Measuring corporate social performance: An efficiency perspective

Production and Operations Management

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 789-804

  Chen, Chien Ming ^a   Delmas, Magali ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

corporate social performance; data envelopment analysis; efficiency; KLD

Indexed keywords

EID: 81355164519     PISSN: 10591478     EISSN: 19375956     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2010.01202.x     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Agle, B., R. Mitchell, J. Sonnenfeld,. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Acad. Manage. J. 42 (5): 507-525.
2. Albinger, H., S. Freeman,. 2000. Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. J. Bus. Ethics 28 (3): 243-253.
3. Atasu, A., V. D. R. Guide Jr, L. N. Wassenhove,. 2008. Product reuse economics in closed-loop supply chain research. Prod. Oper. Manag. 17 (5): 483-496.
4. Aupperle, K. E., 1991. The use of forced choice survey procedures in assessing corporate social orientation. Res. Corp. Soc. Perform. Policy 12: 269-280.
5. Backhaus, K. B., B. A. Stone, K. Heiner,. 2002. Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Bus. Soc. 41 (3): 292-318.
6. Bartkus, B., M. Glassman,. 2008. Do firms practice what they preach? The relationship between mission statements and stakeholder management. J. Bus. Ethics 83 (2): 207-216.
7. Bendheim, C. L., S. Waddock, S. Graves,. 1998. Determining best practice in corporate-stakeholder relations using data envelopment analysis. Bus. Soc. 37 (3): 305-338.
8. Berman, S., A. Wicks, S. Kotha, T. Jones,. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad. Manage. J. 42 (5): 488-506.
9. Bird, R., A. D. Hall, F. Momente, F. Reggiani,. 2007. What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the market? J. Bus. Ethics 76 (2): 189-206.
10. Bouquet, C., Y. Deutsch,. 2008. The impact of corporate social performance on a firm's multi-nationality. J. Bus. Ethics 80 (4): 755-769.
11. Bowen, F. E., P. D. Cousins, R. C. Lamming, A. C. Faruk,. 2001. The role of supply management capabilities in green supply. Prod. Oper. Manag. 10 (2): 174-189. (Pubitemid 33600448)
12. Bowman, E. H., M. Haire,. 1975. A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. Calif. Manage. Rev. 18 (2): 49-58.
13. Briscoe, F., S. Safford,. 2008. The Nixon-in-China effect: Activism, imitation, and the institutionalization of contentious practices. Adm. Sci. Q. 53 (3): 460-491.
14. Brown, B., S. Perry,. 1994. Removing the financial performance halo from fortune's "most admired" companies. Acad. Manage. J. 37 (5): 1347-1359.
15. Carroll, A. B., 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Bus. Soc. 38 (3): 268-295.
16. Carter, C. R., 2008. Purchasing and social responsibility: A replication and extension. J. Supply Chain Manag. 40 (4): 4-16.
17. Charnes, A., W. Cooper, E. Rhodes,. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (6): 429-444. (Pubitemid 9402758)
18. Chatterji, A. K., D. I. Levine,. 2006. Breaking down the wall of codes: Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. Calif. Manage. Rev. 48 (2): 29-51.
19. Chatterji, A. K., D. I. Levine, M. W. Toffel,. 2009. How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? J. Econ. Manage. Strategy 18 (1): 125-169.
20. Chen, C.-M., M. A. Delmas, M. J. Montes,. 2010. Eco- vs. productive efficiency: A new approach to effective and comparative performance analysis. UC Santa Barbara: Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research. Retrieved from: (accessed November 9, 2010).
21. Chen, C.-M., J. van Dalen,. 2010. Measuring dynamic efficiency: Theories and an integrated methodology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 203 (3): 749-760.
22. Chen, J., D. Patten, R. Roberts,. 2008. Corporate charitable contributions: A corporate social performance or legitimacy strategy? J. Bus. Ethics 82 (1): 131-144.
23. Cho, C., D. Patten, R. Roberts,. 2006. Corporate political strategy: An examination of the relation between political expenditures, environmental performance, and environmental disclosure. J. Bus. Ethics 67 (2): 139-154.
24. Clarkson, M. B. E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20 (1): 92-117.
25. Cook, W., J. Zhu,. 2006. Rank order data in DEA: A general framework. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 174 (2): 1021-1038.
26. Cooper, W., L. Seiford, K. Tone,. 2006. Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. Springer Verlag, New york.
27. Dawkins, C., 2002. Corporate welfare, corporate citizenship, and the question of accountability. Bus. Soc. 41 (3): 269-291.
28. Deckop, J., K. Merriman, S. Gupta,. 2006. The effects of CEO pay structure on corporate social performance. J. Manage. 32 (3): 329-342. (Pubitemid 43641723)
29. Delmas, M., M. Toffel,. 2008. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strateg. Manage. J. 29 (10): 1027-1055.
30. Delmas, M. A., V. Doctori-Blass,. 2010. Corporate environmental performance: The trade-offs of sustainability ratings. Bus. Strategy Environ. 19 (4): 245-260.
31. Delmas, M. A., I. Montiel,. 2009. Greening the supply chain: When is customer pressure effective? J. Econ. Manage. Strategy 18 (1): 171-201.
32. Delmas, M. A., M. V. Y. Russo, M. J. Montes-Sancho,. 2007. Deregulation and environmental differentiation in the electric utility industry. Strateg. Manage. J. 28 (2): 189-209. (Pubitemid 46144838)
33. Delmas, M. A., Y. Tokat,. 2005. Deregulation, efficiency and governance structures: The U.S. electric utility sector. Strateg. Manage. J. 26 (5): 441-460.
34. Delquié, P., 1997. Bi-matching: A new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Manage. Sci. 43 (5): 640-658.
35. Drumwright, M. E., 1994. Socially responsible organizational buying: Environmental concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. J. Mark. 58 (3): 1-19.
36. Dyckhoff, H., K. Allen,. 2001. Measuring ecological efficiency with data envelopment analysis (DEA). Eur. J. Oper. Res. 132 (2): 312-325. (Pubitemid 32385023)
37. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, C. Pasurka Jr,. 2006. Social responsibility: US power plants 1985-1998. J. Prod. Anal. 26 (3): 259-267.
38. Freeman, A. M., 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. RFF Press, Washington, DC.
39. Gond, J.-P., A. Crane,. 2010. Corporate social performance disoriented: Saving the lost paradigm? Bus. Soc., [DOI DOI: 10.1177/0007650308315510 ].
40. Goto, M., M. Tsutsui,. 1998. Comparison of productive and cost efficiencies among Japanese and US electric utilities. Omega 26 (2): 177-194. (Pubitemid 128348368)
41. Graves, S., S. Waddock,. 1994. Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Acad. Manage. J. 37 (4): 1034-1046.
42. Griffin, J., 2000. Corporate social performance: Research directions for the 21st century. Bus. Soc. 39 (4): 479-491.
43. Griffin, J., J. Mahon,. 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Bus. Soc. 36 (1): 5-31.
44. Hillman, A., G. Keim,. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line? Strateg. Manage. J. 22 (2): 125-139. (Pubitemid 33617225)
45. Hirsch, P. M., D. Z. Levin,. 1999. Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organ. Sci. 10 (2): 199-212.
46. Hull, C., S. Rothenberg,. 2008. Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strateg. Manage. J. 29 (7): 781-789.
47. Igalens, J., J.-P. Gond,. 2005. Measuring corporate social performance in France: A critical and empirical analysis of ARESE data. J. Bus. Ethics 56 (2): 131-148.
48. Johnson, R., D. Greening,. 1999. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Acad. Manage. J. 42 (5): 564-576.
49. Kane, G., U. Velury, B. Ruf,. 2005. Employee relations and the likelihood of occurrence of corporate financial distress. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 32 (5-6): 1083-1105.
50. Kempf, A., P. Osthoff, A. Platz,. 2007. The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance. Eur. Financ. Manage. 13 (5): 908-922.
51. Kennelly, J., E. Lewis,. 2002. Degree of internationalization and corporate environmental performance: Is there a link. Int. J. Manage. 19 (3): 478-489.
52. Kuosmanen, T., M. Kortelainen,. 2007. Valuing environmental factors in cost-benefit analysis using data envelopment analysis. Ecol. Econ. 62 (1): 56-65. (Pubitemid 46453158)
53. Landier, A., V. Nair, J. Wulf,. 2009. Trade-offs in staying close: Corporate decision making and geographic dispersion. Rev. Financ. Stud. 22 (3): 1119-1148.
54. Loureiro, M. L., J. Lotade,. 2005. Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience? Ecol. Econ. 53 (1): 129-138. (Pubitemid 40771992)
55. Luce, R., A. Barber, A. Hillman,. 2001. Good deeds and misdeeds: A mediated model of the effect of corporate social performance on organizational attractiveness. Bus. Soc. 40 (4): 397-415.
56. Majumdar, S. K., A. A. Marcus,. 2001. Rules versus discretion: The productivity consequences of flexible regulation. Acad. Manage. J. 44 (1): 170-179.
57. Marquis, C., M. Glynn, G. Davis,. 2007. Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32 (3): 925-945.
58. Mattingly, J., S. Berman,. 2006. Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Bus. Soc. 45 (1): 20-46.
59. McGuire, J., S. Dow, K. Argheyd,. 2003. CEO incentives and corporate social performance. J. Bus. Ethics 45 (4): 341-359. (Pubitemid 38097317)
60. McWilliams, A., D. Siegel,. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strateg. Manage. J. 21 (5): 603-609.
61. McWilliams, A., D. Siegel,. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Acad. Manage. J. 26 (1): 117-127.
62. Mitchell, R., B. Agle, D. Wood,. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manage. Rev. 22 (4): 853-886.
63. Neiling, E., E. Webb,. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The "virtuous circle" revisited. Rev. Q. Financ. Account. 32 (2): 197-209.
64. Neubaum, D., S. Zahra,. 2006. Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. J. Manage. 32 (1): 108-131.
65. Podinovski, V. V., E. Thanassoulis,. 2007. Improving discrimination in data envelopment analysis: Some practical suggestions. J. Prod. Anal. 28 (1): 117-126.
66. Rehbein, K., S. Waddock, S. B. Graves,. 2004. Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted? Bus. Soc. 43 (3): 239-267.
67. Rowley, T., S. Berman,. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Bus. Soc. 39 (4): 397-418.
68. Ruf, B., K. Muralidhar, R. Brown, J. Janney, K. Paul,. 2001. An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 32 (2): 143-156. (Pubitemid 33388410)
69. Ruf, B., K. Muralidhar, K. Paul,. 1998. The development of a systematic, aggregate measure of corporate social performance. J. Manage. 24 (1): 119-133. (Pubitemid 128180684)
70. Seuring, S., M. Müller,. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15): 1699-1710.
71. Shropshire, C., A. Hillman,. 2007. A longitudinal study of significant change in stakeholder management. Bus. Soc. 46 (1): 63-87.
72. Simar, L., P. W. Wilson,. 2007. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J. Econ. 136 (1): 31-64. (Pubitemid 44380324)
73. Simerly, R., 2003. An empirical examination of the relationship between management and corporate social performance. Int. J. Manage. 20 (3): 353-359. (Pubitemid 37211731)
74. Srivastava, S. K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 9 (1): 53-80.
75. Strike, V. M., J. Gao, P. Bansal,. 2006. Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37 (6): 850-862.
76. Thomas, A., R. Simerly,. 1995. Internal determinants of corporate social performance: The role of top managers. Academy of Management Journal Best Paper Proceedings, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 411-415.
77. Turban, D., D. Greening,. 1996. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Acad. Manage. J. 40 (3): 658-672.
78. Van der Laan, G., H. Van Ees, A. Van Witteloostuijn,. 2008. Corporate social and financial performance: An extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with accounting measures. J. Bus. Ethics 79 (3): 299-310.
79. Waddock, S., 2003. Myths and realities of social investing. Organ. Environ. 16 (3): 369-380. (Pubitemid 37172152)
80. Waddock, S., S. Graves,. 1997a. Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations: Are they synonymous? Bus. Soc. 36 (3): 250-279.
81. Waddock, S., S. Graves,. 1997b. The corporate social performance- financial performance link. Strateg. Manage. J. 18 (4): 303-319. (Pubitemid 127467154)
82. Waldman, D., D. Siegel, M. Javidan,. 2006. Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. J. Manage. Stud. 4 (8): 1703-1725. (Pubitemid 44893189)
83. Webb, E., 2004. An examination of socially responsible firms' board structure. J. Manage. Gov. 8 (3): 255-277. (Pubitemid 39604445)
84. Wokutch, R. E., E. W. McKinney,. 1991. Behavioral and perceptual measures of corporate social performance., Post, J. E., ed. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 12. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 309-330.
85. Wolfe, R., 1991. The use of content analysis to assess corporate social responsibility., Post, J. E., ed. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 12. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 281-308.
86. Zahra, S. A., B. M. Oviatt, K. Minyard,. 1993. Effects of corporate ownership and board structure on corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal Best Paper Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, pp. 336-340.
87. Zhou, P., B. W. Ang, K. L. Poh,. 2009. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 189 (1): 1-18. (Pubitemid 351232133)
88. Zhu, J., 2003. Imprecise data envelopment analysis (IDEA): A review and improvement with and application. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 144 (3): 513-529.