Abstract
Corporate management is torn between either focusing solely on the interests of stockholders (the neo-classical view) or taking into account the interests of a wide spectrum of stakeholders (the stakeholder theory view). Of course, there need be no conflict where taking the wider view is also consistent with maximising stockholder wealth. In this paper, we examine the extent to which a conflict actually exists by examining the relationship between a company’s positive (strengths) and negative (concerns) corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and equity performance. In general, we find little evidence to suggest that managers taking a wider stakeholder perspective will jeopardise the interest of its stockholders. However, our findings do suggest that the market is not only influenced by the independent CSR activities, but also the totality of these activities and that the facets that they value do vary over time. It seems that␣most recently, the market has valued most firms that satisfied minimum requirements in the areas of diversity and environmental protection but were most proactive in the area of employee-relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Alexander G., R. Buchholz 1982 Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance. Academy of Management Journal 21: 479–486
Aupperle G., A. Carroll, J. Hatfield 1985 An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal 22: 501–515
Banz R. 1981 The Relationship between Market Value and the Return on Common Stocks. Journal of Financial Economics 9: 3–18
Boutin-Dufresne F., P. Savaria 2004 Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Risk. The Journal of Investing 13: 57–66
Bowman E., M. Haire 1975 A Strategic Posture toward Corporate Social Responsibility. California Management Review 18: 49–58
Brammer S., S. Pavelin 2006 Corporate reputation and Social Performance : The Importance of Fit. Journal of Management Studies 43: 435–455
De Bondt W., R. Thaler 1985 Does the Market Overreact? Journal and Finance 40: 793–805
De George R. 1990 Business Ethics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company
De George, R.: 1978, ‹Moral Issues in Business’, in R. De George and J. Pichler (eds.), Ethics, Free Enterprise, and␣Public Policy (Oxford University Press, New York), pp. 3–18
Donaldson T., L. Preston 1995 The Stakeholder Theory of Corporation: Concept, Evidence and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65–91
Fama E., K. French 1993 Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33: 3–56
Freeman R. E. 1984 Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Friedman, M.: 1970, ‹The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase its Profits’, New York Times Magazine September 13, 122–126
Frooman J. 1997 Socially Irresponsible and Illegal Behaviour and Shareholder Wealth: A Meta-Analysis of Event Studies. Business and Society 36: 221–249
Griffin J., J. Mahon 1997 The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate. Business and Society 36: 5–31
Jegadeesh N., S. Titman 2001 Profitability of Momentum Strategies: An Evaluation of Alternative Explanations. Journal of Finance 56: 699–720
Jensen M. 2001 Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory And the Corporate Objective Function. Journal of Applied Portfolio Management 12: 8–21
Johnson H. 2003 Does it Pay to be Good? Social Responsibility and Financial Performance. Business Horizons 46: 34–40
Lakonishok J., A. Shleifer R. Vishny 1994 Contrarian Investments, Extrapolation and Risk. Journal of Finance 49: 1541–1578
Moore G. 2001 Corporate Social and Financial Performance: An Investigation in the U.K. Supermarket Industry. Journal of Business Ethics 34: 299–315
Moskowitz M. 1972 Choosing Socially Responsible Stocks. Business and Society 1: 71–75
Orlitzky M., F. Schmidt, S. Rymes 2003 Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24: 402–441
Pava M., J. Krausz 1997 Criteria for Evaluating the Legitimacy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 16: 337–347
Post J., L. Preston, S. Sachs 2002 Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View. California Management Review 45: 6–28
Roman R., S. Hayibor, B. Agle 1999 The Relationship between Social and Financial Performance: Repainting a Portrait. Business and Society 38: 109–125
Ruf B., K. Muralidhar, R. Brown, J. Janney, K. Paul 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: 143–156
Seifert B., S. Morris, B. Bartkus 2004 Having, Giving and Getting: Slack Resources, Corporate Philanthropy and Firm Financial Performance. Business and Society 43: 135–161
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: 450–477
Waddock S.A., S.B. Graves 1997 The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal 18: 303–319
Wood D., R. Jones 1995 Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3: 229–267
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Ron Bird is an Emeritus Professor in the School of Finance and Economics at the University of Technology, Sydney. His research interests focus on market implications of corporate social responsibility and also dysfunctionality within capital markets. He received his Master's degree in economics at Monash University in 1971. Anthony D. Hall is currently the Head of the School of Finance and Economics and Director of the Quantitative FinanceResearch Centre at the University of Technology, Sydney. His research interests cover all aspects of financial econometrics. He was awarded a PhD in econometrics from the London School of Economics in `976.Francesco Momente is Professor of Corporate Finance at the Bocconi University, Milan (Italy). His research intersts focus on the market valuation of corporate social responsibility and the value relevance of accounting information.He received his PhD in General Management at Ca' Foscari University, Venice (Italy) in 1998. Francesco Reggiani is Professor of Corporate Finance at the Bocconi University, Milan (Italy). His research interests focuson the market valuation of corporate social responsibility and corporate governance. He received his PhD in GeneralManagement at Bocconi University in 2001.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bird, R., D. Hall, A., Momentè, F. et al. What Corporate Social Responsibility Activities are Valued by the Market?. J Bus Ethics 76, 189–206 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9268-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9268-1