This article reviews empirical research of corporate social performance (CSP) using Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini (KLD) social ratings data through 2011. The review synthesizes 100 empirical studies, noting consistencies and inconsistencies among studies examining similar constructs. Notable consistencies were that, although accounting measures of financial performance were a positive outcome of CSP, the same was not often true of stock returns. Also, demographics of top management teams (TMTs) increased CSP strengths, but did not reduce concerns, whereas organizational decentralization reduced CSP concerns. Notable inconsistencies were that CEO demographics were not as often related to CSP as were TMT demographics, indicating that managerial discretion may be an important mitigating factor shaping managerial effects on CSP. Also, although CSP for some organizations seemed influenced by institutional pressures, other organizations appeared to be less influenced, perhaps suggesting that some organizations are more able than others to resist institutional pressures. Future research should attempt to probe observed consistencies and inconsistencies, and to test the boundaries of observed relationships, toward a disciplined program of middle-range theory development.

The contribution of this work is a classification of corporate social action underlying the Social Ratings Data compiled by Kinder Lydenburg Domini Analytics, Inc. We compare extant typologies of corporate social action to the results of our exploratory factor analysis. Our findings indicate four distinct latent constructs that bear resemblance to concepts discussed in prior literature. A key finding of our research is that positive and negative social action are both empirically and conceptually distinct constructs and should not be combined in future research. Additionally, we recommend that some prior research results be reconsidered to determine whether these newly derived measures might clarify some previous findings.

This study attempts to establish the importance of firm-level interactions with sociopolitical stakeholders in explaining firms prospects for survival. Institutional arguments are proposed to explain the effects of internal structures-both organizational and phenomenological-on firms sociopolitical relational strategies, whereas arguments grounded in the stakeholder view of the firm are advanced to explain effects of sociopolitical stakeholder relations on firm performance. Findings indicate that firms tended to adopt cooptative relationships with sociopolitical stakeholders. Furthermore, firms cooperativeness toward sociopolitical stakeholders had little effect on financial performance but, under some conditions, had positive effects on social performance. Implied is that markets may not be an effective governance mechanism to ensure firms alignment with democratic institutions in a plural society and that public policies may be needed to address these failures.

Accounting conservatism and corporate social responsibility have received much attention in the recent literature. The current study draws upon Watts, who recognizes that one role of conservatism is to reduce the likelihood of excess wealth transfers to its stakeholder groups and Post et al., who assert that a key aspect of positive corporate social performance is the (equitable) distribution of corporate wealth. Accordingly, this study empirically investigates and finds a positive relation between conservatism and strong social performance.

No abstract