Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-fnl2l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T19:24:45.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Logics in the Study of Organizations: The Social Construction of the Relationship between Corporate Social and Financial Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Marc Orlitzky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This study examines whether the empirical evidence on the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) differs depending on the publication outlet in which that evidence appears. This moderator meta-analysis, based on a total sample size of 33,878 observations, suggests that published CSP-CFP findings have been shaped by differences in institutional logics in different subdisciplines of organization studies. In economics, finance, and accounting journals, the average correlations were only about half the magnitude of the findings published in Social Issues in Management, Business Ethics, or Business and Society journals (mean corrected correlation coefficient of .22 vs. .49, respectively). Specifically, economists did not find null or negative CSP-CFP correlations, and average findings published in general management outlets ( = .41) were closer to Social Issues in Management, Business Ethics, and Business and Society results than to findings reported in economics, finance, and accounting journals.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 409 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

*Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, J. R. 1979. On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosure as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22: 501–15.Google Scholar
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507–25.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. 2005. Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1): 94–107.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. 1998. Testing moderator variable hypotheses meta-analytically. Journal of Management, 24(5): 577–92.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Sturman, M. C., & Pierce, C. A. 2008. Comparison of three meta-analytic procedures for estimating moderator effects of categorical variables. Organizational Research Methods, 11(9): 9–34.Google Scholar
*Alexander, G. J., & Buchholz, R. A. 1978. Corporate social performance and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 479–86.Google Scholar
Allouche, J., & Laroche, P. 2005. A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Revue de gestion des ressources humaines, 57: 18–41.Google Scholar
*Anderson, J. C., & Frankle, A. W. 1980. Voluntary social reporting: An iso-beta portfolio analysis. Accounting Review, 55: 467–79.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C. 1998. Mid-course correction: Toward a sustainable enterprise: The Interface model. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
*Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. 1985. An empirical investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 446–63.Google Scholar
Bakan, J. 2004. The Corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. 1996. Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 771–92.Google Scholar
Barney, J., & Hesterly, W. 1996. Organizational economics: Understanding the relationship between organizations and economic analysis. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies: 115–47. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. H. 2005. Conducting influential research: The need for prescriptive implications. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 25–31.Google Scholar
*Belkaoui, A. 1976. The impact of the disclosure of the environmental effects of organizational behavior on the market. Financial Management, 5(4): 26–31.Google Scholar
Beyer, J. M., Chanove, R. G., & Fox, W. B. 1995. The review process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1219–60.Google Scholar
*Blackburn, V. L., Doran, M., & Shrader, C. B. 1994. Investigating the dimensions of social responsibility and the consequences for corporate financial performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6(2): 195–212.Google Scholar
*Bowman, E. H. 1976. Strategy and the weather. Sloan Management Review, 17: 49–58.Google Scholar
*Bowman, E. H. 1978. Strategy, annual reports, and alchemy. California Management Review, 20(3): 64–71.Google Scholar
*Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. 1975. A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18(2): 49–58.Google Scholar
Boyd, B. K., Finkelstein, S., & Gove, S. 2005. How advanced is the strategy paradigm? The role of particularism and universalism in shaping research outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9): 841–54.Google Scholar
*Bragdon, J. H. Jr., & Marlin, J. A. T. 1972. Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19: 9–18.Google Scholar
*Brown, B., & Perry, S. 1994. Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s “Most Admired Companies.” Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1346–59.Google Scholar
*Brown, B., & Perry, S. 1995. Halo-removed residuals of Fortune’s “responsibility to the community and environment”: A decade of data. Business & Society, 34(2): 199–215.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. 2001. Who rules in science? An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burrell, G. 1996. Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealogies of analysis. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies: 642–58. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Carr, A. Z. 1968. Is business bluffing ethical? Harvard Business Review, 46: 145–53.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497–506.Google Scholar
Chatterji, A. K., & Levine, D. 2006. Breaking down the wall of codes: Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. California Management Review, 48(2): 29–51.Google Scholar
Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D., & Toffel, M. W. 2009. How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(1): 125–69.Google Scholar
*Chen, K. H., & Metcalf, R. W. 1980. The relationship between pollution control record and financial indicators revisited. Accounting Review, 55(1): 168–77.Google Scholar
*Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. 1984. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 42–56.Google Scholar
Cohen, B. P. 1989. Developing sociological knowledge: Theory and method (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1994. The Earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49: 997–1003.Google Scholar
*Conine, T. F., & Madden, G. P. 1987. Corporate social responsibility and investment value: The expectational relationship. In Guth, W. D. (Ed.), Handbook of business strategy 1986/1987 yearbook: 181–89. Boston: Warren, Gorham, & Lamont.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. 1989. Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. 1998. Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. 1994. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
*Cowen, S. S., Ferreri, L. B., & Parker, L. D. 1987. The impact of corporate characteristics on social responsibility disclosure: A typology and frequency-based analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2): 111–22.Google Scholar
Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (Eds.). 2008. The Oxford University Handbook of CSR. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., & Rajaratnam, N. 1963. Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 16: 137–73.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. 2008. Meta-analyses: Some very good steps toward a bit longer journey. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1): 127–47.Google Scholar
*Davidson, W. N. I., & Worrell, D. L. (1992). Research notes and communications: The effect of product recall announcements on shareholder wealth. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 467–73.Google Scholar
Davis, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumptions of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16: 312–17.Google Scholar
Deephouse, D. L. 1999. To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 147–66.Google Scholar
Déjean, F., Gond, J.-P., & Leca, B. 2004. Measuring the unmeasured: An institutional entrepreneur strategy in an emerging industry. Human Relations, 57(6): 741–64.Google Scholar
Devinney, T. M. 2009. Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, bad and ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3): 44–56.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. 1997. Culture and cognition. In Hagan, J., & Cook, K. S. (Eds.), Annual review of sociology, vol. 23: 263–87. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Doane, D. 2005. The myth of CSR. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Fall 2005): 23–29. Available at http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_myth_of_csr/.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. 1990. The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15(3): 369–81.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. 1995. American anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20: 65–91.Google Scholar
*Dooley, R. S., & Lerner, L. D. 1994. Pollution, profits, and stakeholders: The constraining effect of economic performance on CEO concern with stakeholder expectations. Journal of Business Ethics, 13: 701–11.Google Scholar
Drazin, R., & Kazanjian, R. K. 1990. A reanalysis of Miller and Friesen’s life cycle data. Strategic Management Journal, 11(4): 319–25.Google Scholar
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. 2010. Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1): 114–49.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1985. Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31: 134–49.Google Scholar
Entine, J. 2003. The myth of social investing: A critique of its practices and consequences for corporate social performance research. Organization & Environment, 16: 352–68.Google Scholar
Epstein, M. J. 2008. Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
Fernandes, M. F., & Randall, D. M. 1992. The nature of social desirability response effects in ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2): 183–205.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1978. Science in a free society. London: NLB.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1995. Killing time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1932. Statistical methods for research workers (4th ed.). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Fisman, R., Heal, G., & Nair, V. B. 2007. Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good? Retrieved May 2, 2011, from https://europealumni.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/fordcenter/conferences/ethics06/heal.pdf.Google Scholar
*Fogler, H. R., & Nutt, F. 1975. A note on social responsibility and stock valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 155–60.Google Scholar
*Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233–58.Google Scholar
Frederick, W. C. 1995. Values, nature, and culture in the American corporation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. 1982. Pollution disclosures, pollution performance and economic performance. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 10(3): 167–76.Google Scholar
*Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. 1986. An analysis of the impact of corporate pollution disclosures included in annual financial statements on investors’ decisions. Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 1: 192–212.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4: 409–21.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. 2007. Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., & Phillips, R. A. 2002. Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defense. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(4): 331–49.Google Scholar
Friedman, B. M. 2005. The moral consequences of economic growth. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine (September 13): 33.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 2005. Making philanthropy out of obscenity. Reason, 37(5): 32–33.Google Scholar
Frooman, J. 1997. Socially irresponsible and illegal behavior and shareholder wealth: A meta-analysis of event studies. Business & Society, 36(3): 221–49.Google Scholar
Gans, J. S., & Shepherd, G. B. 1994. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8: 165–79.Google Scholar
Gatsonis, C., Kass, R. E., Carling, B., Carriquiry, A., Gelman, A., & Verdinelli, I. 2001. Case studies on Bayesian statistics (vol. 5). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Gephart, R. P. Jr. 1988. Ethnostatistics: Qualitative foundations for quantitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 75–91.Google Scholar
Godfrey, P. C. 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 777–98.Google Scholar
Gond, J.-P., & Palazzo, G. 2008. The social construction of the positive link between corporate social and financial performance. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings (August): 1–6.Google Scholar
Gond, J.-P., Palazzo, G., & Basu, K. 2007. Investigating instrumental corporate social responsibility through the Mafia metaphor. ICCSR Research Paper Series. Nottingham, UK: International Center for Corporate Social Responsibility.Google Scholar
*Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. 1994. Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1034–46.Google Scholar
*Greening, D. W. 1995. Conservation strategies, firm performance, and corporate reputation in the U.S. electric utility industry. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. Supplement 1: 345–68. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. 2000. Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39: 254–80.Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in a mature field: The Big 5 accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 27–48.Google Scholar
*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: 5–31.Google Scholar
*Hansen, G. S., & Wernerfelt, B. 1989. Determinants of firm performance: The relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 399–411.Google Scholar
Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. 1997. What if there were no significance tests? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L. 2007. Capitalism at the crossroads: Aligning business, Earth, and humanity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.Google Scholar
Harting, T. R., Harmeling, S. S., & Venkataraman, S. 2006. Innovative stakeholder relations: When “ethics pays” (and when it doesn’t). Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(1): 43–68.Google Scholar
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. 1999. Natural capitalism: The next industrial revolution. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Heal, G. 2004. Corporate social responsibility: An economic and financial framework. Retrieved, Feb. 15, 2009, from SSRN http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=642762.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V. 1992. Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17: 279–96.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
*Heinze, D. C. 1976. Financial correlates of a social involvement measure. Akron Business and Economic Review, 7(1): 48–51.Google Scholar
*Herremans, I. M., Akathaporn, P., & McInnes, M. 1993. An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18: 587–604.Google Scholar
Hibbert, P., Sillince, J., & Diefenbach, T. 2009. Why new theories of organization are unlikely—and what to do about it. Paper presented at the Academy of Management conference, Chicago (August).Google Scholar
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125–39.Google Scholar
Holliday, C. O., Schmidheiny, S., & Watts, P. 2002. Walking the talk: The business case for sustainable development. San Francisco: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
Hosmer, L. T. 1995. Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20: 379–403.Google Scholar
Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hunt, M. 1997. How science takes stock: The story of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2000. Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative knowledge in psychology. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4): 275–92.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Husted, B. W., & Salazar, J. d. J. 2006. Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 75–91.Google Scholar
*Ingram, R. W. 1978. An investigation of the information content of (certain) social responsibility disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 16: 270–85.Google Scholar
*Ingram, R. W., & Frazier, K. B. 1980. Environmental performance and corporate disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 18: 614–22.Google Scholar
Jackall, R. 1983. Moral mazes: Bureaucracy and managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 61(5): 118–30.Google Scholar
Jackall, R. 1988. Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
*Jacobson, R. 1987. The validity of ROI as a measure of business performance. American Economic Review, 77(3): 470–78.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C. 2001. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3): 8–21.Google Scholar
Jeurissen, R. 2000. The social function of business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(4): 821–43.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404–37.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
*Kedia, B. L., & Kuntz, E. C. 1981. The context of social performance: An empirical study of Texas banks. In Preston, L. E. (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 3: 133–54. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, M. 2004. Holy grail found. Business Ethics Magazine Online: 3. Retrieved May 6, 2005, from http://business-ethics.com/current_issue/winter_2005_holy_grail_article.html.Google Scholar
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s Responsible Care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 698–716.Google Scholar
Kirchgässner, G. 2008. Homo oeconomicus: The economic model of behaviour and its applications in economics and other social sciences. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. 2004. Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. 1988. Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4): 753–72.Google Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lenox, M. J., & Nash, J. 2003. Industry self-regulation and adverse selection: A comparison across four trade association programs. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(6): 343–56.Google Scholar
Levitt, T. 1958. The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36(5): 38–44.Google Scholar
*Levy, F. K., & Shatto, G. M. 1980. Social responsibility in large electric utility firms: The case for philanthropy. In Preston, L. E. (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 2: 237–49. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. 2002. Reputation as an emerging construct in the Business and Society field: An introduction. Business & Society, 41(4): 365–70.Google Scholar
*Long, W. F., & Ravenscraft, D. J. 1984. The misuse of accounting rates of return: Comment. American Economic Review, 74: 494–501.Google Scholar
Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. 2007. Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4): 640–55.Google Scholar
Machan, T., & Chesher, J. E. 2002. A primer on business ethics. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. A. 1978. Statistical theory and social interests: A case study. Social Studies of Science, 8: 35–83.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. A. 1981. Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. A. 2006. An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. A., & Millo, Y. 2003. Constructing a market, performing a theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109: 107–45.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 817–35.Google Scholar
Mackey, J. 2005a. Profit is the means, not the end. Reason, 37(5): 35–37.Google Scholar
Mackey, J. 2005b. Putting customers ahead of investors. Reason, 37(5): 29–32.Google Scholar
Mahon, J. F. 2002. Corporate reputation: A research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society, 41(4): 415–45.Google Scholar
*Marcus, A. A., & Goodman, R. S. 1986. Compliance and performance: Toward a contingency theory. In Preston, L. E. (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 8: 193–221. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2001. People and profits? The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. A. J. 2000. Facts versus factions: The use and abuse of subjectivity in scientific research. In Morris, J. (Ed.), Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle: 247–82. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. 2006. Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenberg Domini ratings data. Business & Society, 45(1): 20–46.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D. N. 1998. The rhetoric of economics (2nd ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
*McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. 1988. Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 854–72.Google Scholar
McKinley, W., Mone, M. A., & Moon, G. 1999. Determinants and development of schools in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 634–48.Google Scholar
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 1997. Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 626–57.Google Scholar
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 603–09.Google Scholar
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26: 117–27.Google Scholar
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Teoh, S. H. 1999. Issues in the use of event study methodology: A critical analysis of corporate social responsibility studies. Organizational Research Methods, 2(4): 340–65.Google Scholar
McWilliams, A., Van Fleet, D. D., & Cory, K. D. 2002. Raising rivals’ costs through political strategy: An extension of resource-based theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5): 707–24.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. W., & Gupta, V. 1994. The performance paradox. Research in organizational behavior, 16: 309–69.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 1980. Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4): 605–22.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 1983. Beyond method: Strategies for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. 1997. Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Moustakas, C. 1994. Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. H. 2001. Economics as religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and beyond. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
*Newgren, K. E., Rasher, A. A., LaRoe, M. E., & Szabo, M. R. 1985. Environmental assessment and corporate performance: A longitudinal analysis using a market-determined performance measure. In Preston, L. E. (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 7: 153–64. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Nola, R. 2003. Rescuing reason: A critique of anti-rationalist views of science and knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
*O’Neill, H. M., Saunders, C. B., & McCarthy, A. D. 1989. Board members, corporate social responsiveness and profitability: Are tradeoffs necessary? Journal of Business Ethics, 8: 353–57.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M. 2001. Does organizational size confound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2): 167–80.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M. 2005. Social responsibility and financial performance: Trade-off or virtuous circle? University of Auckland Business Review, 7(1): 37–43.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M. 2008. Corporate social performance and financial performance: A research synthesis. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of CSR: 113–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. 2001. Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40(4): 369–96.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., & Jacobs, D. 1998. A candid and modest proposal: The brave new world of Objectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23: 656–58.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 403–41.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., & Swanson, D. 2000. Perspectives in social issues in management: A “binary dilemma”? Academy of Management conference. Toronto (August).Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., & Swanson, D. L. 2002. Value attunement: Toward a theory of socially responsible executive decision making. Australian Journal of Management, 27 (Special Issue): 119–28.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., & Swanson, D. L. 2008. Toward integrative corporate citizenship: Research advances in corporate social performance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Orlitzky, M., Swanson, D. L., & Quartermaine, L.-K. 2006. Normative myopia, executives’ personality, and preference for pay dispersion: Toward implications for corporate social performance. Business & Society, 45(2): 149–77.Google Scholar
*Parket, I. R., & Eilbirt, H. 1975. Social responsibility: The underlying factors. Business Horizons, 18(3): 5–10.Google Scholar
*Patten, D. M. 1990. The market reaction to social responsibility disclosures: The case of the Sullivan Principles signings. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(6): 575–87.Google Scholar
*Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. 1995. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Westport, CT: Quorum.Google Scholar
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. 1982. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5: 187–95.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4): 599–620.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., Leong, A., & Strehl, K. 1977. Paradigm development and particularism: Journal publication in three scientific disciplines. Social Forces, 55: 938–51.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6): 61–78.Google Scholar
Post, J. E. (Ed.). 1991. Research in corporate social performance and policy (vol. 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
*Preston, L. E. 1978. Analyzing corporate social performance: Methods and results. Journal of Contemporary Business, 7: 135–50.Google Scholar
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. 1986. Handbook of organizational measurement (2nd ed.). Marshfield, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
Pruzek, R. M. 1997. An introduction to Bayesian inference and its applications. In Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests?: 287–318. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Purdy, J. M., & Gray, B. 2009. Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2): 355–80.Google Scholar
Rahman, S., Waddock, S. A., Andriof, J., & Husted, B. (Eds.). 2002. Unfolding stakeholder thinking: Theory, responsibility and engagement. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. 1990. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1): 88–102.Google Scholar
Reich, R. 2008. The case against corporate social responsibility. Goldman School of Public Policy Working Paper No. GSPP08-003. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1213129.Google Scholar
*Reimann, B. C. 1975. Organizational effectiveness and management’s public values: A canonical analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 224–41.Google Scholar
*Riahi-Belkaoui, A. 1991. Organizational effectiveness, social performance and economic performance. In Post, J. E. (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 12: 143–53. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Rindskopf, D. M. 1997. Testing “small,” not null, hypotheses: Classical and Bayesian approaches. In Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests?: 319–32. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
*Roberts, R. W. 1992. Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17: 595–612.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1997. Truth, politics, and “post-modernism.” Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Rowley, T. J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22: 887–910.Google Scholar
Rowley, T. J., & Berman, S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39: 397–418.Google Scholar
*Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 534–59.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., & Daft, R. L. 2001. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 340–55.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Harris, M. M., & Orr, J. M. 1986. On seeking moderator variables in the meta-analysis of correlational data: A Monte Carlo investigation of statistical power and resistance to Type I error. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 302–10.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. 2006. Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4): 505–32.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. 1996. Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training and researchers. Psychological Methods, 1: 115–29.Google Scholar
Schuler, D. A., & Cording, M. 2006. A corporate social performance-corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 540–58.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. 2000. Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. 2004. Having, giving, and seeking: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial resources. Business & Society, 43(2): 135–61.Google Scholar
*Shane, P. B., & Spicer, B. H. 1983. Market response to environmental information produced outside the firm. Accounting Review, 58: 521–38.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
*Sharfman, M. 1996. The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3): 287–96.Google Scholar
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. 1991. Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Shleifer, A. 2004. Does competition destroy ethical behavior? American Economic Review, 94(2): 414–18.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. S. 2009. Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3): 5–16.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. S., & Vitaliano, D. 2007. An empirical analysis of the strategic use of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 17(3): 773–92.Google Scholar
*Simerly, R. L. 1994. Corporate social performance and firms’ financial performance: An alternative perspective. Psychological Reports, 75: 1091–1103.Google Scholar
*Simerly, R. L. 1995. Institutional ownership, corporate social performance, and firms’ financial performance. Psychological Reports, 77: 515–25.Google Scholar
Simon, J. G., Powers, C. W., & Gunnemann, J. P. 1972. The ethical investor: Universities and corporate responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Solomon, R. C. 1985. It’s good business. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
*Spencer, B. A., & Taylor, S. G. 1987. A within and between analysis of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Akron Business and Economic Review, 18: 7–18.Google Scholar
*Spicer, B. H. 1978. Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. Accounting Review, 53: 94–111.Google Scholar
*Starik, M. 1990. Stakeholder management and firm performance: Reputation and financial relationships to U.S. electric utility consumer-related strategies. Athens: University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. 2002. Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 96–111.Google Scholar
Stone, E. E. 1988. Moderator variables in research: A review and analysis of conceptual and methodological issues. In Free, G. R., & Rowland, K. M. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 6: 191–229. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Stone-Romero, E. E., & Liakhovitski, D. 2002. Strategies for detecting moderator variables: A review of conceptual and empirical issues. In Ferris, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 21: 333–72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
*Sturdivant, F. D., & Ginter, J. L. 1977. Corporate social responsiveness: Management attitudes and economic performance. California Management Review, 19(3): 30–39.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571–610.Google Scholar
Swanson, D. L. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20: 43–64.Google Scholar
Swanson, D. L. 1996. Neoclassical economic theory, executive control, and organizational outcomes. Human Relations, 49: 735–56.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H. 2002. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 81–101.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H. 2004. Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kury, K. 2005. Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformation in accounting, architecture, and publishing. In Jones, C., & Thornton, P. H. (Eds.), Transformation in cultural industries, vol. 23. Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. 2008. Institutional logics. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin, K. (Eds.), Organizational institutionalism: 99–129. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Trafimow, D. 2003. Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: Surprising insights from Bayes’s theorem. Psychological Review, 110(3): 526–35.Google Scholar
Traub, R. E. 1994. Reliability for the social sciences: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
*Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. 1996. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 658–72.Google Scholar
Ullmann, A. 1985. Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 10: 540–77.Google Scholar
Van De Vliert, E., & Van Yperen, N. W. 1996. Why cross-national differences in role overload? Don’t overlook ambient temperature! Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 986–1004.Google Scholar
Van Maanen, J. 1995a. Fear and loathing in organization studies. Organization Science, 6(6): 687–92.Google Scholar
Van Maanen, J. 1995b. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6(1): 133–43.Google Scholar
*Vance, S. 1975. Are socially responsible firms good investment risks? Management Review, 64(8): 18–24.Google Scholar
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. 1986. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11: 801–14.Google Scholar
*Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. 1987. Measurement of business economic performance: An examination of method convergence. Journal of Management, 13: 109–22.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., & Sanchez, J. I. 1998. Moderator search in meta-analysis: A review and cautionary note on existing approaches. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(1): 77–87.Google Scholar
Vogel, D. 2005. The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Waddock, S. A. 2003. Myths and realities of social investing. Organization & Environment, 16(3): 369–80.Google Scholar
*Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997a. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 303–19.Google Scholar
*Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1997b. Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations: Are they synonymous? Business & Society, 36(3): 250–79.Google Scholar
*Wartick, S. L. 1988. How issues management contributes to corporate performance. Business Forum, 13(2): 16–22.Google Scholar
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., Sechrest, L., & Grove, J. 1981. Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. 1992. Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6): 693–712.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Willmott, H. 1993. Paradigm gridlock: A reply. Organization Studies, 14(5): 727–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. B. 2006. Meta-analysis macros for SAS, SPSS, and Stata. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html.Google Scholar
Windsor, D. 2001. “Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective”—Some comments. Academy of Management Review, 26(4): 502–04.Google Scholar
*Wiseman, J. 1982. An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7: 53–63.Google Scholar
*Wokutch, R. E., & Spencer, B. A. 1987. Corporate sinners and saints: The effects of philanthropic and illegal activity on organizational performance. California Management Review, 29: 62–77.Google Scholar
*Wolfe, R. 1991. The use of content analysis to assess corporate social responsibility. In Post, J. E. (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 12: 281–307. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16: 691–718.Google Scholar
Wood, D. J. 1995. The Fortune database as a CSP measure. Business & Society, 34: 197–98.Google Scholar
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. 1995. Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3: 229–67.Google Scholar
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A. 1994. Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2): 301–26.Google Scholar
Ziliak, S. T., & McCloskey, D. N. 2008. The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar