 2006 .

[20]  Carolyn J. Simmons,et al.  Achieving Marketing Objectives through Social Sponsorships , 2006 .

[21]  P. Varadarajan.  A two‐factor classification of competitive strategy variables , 1985 .

[22]  Katherine Schipper,et al.  Information Uncertainty and Post-Earnings-Announcement-Drift , 2007 .

[23]  T. Jones.  INSTRUMENTAL STAKEHOLDER THEORY: A SYNTHESIS OF ETHICS AND ECONOMICS , 1995 .

[24]  A. Hillman,et al.  Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line? , 2001 .

[25]  D. Turban,et al.  Corporate Social Performance And Organizational Attractiveness To Prospective Employees , 1997 .

[26]  Hillary Anger Elfenbein,et al.  Does it Pay to Be Good...And Does it Matter? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Corporate Social and Financial Performance , 2009 .

[27]  D. Wood.  Corporate Social Performance Revisited , 1991 .

[28]  H Goldstein,et al.  Multilevel time series models with applications to repeated measures data. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  Abagail McWilliams,et al.  Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? , 2000 .

[30]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  HOW DYNAMICS , MANAGEMENT , AND GOVERNANCE OF RESOURCE DEPLOYMENTS INFLUENCE FIRM-LEVEL PERFORMANCE , 2005 .

[31]  Edward B. Royzman,et al.  Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion , 2001 .

[32]  Pieter C. Arlow,et al.  Social Responsiveness, Corporate Structure, and Economic Performance , 1982 .

[33]  Xueming Luo,et al.  Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value , 2006 .