Untitled

Social Relationship of a Firm and the CSP–CFP Relationship in Japan: Using Artificial Neural Networks

“…They also argued that there was a positive relationship between fulfillment of corporate social responsibility and profitability. Williams and Barrett (2000) also demonstrated that there was a strong positive relationship between corporate philanthropy activity and reputation using U.S. Fortune 500 firms' data. Theories which explain those CSP-CFP relationships are classified broadly into two groups.…”

“…It is also because there are many advantages for a firm such as acquisition and maintenance of capable human resources, customer retention, productivity improvements with environmental management, attracting social and ethical oriented investors, improving local community relationship, and so on 3 (Bhattacharya and Sankar Sen, 2004;Porter and van der Linde, 1995;Reinhardt, 1999;Singh, 2000;Williams and Barrett, 2000). There is a favorable feature that the earlier a firm works on a problem, the bigger its merit.…”

An Investigation of Real Versus Perceived CSP in S&P-500 Firms

“…In particular, studies show that financial performance can explain up to 44% of the variations in Fortune's responsibility to the community and the environment ratings used in this study (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990;McGuire et al, 1990). Whilst Brown and Perry (1994) recommend removing the halo effect by means of a partialing-out strategy that neutralises the effect of financial performance on other variables, we follow Williams and Barrett (2000) by treating financial performance as a control variable in our regression analyses. This leads to our second hypothesis:…”

“…Under this perspective, a firm's CSP reputation is interpreted as a signal that the firm can influence (at a cost) to convey information to its stakeholders about the quality of its products and the treatment of its stakeholders (including the environment). For instance, Fombrun and Shanley (1990), Brammer and Millington (2004) and Williams and Barrett (2000) all demonstrate how corporate philanthropy contributes to the enhancement of a firm's overall reputation, whilst others show how satisfying employees' claims and other proactive treatment of diversity issues enhances a firm's overall reputation (Turban and Greening, 1997). Williams and Barrett (2000) show that corporate philanthropy and social activities can lessen the damaging effects on corporate reputation of certain criminal activities and 'bad' behaviours (e.g., violations of employee safety standards, OSHA, EPA, criminal misconduct as well as product recalls) (Davidson et al, 1994;Dranove and Olsen, 1994;Frooman, 1997).…”

“…For instance, Fombrun and Shanley (1990), Brammer and Millington (2004) and Williams and Barrett (2000) all demonstrate how corporate philanthropy contributes to the enhancement of a firm's overall reputation, whilst others show how satisfying employees' claims and other proactive treatment of diversity issues enhances a firm's overall reputation (Turban and Greening, 1997). Williams and Barrett (2000) show that corporate philanthropy and social activities can lessen the damaging effects on corporate reputation of certain criminal activities and 'bad' behaviours (e.g., violations of employee safety standards, OSHA, EPA, criminal misconduct as well as product recalls) (Davidson et al, 1994;Dranove and Olsen, 1994;Frooman, 1997). Firms increasingly rely on a good CSP reputation to enhance, protect or repair their overall corporate image (Dowling, 2004;Fombrun and Riel, 2004;Orlitzky et al, 2003;Turban and Greening, 1997).…”