Ranking corporations based on sustainable and socially responsible practices. A data envelopment analysis (dea) approach

Sustainable Development

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 257-268

  Belu, Constantin ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b The Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies   (Romania)

Author keywords

Corporate social responsibility; Data envelopment analysis; Sustainable development

Indexed keywords

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE; RANKING; SUSTAINABILITY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 70049105313     PISSN: 09680802     EISSN: 10991719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sd.390     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30: 1078-1092.
2. Barnett M. 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32(3): 794-816.
3. Bosetti B, Locatelli G. 2006. A data envelopment analysis approach to the assessment of natural parks' economic efficiency and sustainability. The case of Italian national parks. Sustainable Development 14(4): 277-286.
4. Brown L, Marcus C. 2004. Corporate Governance and Company Performance. Institutional Shareholder Services. www.issproxy.com/pdf/Corporate%20Governance%20Study%201.04.pdf [1 March 2005].
5. Cerin P, Dobers P. 2001. What does the performance of the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index tell us? Eco-Management and Auditing 8(3): 123-133.
6. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. 1978. Measuring efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429-444.
7. Cohen M, Fenn S, Konar S. 1997. Environmental and Financial Performance: Are They Related? working paper, Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/d/dLwFkQ/Environmental%20and%20Financial%20Performance.pdf [1 March 2008].
8. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K. 2000. Data Envelopment Analysis. Kluwer, USA.
9. Derwall J, Gunster N, Bauer R, Koedijk K. 2005. The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financial Analysts Journal 61(2): 51-63.
10. Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E. 1988. Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. Journal of Operational Research Society 39: 563-576.
11. Edvardsen DF. 2004. Four Eessays on the Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Economic Studies Series 141, Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg.
12. European Commission. 2001. The Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/csr/index_en.htm [31 December 2008].
13. Farrell MJ. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 120(III): 253-281.
14. Filbeck G, Gorman RF. 2004. The relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environmental and Resource Economics 29(2): 137-157.
15. Hamilton S. 1995. Pollution as news: media and stock market reactions to the Toxics Release Inventory data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(1): 98-113.
16. Hamilton S, Jo H, Statman M. 1993. Doing well while doing good? The investment performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysts Journal 49(6): 62-66.
17. Hart S, Ahuja G. 1996. Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 5: 30-37.
18. King A, Lenox M. 2001. Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. The Journal of Industrial Ecology 5(1): 105-116.
19. Lins MPE, da Silva ACM, Lovell CAK. 2007. Avoiding infeasibility in DEA models with weight restrictions. European Journal of Operational Research 181: 956-966.
20. Lovell CAK, Pastor JT. 1995. Units invariant and translation invariant DEA models. Operations Research Letters 18: 147-151.
21. McWilliams A, Siegel D, Teoh SW. 1999. Issues in the use of the event study methodology: a critical analysis of corporate social responsibility studies. Organizational Research Methods 2(4): 340-365.
22. Porter M. 1991. America's green strategy. Scientific American 264: 168.
23. Porter M, Van der Linde C. 1995. Green and competitive: breaking the stalemate. Harvard Business Review 73(5): 120-134.
24. Simar L. 2007. How to improve performance of DEA/FDA estimators in the presence of noise. Journal of Productivity Analysis 28: 183-201.
25. Simar L, Wilson PW. 2000. A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models. Journal of Applied Statistics 27(7): 779-802.
26. Shadbegian R, Grey W. 2006. Assessing multi-dimensional performance: environmental and economic outcomes. Journal of Productivity Analysis 26: 213-234.
27. Shawn B, Wicks A, Kotha S, Jones T. 1999. Does shareholder orientation matter? An empirical examination of the relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 488-506.
28. Telle K. 2006. It pays to be green - a premature conclusion? Environmental and Resource Economics 35: 195-220.
29. Waddock SA, Graves BS. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial link. Strategic Management Journal 18(4): 303-319.
30. Wagner M, Schaltegger S, Wehrmeyer W. 2001. The relationship between the environmental and economic performance of firms: what does theory propose and what does empirical evidence tell us? Greener Management International 34: 95-108.