Previous studies have proposed a virtuous circle between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate financial performance (CFP). However, a key challenge researchers face when empirically examining this virtuous circle is endogeneity. In this paper, we apply a well-developed method—dynamic panel data (DPD) estimation—to account for endogeneity and conduct two studies to reexamine the causal relationship between CSP and CFP. Study 1 relies on KLD ratings from 1997 to 2012 as the measure of CSP. According to the results of Study 1, (...) although CFP measured as ROE may have a causal impact on CSP, it is doubtful whether there is a causal influence of CSP on CFP. Study 2 relies on the sustainability scores provided by Sustainalytics from 2009 to 2018 as the measure of CSP. Study 2 reports that CSP does not causally influence CFP and that CFP does not have a causal impact on CSP. Together, Study 1 and Study 2, using different measures for CSP, suggest that a virtuous circle between CSP and CFP may not exist. Our study suggests that doing good may not necessarily lead to doing well and that doing well may not naturally result in doing good. Thus, our study implies that future studies should seriously consider the causal mechanisms through which CSP may influence or may be influenced by CFP. Our paper also discusses the implications for CSP research and for management and organization research. The limitations of applying DPD estimation to empirically examine the causal relationship between CSP and CFP are also discussed. (shrink)

The aim of this study is to understand how governance mechanisms in cross-sector collaborations (CSCs) for sustainability affect value creation and capture and subsequently the survival of this organizational form. Drawing on a longitudinal, participatory, single-case study of collaborative action in the textile industry, we identify three governance mechanisms—safeguarding, bundling and connecting—that coevolve with the rising and waning of collaborative tensions and the shifting levels of action in the CSC we studied. These mechanisms aided value creation and helped facilitate private (...) value capture. We integrate these insights into a process model that visualizes the interplay between governance mechanisms of tensions and systems of value creation and capture in CSCs for sustainability. Our study contributes to the cross-sector collaboration literature by providing a dynamic and nuanced understanding of how governance mechanisms influence outcomes in CSCs for sustainability. We also add to the business model for sustainability literature by theorizing the value creation and capture system of collaborative rather than individual organizations. Our findings have important implications for policymakers who fund collaborative organizations and practitioners who manage or participate in them. (shrink)

Implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR) in supply chains is not a trivial task. In fact, many firms in recent years have publicly proclaimed that in order to keep their CSR commitments, they had to reduce reliance on external suppliers by vertically integrating their operations. Our aim in this article is to examine whether there is truly a relationship between a firm’s CSR performance and its level of vertical integration. Drawing on a multi-industry sample of 2,715 firm-year observations, and after addressing (...) endogeneity concerns, we demonstrate that firms with higher CSR performance tend to vertically integrate more (or, outsource less). We also demonstrate that this tendency is weaker for firms that have higher degrees of asset specificity or international diversification. Our core conclusion is that CSR performance and outsourcing are at odds, but firms can reconcile this tension by deepening their collaborations with suppliers. (shrink)

Can mandated adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) improve firm value? Most CSR adoption is purely voluntary. However, governments regularly encourage CSR adoption with soft regulations that vary from simply endorsing and symbolically supporting CSR to requiring the adoption of specific practices. Governments have resisted fully mandating CSR because there is some concern universally that mandated CSR may reduce firm value. There is, however, no empirical clarity as to whether mandated CSR impedes or improves firm value. We address this uncertainty (...) by analyzing the effects of the mandated adoption of CSR that the government of India legislated in 2014. Drawing on a sample of 1,526 publicly traded firms and deploying a combinative analytical framework comprising an event study, regression discontinuity design, and a difference-in-differences technique, we conclude that India’s CSR mandate did, in fact, increase value for all firms bound by the mandate. This value-enhancing effect was greater for foreign firms relative to domestic firms. Our results refute previous research showing that India’s CSR mandate diminished firm value. (shrink)

Whereas extant literature has examined the overall effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on innovation, it is argued that CSR is a multidimensional concept encompassing both progressive activities concerning a firm’s engagement in the social domain, as well as rational aspects pertaining to corporate governance practices and the protection of shareholder rights. This study integrates organizational hypocrisy with the knowledge-based view literatures to examine how different forms of CSR engagement affect the rate of new product introductions (NPI). Results suggest that (...) the mechanisms by which progressive and rational CSR are associated to increases in the rate of NPI differ. Specifically, while progressive CSR positively affects the rate of NPI and such effect is deemed stronger for firms that are more vertically integrated, the effect of rational CSR on the rate of NPI is conditional on a firm’s level of absorptive capacity. (shrink)

How does corporate social performance (CSP) affect financial performance as the firm expands internationally? To address this question, I integrate arguments from the International Business (IB) literature and the literature on CSP to propose that the costs and benefits associated with CSP are unevenly distributed across the range of internationalization. Specifically, I argue that the costs of CSP outweigh the benefits at low levels of internationalization, while the benefits outweigh the costs at high levels of internationalization, leading to a moderated, (...) U-shaped relationship. In addition, I disentangle CSP’s effects further by distinguishing between “do-good” CSP and “do-no-harm” CSP, which have been theorized to evoke different stakeholder perceptions and attributions and can thus be expected to harbor different performance effects across the range of internationalization. Analysis of a panel of 1,056 U.S.-based international firms over the period 1995-2012 lends support to these arguments. (shrink)