Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Size, Corporate Social Performance, and Business Performance

  • Chapter
Toward Integrative Corporate Citizenship

  • 168 Accesses

Abstract

In the previous two chapters, we presented meta-analytic evidence which suggests that corporate social performance (CSP) is positively related to company financial performance (Chapter 4) and inversely related to business risk (Chapter 5). Even so, Stanwick and Stanwick’s (1998) study raises the suspicion that organizational size may be an exogenous determinant of both CSP and corporate financial performance (CFP). That is, it is possible that the significantly positive path coefficient between CSP and CFP is spurious and disappears when firm size is entered as a third variable (Chen & Metcalf, 1980). However, Stanwick and Stanwick’s (1998) conclusions are limited to their specific sample (Fortune 500 companies) and operationalizations of CSP (Fortune Corporate Reputation Index). The study presented in this chapter takes a broader, more representative perspective.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abbott, W. F. & Monsen, J. R. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosure as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 501–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E. & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of organizations. In A. Inkeles (ed.), Annual Review of Sociology, 2 (pp. 79–105 ). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, G. J. & Buchholz, R. A. (1978). Corporate social performance and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 479–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C. & Frankle, A. W. (1980). Voluntary social reporting: An isobeta portfolio analysis. Accounting Review, 55, 467–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aupperle, K. E., Simmons, F. B. & Acar, W. ( 1990, August). An empirical investigation into how entrepreneurs view their social responsibilities. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meetings, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belkaoui, A. (1976). The impact of the disclosure of the environmental effects of organizational behavior on the market. Financial Management, 5, 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, V. L., Doran, M. & Shrader, C. B. (1994). Investigating the dimensions of social responsibility and the consequences for corporate financial performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6 (2), 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H. (1976). Strategy and the weather. Sloan Management Review, 17, 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H. (1978). Strategy, annual reports, and alchemy. California Management Review, 20, 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H. & Haire, M. (1975). A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragdon, J. H., Jr. & Marlin, J. A. T. (1972). Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19, 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. & Perry, S. (1994). Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s ‘Most Admired Companies.’ Academy of Management Journal, 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, L., Logsdon, J. M., Mitchell, W., Reiner, M. & Vogel, D. (1986). Corporate community involvement in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Management Review, 28(3), 122–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capon, N., Farley, J. U. & Hoenig, S. (1990, Oct.). Determinants of financial performance: A meta-analysis. Management Science, 36, 1143–1159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K. H. & Metcalf, R. W. (1980). The relationship between pollution control record and financial indicators revisited. Accounting Review, 55 (1), 168–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, P. L. & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conine, T. E. & Madden, G. P. (1987). Corporate social responsibility and investment value: The expectational relationship. In W. D. Guth (ed.), Handbook of business strategy 1986/1987 yearbook (pp. 18–1 to 18–9 ). Boston: Warren, Gorham & Lamont.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design (Sr analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B. & Parker, L. D. (1987). The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C. & Rajaratnam, N. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 16, 137–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta, D. & Narayanan, V. K. (1989). A meta-analytic review of the concentration-performance relationship: Aggregating findings in Strategic Management. Journal of Management, 15 (3), 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, W. N. III & Worrell, D. L. (1992). Research notes and communications: The effect of product recall announcements on shareholder wealth. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 467–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, R. S. & Lerner, L. D. (1994). Pollution, profits, and stakeholders: The constraining effect of economic performance on CEO concern with stakeholder expectations. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogler, H. R. & Nutt, F. (1975). A note on social responsibility and stock valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 155–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, W. C. (1995). Values, nature, and culture in the American corporation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, M. & Jaggi, B. (1982). Pollution disclosures, pollution performance and economic performance. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 10, 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, M. & Jaggi, B. (1986). An analysis of the impact of corporate pollution disclosures included in annual financial statements on investors’ decisions. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 1, 192–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding, R. Z. & Wagner, J. A., III. (1985). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between size and performance: The productivity and efficiency of organizations and their subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 462–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J. D. (1992). Small business and corporate social performance: An empirical exploration of small business involvement in employer supported child care. In J. E. Post (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy: Markets, politics, and social performance, 13 (pp. 141–158 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, S. B. & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1034–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W. (1995). Conservation strategies, firm performance, and corporate reputation in the U.S. electric utility industry. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Supplement 1 (pp. 345–368 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J. & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36, 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G. S. & Wernerfelt, B. (1989). Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 399–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, D. C. (1976). Financial correlates of a social involvement measure. Akron Business and Economic Review, 7, 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herremans, I. M., Akathaporn, P. & McInnes, M. (1993). An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18, 587–604.

    Article  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, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting errors and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, R. W. (1978). An investigation of the information content of (certain) social responsibility disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 16, 270–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, R. W. & Frazier, K. B. (1980). Environmental performance and corporate disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 614–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, R. (1987). The validity of ROI as a measure of business performance. American Economic Review, 77, 470–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayande, U. & Bhargava, M. (1994). An examination of temporal patterns in meta-analysis. Marketing Letters, 5 (2), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedia, B. L. & Kuntz, E. C. (1981). The context of social performance: An empirical study of Texas banks. In L. E. Preston (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 3 (pp. 133–154 ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kimberly, J. R. (1976). Organizational size and the structuralist perspective: A review, critique, and proposal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 571–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, F. K. & Shatto, G. M. (1980). Social responsibility in large electric utility firms: The case for philanthropy. In L. E. Preston (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 2 (pp. 237–249 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, W. F. & Ravenscraft, D. J. (1984). The misuse of accounting rates of return: comment. American Economic Review, 74, 494–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A. A. & Goodman, R. S. (1986). Compliance and performance: Toward a contingency theory. In L. E. Preston (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 8 (pp. 193–221 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A. & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 854–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, H. ( 1969, Summer). The policy of the European coal and steel community toward mergers and agreements by steel companies. Antitrust Bulletin, 14, 413–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newgren, K. E., Rasher, A. A., LaRoe, M. E. & Szabo, M. R. (1985). Environmental assessment and corporate performance: A longitudinal analysis using a market-determined performance measure. In L. E. Preston (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 7 (pp. 153–164 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, H. M., Saunders, C. B. & McCarthy, A. D. (1989). Board members, corporate social responsiveness and profitability: Are tradeoffs necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 353–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (1998). A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance. Unpublished dissertation thesis, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (2006). Links between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: Theoretical and empirical determinants. In J. Allouche (ed.), Corporate social responsibility, Vol. 2: Performances and stakeholders (pp. 41–64 ). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (2008). Corporate social performance and financial performance: A research synthesis. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon & D. Siegel (eds), The Oxford Handbook of CSR. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (1990). The market reaction to social responsibility disclosures: The case of the Sullivan Principles signings. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 575–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pava, M. L. & Krausz, J. (1995). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Westport, CT: Quorum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkston, T. S. & Carroll, A. B. (1993). An investigation of the relationship between organizational size and corporate social performance. JABS Proceedings, 109–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, L. E. (1978). Analyzing corporate social performance: Methods and results. Journal of Contemporary Business, 7, 135–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement 2nd ed. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann, B. C. (1975). Organizational effectiveness and management’s public values: A canonical analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 224–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (1991). Organizational effectiveness, social performance and economic performance. In J. E. Post (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 12 (pp. 143–153 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V. & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., Law, K., Hunter, J. E. & Rothstein, H. R. (1993). Refinements in validity generalization methods: Implications for the situational specificity hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, P. B. & Spicer, B. H. (1983). Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. Accounting Review, 58, 521–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. (1996). A concurrent validity study of the KLD social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford, R. E. (1980). The effects of promotion by seniority in growth-constrained organizations. Management Science, 26, 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simerly, R. L. (1994). Corporate social performance and firms’ financial performance: An alternative perspective. Psychological Reports, 75, 1091–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simerly, R. L. (1995). Institutional ownership, corporate social performance,and firms’ financial performance. Psychological Reports, 77, 515–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, B. A. & Taylor, S. G. (1987). A within and between analysis of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Akron Business and Economic Review, 18, 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, B. H. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. Accounting Review, 53, 94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanwick, P. A. & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M. (1990). Stakeholder management and firm performance: Reputation and financial relationships to U.S. electric utility consumer-related strategies. Unpublished dissertation thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M. (1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturdivant, F. D. & Ginter, J. L. (1977). Corporate social responsiveness: Management attitudes and economic performance. California Management Review, 19, 30–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20, 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traub, R. E. (1994). Reliability for the social sciences: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trotman, K. T. & Bradley, G. W. (1981). Associations between social responsibility disclosure and characteristics of companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6(4), 355–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Useem, M. (1991). Organizational and managerial factors in the shaping of corporate social and political action. In J. E. Post (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 12 (pp. 63–92 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance, S. (1975). Are socially responsible firms good investment risks? Management Review, 64, 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. & Ramanujam, V. (1987). Measurement of business economic performance: An examination of method convergence. Journal of Management, 13, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L. (1988). How issues management contributes to corporate performance. Business Forum, 13, 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, E. J., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., Sechrest, L. & Grove, J. (1981). Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7, 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wokutch, R. E. & Spencer, B. A. (1987). Corporate sinners and saints: The effects of philanthropic and illegal activity on organizational performance. California Management Review, 29, 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R. (1991). The use of content analysis to assess corporate social responsibility. In J. E. Post (ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 12 (pp. 281–307 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. (1995). The Fortune database as a CSP measure. Business Sr Society, 34, 197–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pennsylvania State University Altoona, USA

    Marc Orlitzky (Associate Professor of Management)

  2. Kansas State University, USA

    Diane L. Swanson (Professor of Management)

Authors
  1. Marc Orlitzky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diane L. Swanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2008 Marc Orlitzky and Diane L. Swanson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Orlitzky, M., Swanson, D.L. (2008). Organizational Size, Corporate Social Performance, and Business Performance. In: Toward Integrative Corporate Citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594708_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation