Abstract
In this research, we shed new light on the empirical link between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP) via the application of empirical models and methods new to the CSP–CFP literature. Applying advanced financial models to a uniquely constructed panel dataset, we demonstrate that a significant overall CSP–CFP relationship exists and that this relationship is, in part, conditioned on firms’ industry-specific context. To accommodate the estimation of time-invariant industry and industry-interaction effects, we estimate linear mixed models in our test of the CSP–CFP relationship. Our results show both a significant overall CSP effect as well as significant industry effects between CSP and CFP. In conflict with expectations, the unweighted average effect of CSP on CFP is negative. Our industry analysis, however, shows that in over 17% of the industries in our sample, the effect of CSP on CFP for socially responsible firms is positive. We also examine the multidimensional nature of the CSP construct in an industry context by exploring the CSP dimension–industry nexus and identify dimensions of social performance that are associated with either better or worse financial performance. Our results confirm the existence of disparate CSP dimension–industry effects on CFP, thus our results provide important and actionable information to decision makers considering whether and how to commit corporate resources to social performance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We acknowledge the distinction between the phrases “corporate social responsibility” and “corporate social performance,” however, for ease of exposition we will use CSP throughout this manuscript.
According to the FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts Number 1, accounting information “largely reflects the financial effects of transactions and events that have already happened.”
The Domini 400 Social Index was renamed the FTSE KLD 400 Social Index in July 2009.
In addition to calculations of required return using the Fama–French 3-factor model, we also computed intrinsic value using required returns using Value Line-supplied betas in the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). We also estimated betas from regressions of industry portfolio returns on the value-weighted NYSE/AMEX/NASDAQ index and assigned these industry betas to individual stocks matching on SIC codes. All three computations of required return resulted in qualitatively equivalent results.
Debt ratio is the ratio of the sum of short- and long-term debt to the sum of short- and long-term debt, preferred stock, and common equity.
LMMs are also often referred to as random coefficient models.
One frequent lament of a traditional fixed effects model is the “differencing away” of time-invariant model parameters of interest (Wooldridge 2002). For example, firms rarely, if ever, are re-classified into a different industry, thus rendering estimation of the time-invariant industry effects impossible in a fixed effects model.
The ability to accurately depict the true nature of the error structure of one’s data is often cited as the raison d'être of the LMM (Singer 2002).
We estimate our LMMs using SAS/MIXED software, Version 9.1 of the SAS System for Windows. The SAS LMM estimation procedure is a generalization of the standard linear model in that the data are permitted to exhibit correlation and non-constant variability as random effects (Littell et al. 2006).
These returns are available from Professor Ken French’s website, for which we are grateful.
References
Abarbanell, J., & Bernard, V. (2000). Is the U.S. stock market myopic? Journal of Accounting Research, 38(2), 221.
Al-Khazali, O., & Zoubi, T. (2005). Empirical testing of different alternative proxy measures for firm size. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 21(3), 79.
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(1), 8.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between owners. European Finance Association, June 11 2010.
Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1101.
Bauer, R., Koedijk, K., & Otten, R. (2005). International evidence on ethical mutual fund performance and investment style. Journal of Banking Finance, 29(7), 1751.
Belsley, D. A. (1973). A test for systematic variation in regression coefficients. In Anonymous, Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Vol. 2, Number 4 (p. 492). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research Inc.
Berman, S. L., Wick, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488.
Brammer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate social performance and stock returns: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35(3), 97.
Brav, A., Lehavy, R., & Michaely, R. (2005). Using expectations to test asset pricing models. Financial Management, 34(3), 31.
Courteau, L., Kao, J. L., & Richardson, G. D. (2001). Equity valuation employing the ideal versus ad hoc terminal value expressions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(4), 625.
Derwall, J., Guenster, N., Bauer, R., & Koedijk, K. (2005). The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financial Analysts Journal, 61(2), 51.
Dowell, G., Hart, S., & Young, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or destroy market value? Management Science, 46, 1059.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427.
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1997). Industry costs of equity. Journal of Financial Economics, 43(2), 153.
Fama, E. F., & MacBeth, J. D. (1973). Risk, return and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 607.
Feldman, S. J., Soyka, P. A., & Ameer, P. G. (1997). Does improving a firm’s environmental management systems and environmental performance result in a higher stock price? The Journal of Investing, 6(4), 87.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409.
Goldreyer, E. F., & Diltz, J. D. (1999). The performance of socially responsible mutual funds: Incorporating sociopolitical information in portfolio selection. Managerial Finance, 25(1), 23.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5.
Hamilton, S., Jo, H., & Statman, M. (1993). Doing well while doing good? The investment performance of socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysts Journal, 49(6), 62.
Hardy, M. A. (1993). Regression with dummy variables (p. 90). Sage Publications: Newbury Park.
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.
Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235.
Kempf, A., & Osthoff, P. (2007). The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance. European Financial Management, 13(5), 908.
Klein, A. (1990). A direct test of the cognitive bias theory of share price reversals. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 13(2), 155.
Konar, S., & Cohen, M. A. (2001). Does the market value environment performance? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 281.
Kreft, I., & de Leweuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling, 1998 edition (June 18, 1998) edition (p. 160). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., & Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for mixed models (2nd ed., p. 814). Cary: SAS Institute.
Lubatkin, M., & Shrieves, R. E. (1986). Towards reconciliation of market performance measures to strategic management research. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 497.
Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Working Paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268.
Marom, I. Y. (2006). Toward a unified theory of the CSP–CFP link. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 191.
McGuire, J. B., Sundgrena, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117.
Merton, R. C. (1987). A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. Journal of Finance, 42(3), 483.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403.
Penman, S. H., & Sougiannis, T. (1998). A comparison of dividend, cash flow, and earnings approaches to equity valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(3), 343.
Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social–financial performance relationship. Business and Society, 36(4), 419.
Ramnath, S., Rock, S., & Shane, P. (2005). Value line and I/B/E/S earnings forecasts. International Journal of Forecasting, 21(1), 185.
Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S., & Agle, B. R. (1999). The relationship between social and financial performance: Repainting a portrait. Business and Society, 38(1), 109.
Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397.
Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(2), 143.
Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534.
Simpson, W. G., & Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 97.
Singer, J. D. (2002). Fitting individual growth models using SAS PROC MIXED. In D. S. Moskowitz & S. L. Hershberger (Eds.), Modeling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data: Methods and applications (p. 135). Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2002). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence (p. 644). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Statman, M. (2000). Socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysts Journal, 56(3), 100.
Statman, M. (2006). Socially responsible indexes. Journal of Portfolio Management, 32(3), 100.
Statman, M., & Glushkov, D. (2009). The wages of social responsibility. Financial Analysts Journal, 65(4), 33.
Sweeney, R. E., & Ulveling, E. F. (1972). A transformation for simplifying the interpretation of coefficients of binary variables in regression analysis. The American Statistician, 26(5), 30–32.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, S. B. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.
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.
van Beurden, P., & Gössling, T. (2008). The worth of values—A literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 407.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303.
Wallace, D., & Green, S. B. (2002). Analysis of repeated measures designs with linear mixed models. In Anonymous, modeling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data: Methods and application (p. 276). Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wu, M. L. (2006). Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size: A meta-analysis. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(1), 163.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Intrinsic Value Derivation
We compute the intrinsic value of a share of common stock using the residual income valuation model:
In the residual income model, the value of a share of stock at time t, V t , equals the current per share book value of common equity, B t , plus the present value of future residual income. In the equation above, R denotes one plus the required return on equity (r), and x t denotes net income year t. E t is an expectation operator conditioned on information available at time t. Residual income in year t equals net income in excess of the opportunity cost of beginning-of-period book equity: \( x_{t}^{r} { = }x_{t}{ - }rB_{{t{ - 1}}} \). Penman and Sougiannis (1998) provide a complete derivation and discussion of the residual income model’s properties.
We compute the intrinsic value of each firm following Courteau et al. (2001), who showed that intrinsic values calculated by residual income possess very high explanatory power (i.e., R-square) for stock price. They also demonstrated the statistical equivalence of residual income and discounted cash flow models. We use forecasts of earnings, dividends and stock prices from the Value Line Earnings and Projections file. This dataset contains forecasts for the current year, the following year, and the 3- to 5-year ahead period. Each week, Value Line publishes updated reports for approximately 125 firms, so that projections are updated once per quarter for all firms in its coverage universe. To ensure that forecasts incorporate information from each firm’s most recent annual report, we take Value Line data from the last published report in May of each year from 2001 to 2008. In addition to each firm’s current stock price, these reports include all updated forecasts from the prior 13 weeks inclusive. For example, for the 2005 sample year the Value Line report date is May 18, 2005. This report contains earnings and dividend forecasts for fiscal years 2005 (τ = 1), 2006 (τ = 2) and for the 2007–2009 period. We take the mid-point of the 2007–2009 period as our 2008 (τ = 4) forecast and compute the 2007 (τ = 3) forecast by simple interpolation between 2006 and 2008. Value Line also projects the high and low points of the expected range of future stock price 3- to 5-years ahead. We use the average of these high and low points as our 2008 (τ = 4) stock price and assume that at that point intrinsic value equals stock price, i.e., V 4 = P 4. Beginning book value per share (B 0) is calculated from net worth and shares outstanding taken from the Compustat data for the most recently reported fiscal year (i.e., 2004). Thereafter, book value is calculated according to the clean surplus relation: B t+τ = B t+τ−1 + x t+τ − d t+τ.
As described in §4, the required return on equity (r i) is estimated from the Fama–French (1992) 3-factor model and calculated according to the following:
One-year T-bill yields, r f, are obtained from the US Federal Reserve Weekly Statistical Release H15. Factor risk premia are the monthly time series averages of returns from July 1931 through December 2010.Footnote 12 For each company and year, the factor loadings (i.e., the betas) are estimated from returns during the prior 60 months. Because estimates for individual stocks are highly imprecise (see e.g., Fama and MacBeth 1973), we estimate factor loadings for each of the 30 industry portfolios defined in Fama and French (1997) and assign the industry loadings to individual companies by matching on SIC codes. For each company and year, the loadings are estimated during the prior 60 months for the corresponding SIC-matched industry portfolio.
Our results are robust to alternative calculations of required return. In addition to the Fama–French 3-factor calculations, we computed intrinsic value using two alternative methods. First, we used the standard Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) with Value Line-supplied betas. Next, we used the standard CAPM with betas estimated from market model regressions of industry returns on the value-weighted NYSE/AMEX/NASDAQ index. We assigned these industry betas to individual stocks matching on SIC codes. All three approaches produced qualitatively similar results. We report our results based on the Fama–French 3-factor model as it has been demonstrated to possess superior explanatory power for the cross-section of average stock returns (Fama and French 1992).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baird, P.L., Geylani, P.C. & Roberts, J.A. Corporate Social and Financial Performance Re-Examined: Industry Effects in a Linear Mixed Model Analysis. J Bus Ethics 109, 367–388 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1135-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1135-z