Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies

Mackey, Alison; Mackey, Tyson B.; Barney, Jay B.

doi:10.5465/amr.2007.25275676

Cited by 896 publications

(632 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

594

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Attracting the attention of the public is, of course, one purpose of this tool of impression management. Firms embrace CSR practices in order to increase their visibility in the field, drawing greater attention to reputationenhancing characteristics (Udayasankar 2008) and positively differentiating themselves from their competitors (Mackey, Mackey, and Barney 2007). Although this increased visibility may increase customers' and suppliers' commitment to the firm, a negative side-effect is that it also exposes the firm to activists' attention.…”

Section: The Reputational Liability Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good Firms, Good Targets: The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation, and Activist Targeting

King¹,

McDonnell²

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Reputational Liability Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good Firms, Good Targets: The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation, and Activist Targeting

King¹,

McDonnell²

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…CSR has been defined in the literature as voluntary corporate actions designed to improve social conditions (Mackey, Mackey, and Barney, 2007), or as corporate actions not required by law that attempt to further some social good and extend beyond the explicit transactional interests of the firm (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000). The voluntary nature of CSR means that these activities can be viewed, broadly, as gifts or grants from the corporation to various stakeholder groups.…”

Section: Csr and Moral Capitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis

Godfrey

Merrill

Hansen

2008

Strategic Management Journal

2,220

1,734

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In such a strategic approach, firm-specific cost-benefit analyses can be assumed to take center stage (A. Mackey, Mackey, & Barney, 2007;McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). …”

Section: The Predominance Of Firm-level Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When rents are appropriable by particular organizations with particular attributes, firm-level factors are expected to account for most CSP variability. This study is based on the assumption that profit-seeking economic actors will only make costly decisions if economic rents are anticipated as a result of those expenditures (Alvarez & Barney, 2004;Coase, 1937;A. Mackey et al, 2007;Schoemaker, 1990).…”

Section: The Predominance Of Firm-level Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking the Drivers of Corporate Social Performance: A Multilevel, Multistakeholder, and Multimethod Analysis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of what drives corporate social performance (CSP) has become a vital concern for many managers and researchers of large corporations. This study addresses this question by adopting a multilevel, multistakeholder, and multimethod approach to theorize and estimate the relative influence of macro (national business system and country), meso (industry), and micro (firm-level) factors on CSP. Applying three different methods of variance decomposition analysis to an international sample of 2,060 large public companies over a time span of 5 years, our results show that firm-level factors explain the largest proportion of variance in aggregate CSP as well as CSP oriented toward communities, the natural environment, and employees. These results support our hypotheses according to which CSP is not primarily driven by macrolevel or mesolevel factors, except for shareholderoriented CSP, which is relatively more influenced by country-level factors. As a whole, our findings also point to the value of subdividing CSP into its stakeholder-specific components as this disaggregation allows for a more careful examination of distinct drivers of distinct aspects of CSP.Keywords: Corporate social performance; corporate social responsibility; decomposition of variance; hierarchical linear modeling; stakeholders; variance components analysis.Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance; CSP = corporate social performance; HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; MLE = maximum likelihood estimation; NBS = national business system; REMLE = restricted maximum likelihood estimation; VCA = variance components analysis.Unpacking 2

show abstract

Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies

Cited by 896 publications

References 34 publications

Good Firms, Good Targets: The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation, and Activist Targeting

Good Firms, Good Targets: The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility, Reputation, and Activist Targeting

The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis

Unpacking the Drivers of Corporate Social Performance: A Multilevel, Multistakeholder, and Multimethod Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About