Skip to main content
Log in

Toward a Unified Theory of the CSP–CFP Link

  • Philosophical Foundations
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article proposes a unified theory of the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP). The theory provides a framework for rationalizing the various and contradictory findings in past empirical research. The theory is based on the parallels between the business and CSR domains, and thus draws on models from economics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agle B. R., Mitchell R. K. and Sonnenfeld J. A. (1999). Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values. Academy of Management Journal 42:507–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman S. L., Wicks A. C., Kotha S. and Jones T. M. (1999). Does Stakeholder Orientation Matter? The Relationship between Stakeholder Management Models and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal 42:488–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman E. H. and Haire M. (1975). A Strategic Posture toward Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review 18(2):49–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T. and Preston L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20:65–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt K. M.(1988). Agency – and Institutional – Theory Explanations: The Case of Retail Sales Compensation. Academy of Management Journal 31:488–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman J. (1997). Socially Irresponsible and Illegal Behavior and Shareholder Wealth: A Meta-analysis of Event Studies. Business and Society 36:221–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graffland J. J. (2002). Modelling the Trade-off between Profits and Principles. De Economist 150:129–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin J. J. (2000). Corporate Social Performance: Research Directions for the 21st Century. Business and Society 39:479–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin J. J. and Mahon J. F. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate: Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research. Business and Society 36:5–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen C. J. (2001). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2):235–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones T. (1995). Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review 20:404–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones T. M. and Wicks A. C. (1999). Convergent Stakeholder Theory. Academy of Management Review 24:206–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D. and Walsh, J. P.: 2001, Misery Loves Companies: Whither Social Initiatives by Business?, Harvard Business School: Social Enterprise Series No. 19

  • McGuire J. B., Sundgren A. and Schneeweis T. (1988). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal 31(4):854–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A. and Siegel D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review 26:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellahi K. and Wood G. (2003). The Role and Potential of Stakeholders in ‘Hollow Participation’: Conventional Stakeholder Theory and Institutionalist Alternatives. Business and Society Review 108:183–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell R. K., Agle B. R. and Wood D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review 22:853–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray K. B. and Montanari J. R.(1986). Strategic Management of the Socially Responsible Firm: Integrating Management and Marketing Theory. Academy of Management Review 11(4):815–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky M., Schmidt L. F. and Rynes S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24(3):403–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pava M. L. and Krausz J. (1996). The Association between Corporate Social-responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost. Journal of Business Ethics 15:321–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preble J. F. (2005). Toward a Comprehensive Model of Stakeholder Management. Business and Society Review 110(4):407–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston L. E. and O’Bannon D. P. (1997). The Corporate Social–Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis. Business and Society 36:419–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman R. M., Hayibor S. and Agle B. R.(1999). The Relationship Between Social And Financial Performance: Repainting a Portrait. Business and Society 38:109–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley T. and Berman S. (2000). A Brand New Brand of Corporate Social Performance. Business and Society 39:397–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson G. W. and Kohers T. (2002). The Link Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance: Evidence from the Banking Industry. Journal of Business Ethics 35:97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturdivant F. D. and Ginter J. L. (1977). Corporate Social Responsiveness: Management Attitudes and Economic Performance. California Management Review 19(3):30–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann A. A. (1985). Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms. Academy of Management Review 10:540–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock S. A. and Graves S. B.(1997). The Corporate Social Performance–Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal 18: 303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York, Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood D. J. and Jones R. E. (1995). Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3:229–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isaiah Yeshayahu Marom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marom, I.Y. Toward a Unified Theory of the CSP–CFP Link. J Bus Ethics 67, 191–200 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9023-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9023-7

Keywords

Navigation