This study draws on and extends contingency theory, in relation to stakeholder theory to understand the corporate social performance and financial performance link, by evaluating under what circumstances CSP influences CFP. Contingencies include stakeholder configurations/salience and crisis conditions. Using differentiated measures of CSP, this study examined financial effects of various specific stakeholder facing activities pre- and post-crisis in the food/beverage and pharmaceutical industries, and in firms selling search versus experience goods. The results indicate that pre-crisis CSP is related to post-crisis (...) financial effects, but the relationships are dependent on the interactions among the contingencies studied, so investments in certain social areas improve CFP, whereas others may hurt it. This confirms that a finer grained approach should be taken to the examination of CSP and CFP. On a practical basis, it shows that deep stakeholder knowledge and attention to complementary factors to CSP, such as advertising, must be understood, so CSP activities are of benefit to the firm. (shrink)

I argue that a governance perspective on corporate social responsibility (CSR) makes it possible to explain why the concept will always be under‐defined, is normative and thus political by nature, and is and should be difficult to measure. The perspective also makes it possible to understand the interaction between corporate values and stakeholders values.In processes of dialogue within governance systems and governance structures, changing insights into the principles of CSR can lead to regulation or its adjustment. Power is important in (...) these dialogues. Principles are at least partly shaped within governance systems and governance structures, and they influence the outcomes of corporate policies. Changes within the regulatory framework could also lead to changes in the principles of CSR.Value attunement processes could lead to regulation, which again influences the governance structures and thus the power of stakeholders within the dialogue. The theoretical model provided helps to analyze why CSR is different in companies, cultures and academic traditions. (shrink)

Although existing research evaluates the growth and motivations behind global corporate social responsibility activity, there is little understanding whether these growing commitments generate strategic benefits to their adherents. In this article, we analyze the organizational attributes that underlie the firm’s ability to generate competitive advantage from the adoption of a global CSR framework. We develop hypotheses on economic and reputational benefits and test whether firm performance, organizational resources, and access to business and CSR networks determine these benefits in CSR frameworks. (...) Results from a survey of 213 Spanish global compact business participants strongly support our arguments. (shrink)

The business case for social responsibility is one of the most widely studied topics in the business and society literature that focuses on large firms. This attention is understandable because large firms have an obligation to shareholders who, as commonly assumed, seek to maximize returns on their investments, in turn, pressing corporate managers to show that firms’ expenditures in social engagement would pay off. Small firms, on the other hand, rarely face such pressures, yet the BCSR logic is increasingly applied (...) to small firms as well. Our primary objective in this paper is to examine whether and how much do small firm owners’ perceptions of BCSR affect the firm’s social engagement. In finding a fine-grained answer to those questions, we consider BCSR as a two-dimensional construct consisting of tangible and intangible benefits, and also integrate the BCSR perspective with the slack resource perspective to offer a motivation-capacity lens to examine firm’s social engagement. Drawing on a multi-industry sample of 478 small firms in the US, we find that while small firm owners’ perceptions about potential tangible benefits of social engagement are not related to the firm’s social engagement, perceptions about potential intangible are positively related. Firm's financial performance is also positively related to its social engagement, but there is no interaction between potential benefits and financial performance. This study contributes to an improved understanding about small firms’ social engagement, which still remains an understudied area. Our results are in line with studies which argue that firms’ social engagement is a response to institutional factors. (shrink)