Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does A Virtuous Circle Really Exist? Revisiting the Causal Linkage Between CSP and CFP

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies have proposed a virtuous circle between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP). However, a key challenge researchers face when empirically examining this virtuous circle is endogeneity. In this paper, we apply a well-developed method—dynamic panel data (DPD) estimation—to account for endogeneity and conduct two studies to reexamine the causal relationship between CSP and CFP. Study 1 relies on KLD ratings from 1997 to 2012 as the measure of CSP. According to the results of Study 1, although CFP measured as ROE may have a causal impact on CSP, it is doubtful whether there is a causal influence of CSP on CFP. Study 2 relies on the sustainability scores provided by Sustainalytics from 2009 to 2018 as the measure of CSP. Study 2 reports that CSP does not causally influence CFP and that CFP does not have a causal impact on CSP. Together, Study 1 and Study 2, using different measures for CSP, suggest that a virtuous circle between CSP and CFP may not exist. Our study suggests that doing good may not necessarily lead to doing well and that doing well may not naturally result in doing good. Thus, our study implies that future studies should seriously consider the causal mechanisms through which CSP may influence or may be influenced by CFP. Our paper also discusses the implications for CSP research and for management and organization research. The limitations of applying DPD estimation to empirically examine the causal relationship between CSP and CFP are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In addition to the three sources discussed above, endogeneity may potentially exist when the sample is truncated and a sample-selection bias is present (Clougherty et al. 2016). We argue, however, that sample-selection bias may not manifest in our study because our sample is constructed based on a large dataset of third-party CSP ratings (i.e., KLD ratings). Firms are unable to decide whether they are selected to be rated by KLD; instead, KLD ratings cover over 3000 large US firms. Thus, we argue that the sample is unlikely to be truncated.

  2. Our sample contains 992 firms, so we could argue that the number of firms is not extremely small.

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alessandri, T. M., Tong, T. W., & Reuer, J. J. (2012). Firm heterogeneity in growth option value: The role of managerial incentives. Strategic Management Journal, 33(13), 1557–1566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arend, R. J., Patel, P. C., & Park, H. D. (2014). Explaining post-IPO venture performance through a knowledge-based view typology. Strategic Management Journal, 35(3), 376–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, R., Wu, D., & Yaron, A. (2016). Is socially responsible investing a luxury good. Working Paper, Duke University.

  • Bascle, G. (2008). Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6(3), 285–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettis, R., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2014). Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 949–953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettis, R. A., & Mahajan, V. (1985). Risk/return performance of diversified firms. Management Science, 31(7), 785–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 435–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business & Society, 38(2), 167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, T., & Friede, G. (2018). The robustness of the corporate social and financial performance relation: A second-order meta-analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, 583–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1597–1614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S. C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 895–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clougherty, J. A., Duso, T., & Muck, J. (2016). Correcting for self-selection based endogeneity in management research: Review, recommendations and simulations. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 286–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J., & Durand, R. (2012). More than just novelty: Conceptual blending and causality. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 152–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Henriques, I., Husted, B. W., & Matten, D. (2017). Measuring corporate social responsibility and impact: Enhancing quantitative research design and methods in business and society research. Business & Society, 56(6), 787–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., Hitt, M. A., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, C. M. (2007). The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation: Independence, equity, and the market for corporate control. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, F., Lohrke, F. T., Fornaciari, C. J., & Turner, R. A. (2004). Slack resources and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 565–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deckop, J. R., Merriman, K. K., & Gupta, S. (2006). The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 32(3), 329–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichenbaum, M. S., Hansen, L. P., & Singleton, K. J. (1988). A time series analysis of representative agent models of consumption and leisure choice under uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1079–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C., & Kacperczyk, A. (2016). The impact of stakeholder orientation on innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Science, 62(7), 1982–2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fremeth, A. R., & Shaver, J. M. (2014). Strategic rationale for responding to extra-jurisdictional regulation: Evidence from firm adoption of renewable power in the US. Strategic Management Journal, 35(5), 629–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, R. J., & Shen, W. (2013). The impacts of performance relative to analyst forecasts and analyst coverage on firm R&D intensity. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, J., & Maícas, J. P. (2011). Do switching costs mediate the relationship between entry timing and performance? Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1251–1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gschwandtner, A. (2005). Profit persistence in the ‘very’ long run: Evidence from survivors and exiters. Applied Economics, 37(7), 793–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, B. H., & Nickerson, J. A. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, L. P., & Singleton, K. J. (1982). Generalized instrumental variables estimation of nonlinear rational expectations models. Econometrica, 50(5), 1269–1286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X. B., & Watson, L. (2015). Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 34, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2015). The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management Journal, 36(7), 1053–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jo, H., & Harjoto, M. A. (2012). The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. (2013). Financial resource availability and corporate social responsibility expenditures in a sub-Saharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1314–1330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keats, B. W. (1988). The vertical construct validity of business economic performance measures. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(2), 151–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Li, H., & Li, S. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and stock price crash risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, P. S., Qian, C., & Wang, H. (2014). Firm litigation risk and the insurance value of corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10), 1464–1482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. (2018). Doing good does not preclude doing well: Corporate responsibility and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(4), 764–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 198–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Wang, H., Raithel, S., & Zheng, Q. (2015). Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 123–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. R., & Moser, D. V. (2016). Managers’ green investment disclosures and investors’ reaction. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(1), 239–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E. (2015). Corporate social performance: A review of empirical research examining the corporation–society relationship using Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini social ratings data. Business & Society, 56(6), 796–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business & Society, 45(1), 20–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (2001). Does firm size confound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40(4), 369–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate social performance. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1518–1541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2009a). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2009b). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Stata Journal, 9(1), 86–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business & Society, 43(2), 135–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahzad, A. M., Mousa, F. T., & Sharfman, M. P. (2016). The implications of slack heterogeneity for the slack-resources and corporate social performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5964–5971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, J. M. (1998). Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44(4), 571–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. (2016). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 314–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verwijmeren, P., & Derwall, J. (2010). Employee well-being, firm leverage, and bankruptcy risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(5), 956–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 170–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintoki, M. B., Linck, J. S., & Netter, J. M. (2012). Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 581–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Li, J., Jiang, W., Zhang, H., Hu, Y., & Liu, M. (2018). Organizational structure, slack resources and sustainable corporate socially responsible performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1099–1107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., & Murrell, A. J. (2016). Revisiting the corporate social performance-financial performance link: A replication of Waddock and Graves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2378–2388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Shao, F., & Wu, C. (2019). Do stakeholder relationships matter? An empirical study of exploration, exploitation and firm performance. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2019-0058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Wu, C., Chen, C. C., & Zhou, Z. (2020). The influence of corporate social responsibility on incumbent employees: A meta-analytic investigation of the mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320946108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the David Berg Center for Ethics and Leadership at the University of Pittsburgh, Katz/CBA School of Business. This research was also supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71632007).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Organization Management, Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    Xiaoping Zhao

  2. College of Business Administration, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA

    Audrey Murrell

Authors
  1. Xiaoping Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Audrey Murrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Audrey Murrell.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, X., Murrell, A. Does A Virtuous Circle Really Exist? Revisiting the Causal Linkage Between CSP and CFP. J Bus Ethics 177, 173–192 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04769-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04769-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation