11.pp.0149www.iiste.org call for paper-159

Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting
Vol. 1, No. 1 June 2007
Pp. 149-159

The Link between Corporate Social
Performance and Financial Performance:
Evidence from Indonesian Companies
Hasan Fauzi
Faculty of Economics
Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia

Lois S. Mahoney
Department of Accounting and Finance
Eastern Michigan University, USA

Azhar Abdul Rahman
Faculty of Accountancy
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract
This study examines the relationship of corporate social performance (CSP) to corporate finan-
cial performance (CFP) to determine if CSP is related to firm performance. Additionally, it
examines whether firm size or industry affects the relationships between CSR and CSP. This
study advances the literature as it examines this relationship for companies in a developing
country, Indonesia, along with examining the impact of moderating variables on this relation-
ship. Two models were developed: the first model was derived using slack resource theory and
the second model was developed using the good management theory. Through the examination
of 383 firms, the result of the study failed to find a significant relationship between CSP and
CFP in either model. Further analysis, using the slack resource theory, did find that company
size had a significant positive moderating effect on the relationship between CSP and CFP.
Key Words: Corporate Social performance, financial performance, content analysis, stake-
holder, good management theory, and slack resource theory.

Hasan Fauzi is a Program Director of Master in Accounting and Director of Indonesian Center for Social and Environ-
mental Accounting Research and Development (ICSEARD) at Faculty of Economics of Sebelas Maret University,
email: hfauzi2003@indo.net.id. Lois S. Mahoney is Associate Professor at Department of Accounting and Finance at
College of Business Eastern Michigan University, USA, email: lois.mahoney@emich.edu. Azhar Abdul Rahman is
Associate Prefessor at Faculty of Accountancy of University Utara Malaysia, email: Azhar258@e-web.uum.edu.my.
The authors are very grateful to Rob H. Gray of St. Andrews University for his direction and helpful suggestion on
literature review and to Ainun Na’im of Gadjah Mada University as well as to three anonymous referees for comments
on earlier draft of this paper.

150 H. Fauzi, L. S. Mahoney, A. A. Rahman / Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1 (2007) 149-159

Introduction holders are only one of multiple stake-
holder components that management
Friedman (1962/1970) in Griffin & should satisfy (Frederick et al., 1992).
Mahon (1997) and Ruf et al., 2001) ar- In addition to investors, suppliers, labor,
gues that the main responsibility of a and customers, they also need to con-
company is to its shareholders and, sider people, community, governments,
therefore, cost expenditures for social and all other stakeholders in making
responsible activities are in violation of company decisions. The failure to con-
management’s responsibility. Thus, such sider all these stakeholders could result
expenditures by the company often lead in conflict to the corporation. As a re-
to controversies by its shareholders. sult, it is expected that a company will
These controversies have led to a map- incur additional costs, such as environ-
ping of views of a company, a concept mental and community contribution,
going beyond Friedman’s view of share- resulting in impacts on corporate social
holders only. Two models explain the performance (CSP) and corporate finan-
different views of the company: the in- cial performance (CFP).
put-output model and the stakeholder
model (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Research examining the relationship
Under the input-output model, a com- between CSP and CFP has produced
pany is assumed to exist as a result of conflicting results, although a number of
the contributions resulting from stock- the findings indicate a positive associa-
holders, investors, suppliers, labor, and tion (see for examples: Worrell et al.,
customers. The implication of this 1991; Preston & O’Bannon, 1997;
model is that other parties (i.e. commu- Frooman, 1997; Roman et al., 1999; Or-
nity, employees, government agencies, litzky & Benjamin, 2001; Murphy,
specialty groups etc.) affecting or af- 2002; and Simpson & Kohers, 2002).
fected by the company are not consid- Furthermore most of these findings were
ered in the system or subsystem of the derived from the evidence coming from
company. Decisions made by the com- developed countries. The objectives of
pany will only consider those who are this paper are twofold: First, it adds to
part of the system or subsystem. Thus, the literature on the relationship between
under the input-output model, the poten- CSP and CFP by using a model contain-
tial exists for the company to encounter ing moderating variables and second, it
conflict with these other groups not ac- provides valuable insights on this rela-
commodated in the model through boy- tionship for developing countries, espe-
cotts, lawsuits, and protests (Ruf et al., cially Indonesia. As a result, this re-
2001). search will not only contribute to the
debate on the link between CSP and
Under the stakeholder view, all parties CFP but also extend the literature by
under the input-output model are consid- examining the impact of different cul-
ered in a company’s system or subsys- tures and systems on this relationship.
tem along with all other groups in soci-
ety affected by or affecting the com- Literature Review and Hypotheses
pany. Consequently, the decisions made Development
by the firm should consider all parties or
stakeholders. Under this view, share- The debate on the relationship between

H. Fauzi, L. S. Mahoney, A. A. Rahman / Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1 (2007) 149-159 151

CSP and CFP involves two important by the works of Orlitzky (2001), Or-
issues: direction and causality of the re- litzky & Benjamin (2001), Ruf et al.
lationship (Preston & O’Bannon, 1997). (2001), Konar & Cohen (2001), Murphy
Based upon the literature review, the (2002), Simpson & Kohers (2002), Or-
relationship between CSP and CFP litzky et al. (2003), and Mahoney &
could be positive, neutral, and negative. Roberts (2007). Patten (2002) found a
Griffin & Mahon (1997) reviewed 51 negative correlation. Researchers such
studies discussing the relationship be- as McWilliams & Siegel (2000 and
tween CSP and CFP from the 1970’s 2001) and Moore (2001) found incon-
through the 1990’s. The Griffin & clusive results. Fauzi (2004) using con-
Mahon’s study (1997) mapped the issue tent analysis of annual reports of compa-
of direction of the relationship between nies listed on the New York Stock Ex-
CSP and CFP for the periods. In the change for the period of 2004 also pro-
1970s, there were 16 studies reviewed vided support for inconclusive results.
with 12 of which had positive relation-
ship. During the period of the 1980s and In addition to providing different results
1990s, the positive direction of the rela- on the relationship direction from that of
tionship accounted for 14 of 27 studies Griffin & Mahon (1997), Roman et al.
and seven of the eight studies, respec- (1999) argued that errors existed in their
tively. Negative results were supported study resulting in erroneous conclusions.
by only one study in the 1970s, 17 stud- For those findings, determined to be
ies in the 1980s, and 3 studies in the generalized erroneously by Griffin &
1990s. Inconclusive findings were Mahon (1997), Roman et al. (1999) re-
found by four studies in the 1970s, five classified findings from negative to posi-
studies in the 1980s, and no finding in tive direction and from positive or nega-
the 1990s. It should be noted that one or tive to inconclusive result. In summariz-
more studies could have one or more ing the direction of relationship between
findings in the work of Griffin and CSP and CFP, Roman et al. (1999) re-
Mahon (1997). moved research with problems of invalid
measurement and replaced them with
As the study of Griffin & Mahon (1997) new studies for those supplanted by later
was not all inclusive, there are additional studies. Roman et al. (1999) ended up
studies contributing to the direction of with a total of 46 studies comprising 51
the association between CSP and CFP research results, 33 out of which are
relationship in the 1990s. During this positively correlated.
period, positive direction of the relation-
ship has been supported by Worrell et al. In a more recent work, Margolis &
(1991), Preston & O’Bannon (1997), Walsh (2003) also mapped studies in-
Waddock & Graves (1997), Frooman vestigating the relationship between CSP
(1997), and Roman et al. (1999). Nega- and CFP. They followed the works of
tive results are supported by Wright & Griffin & Mahon (1997) but used a
Ferris (1997). Furthermore, in the 2000s, wider time period (1972 – 2002) result-
there are some researchers adding to the ing in analysis of 127 published studies.
debate on the link between CSP and Of these studies, 70 studies (55%) re-
CFP with different perspectives of meth- ported having a positive relationship,
odology. Positive results were supported seven studies suggested a negative rela-


tionship, 28 studies supported inconclu- CSP and CFP have led to ambiguity in
sive results, and 24 studies found the results in prior studies. Nevertheless,
relationship went in both directions. problems may have emerged because the
Gray (2006), in his review of studies views did not take into account whether
investigating the relationship between some variables might have moderated
CSP and CFP, argued that results are the effect of CSP and CFP. As sug-
inconclusive. This argument is also sup- gested by previous research, this study
ported by Murray et al. (2006) in their examines the relationships between CSP
cross section data analysis. However, and CFP by incorporating the following
using a longitudinal data analysis, they suggested variables that may influence
found evidence to the contrary. Hill et the relationship: company size, and in-
al. (2007) investigated the effect of cor- dustry type (Waddock & Graves, 1997;
porate social responsibility on financial Griffin & Mahon, 1997 and 1999; Or-
performance in terms of a market-based litzky, 2001; Ruf et al., 2001; Wagner,
measure and found positive results in the 2001; Moore, 2001; Simpson & Kohers,
long-term. 2002; Orlitzky et al., 2003; and Itkonen,
2003).
The second issue that Griffin & Mahon
(1997) raised is about the causality. In Prior research has not taken into account
an effort to meet the stakeholder’s ex- moderating variables. The presence of a
pectation, companies should try to im- moderating variable can often modify
prove their CSP, which often comes at the relationship between the independent
the expense of also trying to improve and dependent variables. According to
their CFP. The question that emerges is Waddock & Graves (1997) and Itkonen
whether a company is better off focusing (2003) company size is related to CSP,
first on CSP or focusing first on CFP. as larger companies have been found to
Waddock & Graves (1997) and Dean be more socially responsible than
(1998) put forward two theories to an- smaller ones. These results are also sup-
swer the question: slack resource theory ported by Orlitzky (2001) who also
and good management theory. Under the found that the size of a company af-
slack resource theory, a company should fected the relationship between CSP and
focus on its financial position, allowing CFP. According to Orlitzky (2001) and
it to contribute to the CSP. Conducting Itkonen (2003), CSP is related to the
good social performance requires funds firm size since in the beginning, entre-
that might result from the success of fi- preneurial strategies focus on the basic
nancial performance. According to this economic survival and not on ethical and
theory, financial performance comes philanthropic responsibilities. As the
first. A good management theory holds firm grows, these same firms began to
that social performance comes first. focus more on their CSP responsibility.
Based on this theory, a company per- Based upon these arguments, it is ex-
ceived by its stakeholders as having a pected that the size of a company will be
good reputation will result in a stronger a moderating variable and will affect the
financial position (through market relations between CSP and CFP
mechanism). (Orlitzky, 2001 and Itkonen, 2003).

Simplistic views of relationship between Researchers also suggest that industry


type should be taken into account when tion on CSP was collected from the
analyzing the relationship between CSP CAR, company social reports, CSP In-
and CFP. As suggested by prior re- donesia, CSP news capital market direc-
search, industry can affect the relation- tory, Jakarta stock exchange websites,
ship between CSP and CFP (Waddock & other web sites and other electronic
Graves, 1997; Griffin & Mahon, 1997; news. Information on all financial vari-
Ruf et al., 2001; Moore, 2001; and ables, total assets and industry was col-
Simpson & Kohers, 2002) and will also lected from the CARs. Consistent with
be treated as a moderating variable. prior literature, data on CSP and finan-
cial performance have a one-year lag
Based on the literature review, we exam- (Waddock & Graves, 1997).
ine the following hypotheses:
H1: The relationship between CSP and
CFP in Indonesia is positive Measure of CSP
H2: Company size affects the relation-
ship between CSP and CFP in Indonesia CSP is measured and calculated through
H3: Industry type affects the relationship content analysis for each company fol-
between CSP and CFP in Indonesia lowing the approaches of both by
Kinder, Lydenberg Domini (KLD), an
United States based independent rating
Method company and by Michael Jantzi Re-
search Associate (MJRA), an independ-
Data and Sample Selection ent rating company in Canada. Both
these companies measure several dimen-
An initial sample of 407 companies was sions of the CSP to arrive at a total
selected from companies listed on the measure of CSP. These dimensions in-
Jakarta Stock Exchange for the period of clude community issues, diversity in the
2002 and 2003 that meet the following workplace, employee relations, environ-
criteria: mental performance, international is-
1. They represent types of industry sues, product and business practices, and
(manufacturing and non- other variables concerning compensa-
manufacturing) tion, confidentiality, and ownership in
2. They have been registered on the other companies.
Jakarta Stock Exchange for at least
two years Both positive and negative social re-
Missing Corporate Annual Reports sponsible information was collected
(CAR) reduced the sample size by 24 through examining the CAR, company
companies, resulting in a final sample of corporate social reports, along with ex-
383 companies comprising 246 manu- amining information obtained from the
facturing and 137 non-manufacturing capital market directory, Jakarta stock
companies. exchange websites, other web sites and
other electronic news regarding the sam-
The CAR for these companies was ob- pled companies. CSP for each company
tained from the official web site of the was assessed on a scale of -2 to +2 for
Jakarta Stock Exchange, the companies’ each rating. A -2 rating for any dimen-
web site, and other web sites. Informa- sion indicates major concern, -1 indi-


cates a notable concern, 0 indicates no Result and Discussion
notable or major strength and concern,
+1 indicates a notable strength and +2 Descriptive Statistics
indicates a major strength. A composite
CSP score was then calculated by sum- Table 1: Descriptive Statistic
ming the scores of each dimension for
each company. Variables N Mean SD
CSP index 383 4.0 1.7

Measure of CFP ROA (in %) 383 2.5 27.2
ROE (in %) 383 5.8 74.9
Following the works of Waddock &
Graves (1997) and Roman et al. (1999), Total Asset 383 3,862 14,34
(in Rp Bil- 9
Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on
lion)
Equity (ROE) were used separately to
measure a firm’s financial performance.
ROA is defined as the ratio of net in- Table 1 shows the mean and standard
come after tax to total assets and ROE is deviation for the CSR composite score.
defined as the ratio of net income after The mean was 4.0 with a standard devia-
tax to outstanding shares. Information tion of 1.7. The sampled companies
on ROA and ROE was collected from have a mean ROA and ROE of 2.5% and
the CAR. 5.8%, respectively, with standard devia-
tions of 27.2% and 74.9%, respectively.
Measure of Moderating Variables Company size, as measured by total as-
sets is Rp 3,862 billion with a standard
Two moderating variables are used in deviation of Rp 14,349 billion.
this study: size and industry. There are
three approaches used to measure com-
pany size in literature: total assets Regression Analysis
(Waddock & Graves, 1997; Simerly &
Li, 2001; and Moore, 2001), the number Tables 2, 3, and 4 show the results of
of people employed (Simerly & Li, our regressions models used to examine
2001) and annual sales of the firm the relationships between CSP and CFP.
(Simerly & Li, 2001; Ruf et al., 2001; Table 2 shows the results of our regres-
and Moore, 2001). This study uses the sion using CSP as the dependent vari-
measure of total assets to measure com- able. Based upon the slack resource the-
pany size as Waddock & Graves (1997) ory (Waddock & Graves, 1997) CSP is
argues that total assets are the “money treated as a dependent variable, while
machine” to generate sales and income. financial performance is treated as inde-
Dummy variables are used to control for pendent variable and company size, in-
performances that may vary by indus- dustry type and related interaction terms
tries. A variable of 1 was assigned to are treated as moderating variables. Ta-
companies that were manufacturing and bles 3 and 4 show the results of our re-
0 was assigned to non-manufacturing gressions using CFP as the dependent
companies. variable, CSP as the independent vari-
able and the interaction terms as moder-


ating variables. This model is consistent insignificant suggesting that the link be-
with the good management theory tween CSP and CFP is inconclusive in
(Waddock & Graves, 1997). nature. Additionally, no significant rela-
tionship was found between the relation-
Table 2 indicates that the relationship of ships of industry type and CSP. How-
CSP and CFP, for both measures of fi- ever, the relationship between size and
nancial performance (ROA and ROE), is CSP is significantly positive at p<.000

Table 2: Regression Analysis Using CSP as Dependent Variable
Independent, Control, and Mod- Coefficient Standard t-Value Prob
erating Variables Error
ROA 0.113 0.016 0.443 0.658
ROE 0.098 0.003 0.791 0.435

Company Size 0.416 0.000 4.350 0.000
Industry Type 0.039 0.177 0.774 0.439
Interaction:
ROA/Company Size 0.142 0.000 1.576 0.116
ROA/Industry Type -0.116 0.017 -0.444 0.658
ROE/Company Size -0.244 0.000 -0.788 0.075
ROE/Industry Type -0.118 0.004 -0.845 0.398
Model Summary
Adjusted R Square 0.083
F-Statistics 5.323
Prob 0.000

Table 3: Regression Analysis Using ROA as Dependent Variable

Independent, Control, and Coefficient Standard t-Value Prob
Moderating Variables Error
CSP 0.000 0.709 -0.001 0.999
Interaction:
CSP/Company Size 0.064 0.000 0.374 0.709
CSP/Industry Type -0.001 1.130 0.008 0.994
Model Summary
F-Statistics 95.103
Prob 0.000


Table 4: Regression Analysis Using ROE as Dependent Variable
Independent, Control, and Mod- Coefficient Standard t-Value Prob
erating Variables Error
CSP 0.014 1.950 0.323 0.747
Interaction:
CSP/Company Size -0.104 0.000 -0.608 0.544
CSP/Industry Type 0.057 3.108 -0.637 0.525
Model Summary
F-Statistics 95.491
Prob 0.000

level and the interaction terms of size tions. Meanwhile, smaller companies
and ROE with CSP is marginally signifi- appear to have reluctance to invest in
cantly negatively at a p<.075 level. Us- CSP, possibly because they fear it will
ing the model derived from the slack negatively affect CFP. These findings
recourse theory (Waddock and Graves, contribute to the overall research debate
1997), the evidence indicated in table 2 on the relationship between CSP and
provided a reasonable basis to reject the CFP along with enriching our under-
hypotheses 1 and 3 and supports hy- standing of this relationship for compa-
pothesis 2. nies in developing countries.

The good management theory (Waddock
and Graves, 1997) formed the basis to Conclusion, Implication, and Limita-
derive the regression model using CFP tion
as a dependent variable. As shown in
tables 3 and 4, none of the independent, Previous studies on the relationship be-
control or moderating variables are sig- tween CSP and CFP yield conflicting
nificant. Hypothesis one is not sup- results; some are positive, negative, and
ported as we failed to find a significant neutral. All of the studies use some con-
relationship between CSP and CFP. trol variables (total assets, number of
Similarly, hypotheses 2 and 3 are not employees, financial risk, type of indus-
supported as we also failed to find any try, and research and development ac-
significant relationships between the tivities) in their models. Unlike previ-
effect of company size or industry type ous studies, this study uses some of the
on the relationship between CSP and variables as moderating variables: com-
CFP. pany size and industry type to examine
whether these variables can improve our
Our finding of a significant positive rela- understanding of the relationship be-
tionship between CSP and company size tween CSP and financial performance.
provide support for the slack theory, in-
dicating that larger companies partici- The key findings of this study are as fol-
pate in more socially responsible ac- lows:


1. Using the model derived from the tion, all dimensions identified by MJRA
slack resource theory, we find no could not be found in some company
relationship between CSP and CFP, annual reports. A potential bias may
though we did find that company also exist as the negative aspects of CSP
size does affect the relationship of were often hard to obtain.
CSP and CFP.
2. Using the model derived from the
good management theory, we found References
no evidence supporting a relation-
ship between CSP and CFP. Dean, L. K. (1997) “The Chicken and
The Egg Revisited: Ties Between
These findings have important implica- Corporate Social Performance and
tions for the Indonesian business sector the Financial Bottom Line”, Jour-
and capital market regulators, like nal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
Bapepam. Recently new laws have been 82.
agreed upon by legislators of Indonesia Donaldson, T. & Preston L.E. (1995)
to improve CSP. Article 77 of the law “The Stakeholder Theory of the
now obliges Indonesian companies to Corporation: Concept, Evidence,
conduct CSP. Furthermore, it is ex- and Implication”, The Academy of
pected that the capital market regulator Management, Vol. 20, No. 1.
(Bapepam) and Indonesian standard set- Frooman, J. (1997) “Socially Irresponsi-
ter will include social and environmental ble and Illegal Behavior and
performance as mandatory disclosure. Shareholder Wealth”, Business &
As it is becoming increasingly important Society, Vol. 3, pp. 221-249.
for companies to integrate social and Fauzi, H. (2004) “Identifying and Ana-
environmental concerns in their business lyzing the Level of Practices of
strategies, it is important for managers Company’s Social Responsibility
of these companies to understand the in Improving Financial Perform-
relationship between CSP and CFP. ance”, Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 4, No. 2.
Future research may want to consider an Frederick, W. C., James, E. P. & Davis,
alternative measure of CSP that includes K. (1992) Business and Society:
more objective measures to perform Corporate Strategy, Public Pol-
content analysis, such as survey ap- icy, and Ethics. McGraw-Hill In-
proach as described by Igalens & Gond ternational Edition
(2005). The relationship between CSP Gray, R. (2006) "Does sustainability
and CFP may also be extended to in- reporting improve corporate be-
clude a balanced scorecard in hopes that haviour?: Wrong question? Right
a good theoretical framework can ex- time?", Accounting and Business
plain better the practice of company’s Research, International Account-
CSP. ing Policy Forum, pp.65-88.
Griffin, J.J., & Mahon, J.F. (1997) “The
Limitations to the study include judg- Corporate Social Performance and
mental factors resulting from biases of Corporate Financial Performance
the reviewers performing the content Debate: Twenty-Five Years of
analysis in determining CSP. In addi- Incomparable Research”, Business


and Society, Vol. 36, pp. 5-31. Vol. 26, pp. 117-127.
Griffin, J.J., & Mahon, J.F. (1999) Moore, G. (2001) “Corporate Social
“Painting a Portrait” Business and and Financial Performance: An
Society, Vol. 38, pp. 126-133. Investigation in The UK Super-
Graves, S. B. (1988) “Institutional own- market Industry”, Journal of Busi-
ership and corporate R&D in the ness Ethics, Vol. 34, pp. 299-315.
computer industry. Academy of Murray A., Sinclair D., Power. D. &
Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. Gray. R. (2006) “Do financial
417-428 markets care about social and
Hill, R.P., Ainscough, T., Shank, T., & environmental disclosure? Further
Manullang, D. (2007) “Corporate evidence and exploration from the
Social Responsibility and Socially UK", Accounting. Auditing and
Responsible Investing: A Global Accountability Journal. Vol. 19,
Perspective”, Journal of Business No. 2, pp. 228-255.
Ethics. Vol. 70, pp. 165–174 Murphy, E. (2002) “Best Corporate Citi-
Igalens, J. & Jean-Pascal, G. (2005) zens Have Better Financial Per-
“Measuring Corporate Social Per- formance”, Strategic Finance,
formance: A Critical and Empiri- Vol. 83, No. 7, pp. 20-21
cal Analysis of Arese Data”, Orlitzky, M. (2001) “Does Firm Size
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. Confound the Relationship Be-
56, No. 2. tween Corporate Social Perform-
Itkonen, L. (2003) “Corporate Social ance and Firm Financial Perform-
Responsibility and Financial Per- ance?”. Journal of Business Eth-
formance”. Hilsinki: Institute of ics, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 167-180.
Strategy and International Busi- __________ & Benjamin, J.D. (2001)
ness “Corporate Social Performance
Konar, S. & Cohen, M.A. (2001) "Does and Firm Risk: A Meta-Analytic
the Market Value Environmental Review”, Business & Society,
Performance?"The Review of Eco- Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 369-396.
nomics and Statistics, Vol. 83, __________, Schmidt. F. L. & Rynes.
No. 2, pp. 281-289 S.L. (2003) “Corporate social and
Margolis. J. D. & Walsh. J.P. (2003) financial Performance: a meta
"Misery loves companies: rethink- analysis”, Organization Studies,
ing social Initiatives by business", Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 403 – 441.
Administrative Science Quarterly, Patten. D. M. (2002) 'The relation be-
Vol. 48, pp. 268-305. tween environmental performance
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2000) and environmental disclosure: a
“Corporate Social Responsibility research note", Accounting Or-
and Financial Performance: Cor- ganizations and Society, Vol. 27,
relation or Misspecification?”, No. 8, pp. 763-773.
Strategic Management Journal, Pava, M. L. & Krausz, J. (1996) “The
Vol. 21, pp. 603-609. association between corporate
_____________ & ______ (2001) social-responsibility and financial
“Corporate Social Responsibility: perform: The Paradox of Social
A Theory of Firm Perspective”, Cost”, Journal of Business Ethics;
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 321 – 357.


Preston, L.E., & O’Bannon, D.P. (1997) nal of Business Ethics, Vo. 35,
“The Corporate Social-Financial No. 2, pp. 97-109.
Performance Relationship: A Ty- Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997)
pology and Analysis”, Business & “The corporate social perform-
Society, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 419- ance financial performance link”,
429. Strategic Management Journal,
Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S., Agle, B.R. Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 303-319.
(1999) ”The Relationship between Wagner. M. (2001) “A review of empiri-
Social and Financial Performance: cal .studies concerning the rela-
Repainting a Portrait”, Business & tionship between environmental
Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109- and economic performance”, Li-
125. ineburg: Center for Sustainability
Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, Management.
R.M., Janney, J.J., & Paul, K. Worrell, D.L., Davidson III, W.N., &
(2001) “An Empirical Investiga- Sharma, V.M. (1991) “Layoff
tion of the Relationship between Announcements and Stockholder
Change in Corporate Social Per- Wealth”, Academy of Manage-
formance and Financial Perform- ment Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3. pp.
ance: A Stakeholder Theory Per- 662-678.
spective”, Journal of Business Wright, P. & Ferris, S. P. (1997)
Ethics, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 143- “Agency Conflict and Corporate
156. Strategy: The Effect of Divest-
Simerly, R. L. & Minfang, Li. (2001) ment on Corporate Value”, Strate-
“Corporate Social Performance gic Management Journal, Vol. 18,
and Multinationality, A Longitu- No. 1, pp. 77-83.
d i n a l S t u d y ” Wu, Meng-Ling. (2006) “Corporate So-
Http//.www.westga.edu/ cial Performance, Corporate Fi-
~bquest/2000/corporate.html nancial Performance, Firm Size:
Simpson, W. G. & Kohers, T. (2002) A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of
“The Link between Social and American Academy of Business,
Financial Performance: Evidence Vol. 8, NO. 1, pp. 163 – 171.
from the Banking Industry”, Jour-

International Journals Call for Paper
The IISTE, a U.S. publisher, is currently hosting the academic journals listed below. The peer review process of the following journals
usually takes LESS THAN 14 business days and IISTE usually publishes a qualified article within 30 days. Authors should
send their full paper to the following email address. More information can be found in the IISTE website : www.iiste.org

Business, Economics, Finance and Management PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
European Journal of Business and Management EJBM@iiste.org
Research Journal of Finance and Accounting RJFA@iiste.org
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development JESD@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management IKM@iiste.org
Developing Country Studies DCS@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters IEL@iiste.org

Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Chemistry PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Natural Sciences Research JNSR@iiste.org
Chemistry and Materials Research CMR@iiste.org
Mathematical Theory and Modeling MTM@iiste.org
Advances in Physics Theories and Applications APTA@iiste.org
Chemical and Process Engineering Research CPER@iiste.org

Engineering, Technology and Systems PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Computer Engineering and Intelligent Systems CEIS@iiste.org
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering ISDE@iiste.org
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy JETP@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management IKM@iiste.org
Control Theory and Informatics CTI@iiste.org
Journal of Information Engineering and Applications JIEA@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters IEL@iiste.org
Network and Complex Systems NCS@iiste.org

Environment, Civil, Materials Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Environment and Earth Science JEES@iiste.org
Civil and Environmental Research CER@iiste.org
Civil and Environmental Research CER@iiste.org

Life Science, Food and Medical Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare JBAH@iiste.org
Food Science and Quality Management FSQM@iiste.org
Chemistry and Materials Research CMR@iiste.org

Education, and other Social Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Education and Practice JEP@iiste.org
Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization JLPG@iiste.org Global knowledge sharing:
New Media and Mass Communication NMMC@iiste.org EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy JETP@iiste.org Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP
Historical Research Letter HRL@iiste.org Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld
Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Public Policy and Administration Research PPAR@iiste.org Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate,
International Affairs and Global Strategy IAGS@iiste.org OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library ,
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences RHSS@iiste.org NewJour, Google Scholar.

Developing Country Studies DCS@iiste.org IISTE is member of CrossRef. All journals
Arts and Design Studies ADS@iiste.org have high IC Impact Factor Values (ICV).

11.pp.0149www.iiste.org call for paper-159

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie 11.pp.0149www.iiste.org call for paper-159

Ähnlich wie 11.pp.0149www.iiste.org call for paper-159 (20)

Mehr von Alexander Decker

Mehr von Alexander Decker (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

11.pp.0149www.iiste.org call for paper-159