Advertisement

A Data Envelopment Analysis-Based Methodology Adopting Assurance Region Approach for Measuring Corporate Social Performance

  • Tai-Hsi WuEmail author
  • Hsiang-Lin Chih
  • Mei-Chen Lin
  • Yi Hua Wu
Original Research
First Online:
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Many research papers calculate corporate social performance (CSP) with the net score method, i.e., by subtracting the number of concerns from the number of strengths. Although widely adopted, this method implies, perhaps mistakenly, that each indicator is of equal importance and that however serious the social misconduct a firm may have engaged in, it can be completely offset by some positive social action. The method also implies that a given firm that has done both a lot of harm and a lot of good will have CSP similar to that of another firm that has done little harm and little good. In this study, however, we question the appropriateness of the net score method in terms of its ability to truly reflect CSP and truly identify the real effects of CSP on various characteristics. We therefore propose a data envelopment analysis-based methodology that adopts the assurance region approach for evaluating CSP, through which various CSP indicators are converted into a single composite measure of CSP. Our findings show that our proposed methodology consistently performs better than the net score method in evaluating CSP.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility Corporate social performance Performance measurement Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Assurance region KLD 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under Grants MOST-106-2410-H-305-011. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,32(3), 794–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal,33(11), 1304–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belu, C., & Manescu, C. (2013). Strategic corporate social responsibility and economic performance. Applied Economics,45(19), 2751–2764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research,2, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1979). Short communication: Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research,3, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C. M., & Delmas, M. A. (2011). Measuring corporate social performance: An efficiency perspective. Production and Operations Management,20(6), 789–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal,30(8), 895–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008). CAR-DEA: Context-dependent assurance regions in DEA. Operations Research,56(1), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlmann, F., & Brammer, S. (2011). Exploring and explaining patterns of adaptation and selection in corporate environmental strategy in the USA. Organization Studies,32(4), 527–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal,28, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal,16(2), 312–322.Google Scholar
  13. Delmas, M., & Doctori-Blass, V. (2010). Measuring corporate environmental performance: The trade-offs of sustainability ratings. Business Strategy and the Environment,19(4), 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dowell, G., Hart, S., & Yeung, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science,46(8), 1059–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doyle, J. R., & Green, R. H. (1993). Data envelopment analysis and multiple criteria decision making. Omega,21, 713–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? Journal of Banking & Finance,35(9), 2388–2406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,120(3), 253–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flammer, C. (2015). Does product market competition foster corporate social responsibility? Evidence from trade liberalization. Strategic Management Journal,36(10), 1469–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giuli, A. D., & Kostovetsky, L. (2014). Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics,111, 158–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal,37(4), 1034–1046.Google Scholar
  22. Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society,26, 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halkos, G. E., Tzeremes, N. G., & Kourtzidis, S. A. (2015). Weight assurance region in two-stage additive efficiency decomposition DEA model: An application to school data. Journal of the Operational Research Society,66, 696–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal,29(7), 781–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ingley, C., Mueller, J., & Cocks, G. (2011). The financial crisis, investor activists and corporate strategy: Will this mean shareholders in the boardroom? Journal of Management and Governance,15, 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Isaksson, R., & Steimle, U. (2009). What does GRI-reporting tell us about corporate sustainability? The TQM Journal,21(2), 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khouja, M. (1995). The use of data envelopment analysis for technology selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering,28, 128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, Y., Park, M. S., & Wier, B. (2012). Is earnings quality associated with corporate social responsibility? The Accounting Review,87(3), 761–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lai, P. L., Potter, A., Beynon, M., & Beresford, A. (2015). Evaluating the efficiency performance of airports using an integrated AHP/DEA-AR technique. Transport Policy,42, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, K.-H., & Saen, R. F. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics,140, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business and Society,45(1), 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,31(4), 854–872.Google Scholar
  35. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal,21(5), 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review,26, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies,43(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies,24(3), 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petrenko, C. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal,37(2), 262–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richardson, A. J., & Welker, M. (2001). Social disclosure, financial disclosure and the cost of equity capital. Accounting, Organizations and Society,26(7), 597–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal,23, 1077–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics,32(2), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., & Paul, K. (1998). The development of a systematic, aggregate measure of corporate social performance. Journal of Management,24, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sarkis, J. (2000). A comparative analysis of DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision tool. European Journal of Operational Research,123, 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stewart, T. J. (1996). Relationship between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society,47, 654–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strike, V. M., Gao, P., & Pratima, B. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies,37(6), 850–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. SustainAbilty. (2010). Rate the raters (phase two): Taking inventory of the ratings universe. October 2010.Google Scholar
  48. SustainAbilty. (2013). Rate the raters (phase five): The 2013 rating survey: Polling the experts. A GlobeScan/Sustainability Survey.Google Scholar
  49. Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal,36(9), 1338–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thompson, R. G., Dharmapala, P. S., Gatewood, E. J., Macy, S., & Thrall, R. M. (1996). DEA/assurance region SBDC efficiency and unique projections. Operations Research,44(4), 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson, R. G., Lee, L., & Thrall, R. M. (1992). DEA/AR-efficiency of U.S. independent oil/gas. Computers & Operations Research,19(5), 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thompson, R. G., Singleton, F. D., Jr., Thrall, R. M., & Smith, B. A. (1986). Comparative site evaluation for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces,16, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. The Academy of Management Journal,40(3), 658–672.Google Scholar
  54. Waddock, S. (2003). Stakeholder performance implications of corporate responsibility. International Journal of Business Performance Management,5, 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal,18(4), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wolfe, R., & Aupperle, K. (1991). Introduction to corporate social performance: Methods for evaluating an elusive construct. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 12, pp. 265–268). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal,54, 1207–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review,16, 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationNational Taipei UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Finance and Cooperative ManagementNational Taipei UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options