Corporate social performance disoriented: Saving the lost paradigm?

Business and Society

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 677-703

  Gond, Jean Pascal ^a   Crane, Andrew ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Corporate Social Performance; Corporate Social Responsibility; measurement; theory building

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649437349     PISSN: 00076503     EISSN: 14678594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0007650308315510     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Agle, B.R., & Kelley, P.C. (2001). Ensuring validity in the measurement of Corporate Social Performance: lessons from Corporate United Way and PAC campaigns. Journal of Business Ethics, 31, 271-284.
2. Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K., & Sonnefeld, 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.
3. Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. (2005). A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de Gestion des Res-sources Humaines, 57, 18-41.
4. Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B., & Hatfield, J.D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
5. de Bakker, G.A., Groenwegen, P., & den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283-317.
6. 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.
7. Berthelot, J.-M. (2001). Epistémologie des sciences sociales [Social sciences epistemology]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
8. Callon, M., & Muniesa, F. (2005). Economic markets as calculated and calculative devices. Organization Studies, 26(8), 1229-1250.
9. Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
10. Carroll, A.B. (1994). Social issues in management research. Expert's view, analysis and commentary. Business & Society, 33(1), 5-9.
11. Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268-295.
12. Chatterji, A., & Levine, D. (2006). Breaking down the wall of codes: Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. California Management Review, 48(2), 29-51.
13. Cheit, E.F. (1978). What is the field of Business & Society and where is it going? In E. Epstein & D. Votaw (Eds.), Rationality, legitimacy and responsibility: the search for new directions in Business & Society (pp. 183-202). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing.
14. Clarkson, M.B.E. (1991). Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: The stakeholder management model. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy (pp. 331-358). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
15. Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
16. Déjean, F., Gond, J.-P., & Leca, B. (2004). Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emergent industry. Human Relations, 57(6), 740-765.
17. Donaldson, T. (1994). When integration fails: The logic of prescription and description in business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 157-170.
18. Donaldson, T. (1999). Making stakeholder theory whole. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 237-241.
19. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
20. Entine, J. (2003). The myth of social investing. A critique of its practice and consequence for corporate social performance research. Organization and Environment, 16(3), 352-368.
21. Epstein, E., & Votaw, D. (Eds.). (1978). Rationality, legitimacy and responsibility: the search for new directions in Business & Society. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing.
22. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R.I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8-24.
23. Frederick, W.C. (1978). From CSR 1 to CSR 2: The maturing of Business and Society thought, (Working Paper). Pittsburgh, PA: Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.
24. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pit-man.
25. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 33, 122-126.
26. Gerde, V.W., & Wokutch, R.E. (1998). 25 years and going strong. A content analysis of the first 25 years of the Social Issues in Management Division Proceedings. Business & Society, 37(4), 414-446.
27. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75-91.
28. Gond, J.-P. (2001). L'éthique est-elle profitable? [Are ethics profitable?] Revue Française de Gestion, 136, 77-85.
29. Gond, J.-P., & Matten, D. (2007, August). Capturing the corporation-society interface: Toward a pluralistic view of CSR. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.
30. 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(1), 5-31.
31. Harrison, J.S., & Freeman, R.E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 42(5), 479-485.
32. 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.
33. Hirsch, P.M., & Levin, D.Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10(2), 199-212.
34. Husted, B.W. (2000). A contingency theory of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(1), 24-48.
35. Husted, B.W., & Allen, D.B. (2001, August). Toward a model of corporate social strategy formulation. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
36. Igalens, J., & Gond, J.-P. (2005). Measuring Corporate Social Performance in France: A critical and empirical analysis of ARESE data. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 131-148.
37. Jensen, M.C. (2001). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8-21.
38. Jones, T.M. (1983). An integrating framework for research in business and society. Academy of Management Review, 8(4), 559-665.
39. Jones, M.T. (1996). Missing the forest for the trees. A critique of the social responsibility concept and discourse. Business & Society, 35(1), 7-41.
40. Johnson R.A., & Greening, D.W. (1999). The effect of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564-576.
41. Khun, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42. Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
43. Lockett, A., & McWilliams, A. (2005). The balance of trade between disciplines: Do we effectively manage knowledge? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(2), 139-150.
44. Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115-136.
45. Margolis, J.D., Elfenbein, H.A., & Walsh, J.P. (2007, August). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.
46. Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2001a). Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives by business? (Working Paper 01-058). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
47. Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2001b). People and profits? The search for a link between a company's social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives by business? Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
49. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166-179.
50. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603-609.
51. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D.S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
52. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., & Wright, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18.
53. Mitnick, B.M. (1993). Organizing research in corporate social performance: The CSP system as core paradigm. In J. Pasquero & D. Collins (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the International Association for Business and Society (pp. 2-15). San Diego, CA: International Association for Business and Society.
54. Mitnick, B.M. (1995). Systematics and CSR. The theory and processes of normative referencing. Business & Society, 34(1), 5-33.
55. Mitnick, B.M. (2000). Commitment, revelation and the testament of belief: the metrics of measurement of CSP. Business & Society, 39(4), 419-465.
56. Newton, T., & Harte, G. (1997). Green business: Technicist kitsch? Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 75-98.
57. Orlitzky, M. (2007). Doing well by doing good: Objective findings, subjective assumptions, or selective amplification? Best paper proceedings of the annual meeting of the academy of management [CD]. Philadelphia: Academy of Management.
58. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., & Rynes, S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 103-441.
59. van Oosterhout, J.H., & Heugens, P.P.M.R. (2008). Much ado about nothing. A conceptual critique of CSR. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel, The Oxford handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 197-224). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
60. Poole, M.S., & Van De Ven, A.H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.
61. Porter, T.M. (1996a). Making things quantitative. In M. Power (Ed.), Accounting and science, natural inquiry and commercial reason (pp. 36-56). New York: Cambridge University Press.
62. Porter, T.M. (1996b). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
63. Power, M. (2004). Counting, control and measurement: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765-783.
64. Preston, L.E. (1975). Corporation and society. The search for a paradigm. Journal of Economic Literature, 13(2), 434-454.
65. Preston, L.E., & O'Bannon, D.P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship. A typology and analysis. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429.
66. Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy, and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67. Roman, R.M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B.R. (1999). The relationship between social and financial performance. Repainting a portrait. Business & Society, 38(4), 109-125.
68. Rowley, T.J., & Berman, S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397-418.
69. Russo, M.V., & Fouts, P.A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534-559.
70. Schepers, D.H., & Sethi, S.P. (2003). Do socially responsible funds actually deliver what they promise? Bridging the gap between the promise and performance of socially responsible funds. Business and Society Review, 108(1), 11-32.
71. Scherer, A., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096-1120.
72. Sethi, S.P. (1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63-75.
73. Swanson, D.L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the Corporate Social Performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 43-64.
74. Swanson, D.L. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 506-521.
75. Tirole, J. (2001). Corporate governance. Econometrica, 69(1), 1-36.
76. Treviño, L.K., & Weaver, G.R. 1994. Business ETHICS/BUSINESS ethics: One field or two? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2): 113-128.
77. Ullmann, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(1/2), 540-557.
78. Victor, B., & Stephens, C.U. (1994). Business ethics: A synthesis of normative philosophy and empirical science. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 145-155.
79. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue. The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings institution Press.
80. Waddock, S.A. (2003). Myths and realities of social investing. Organization and Environment, 16(3), 369-380.
81. Waddock, S.A. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate citizenship. Business and Society Review, 109(1), 5-42.
82. Waddock, S.A., & Graves, S.B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.
83. Waddock, S.A., & Mahon, J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited: dimensions of efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency. In E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, 12, 231-262.
84. Walsh, J.P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J.D. (2003). Social issues and management: Our lost cause found. Journal of Management, 29(6), 859-882.
85. Wartick, S.L., & Cochran, P.L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758-769.
86. Weaver, G.R., Treviño, L.K., & Cochran, P.L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539-552.
87. Werhane, P.H. (1994). The normative/descriptive distinction in methodologies of business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 175-180.
88. Windsor, D. (2001). The future of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(3), 225-256.
89. Wokutch, R.E., & McKinney, E.W. (1991). Behavioral and perceptual measures of corporate social performance. In J. E. Post (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (pp. 309-330). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
90. Wood, D.J. (1991a). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691-718.
91. Wood, D.J. (1991b). Toward improving Corporate Social Performance. Business Horizons, 34(4), 66-73.
92. Wood, D.J., & Jones, R.E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research in corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267.