No abstract

PurposeThe authors aim to develop and test a theory of dual responsibility to explain the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance. The authors empirically examine whether firms that meet their economic and social responsibilities simultaneously perform better than firms that fail to do so. In doing so, the authors theoretically extend and empirically test Barney's (2018) call to incorporate the stakeholder perspective with resource-based view (RBV). The authors also examine the moderating effects of firm status on this relationship.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use a longitudinal panel sample of 137 S&P 500 firms and data for the years between 2004 and 2013 collected from multiple data sources. The authors use stochastic frontiers analysis to measure firm capabilities in the areas of R&D, operations and marketing. These capability measures are then used along with CSR measures and a measure of firm status to test the hypotheses of this study. The authors also conducted several robustness checks and various supplementary analyses using different econometrics techniques and different operationalizations of the key variables of interests.FindingsThe results show that firm CSR is positively related to firm performance and that the effect of CSR on performance is stronger for firms with higher levels of R&D capability and operational capability. The authors also find support for the three-way interaction between CSR, economic responsibility and firm status, suggesting that firms high in both social and economic responsibilities and status will enjoy the highest levels of performance.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings of this study are based on large, publicly listed firms in North America. Therefore, their generalizability to other contexts and other types of firms require additional research. The reliance on KLD measures is also a limitation, especially because they have not reported CSR ratings after 2013.Practical implicationsFor practicing managers, the main implication of this study is that an optimal balance between market and nonmarket strategies is key for superior performance.Social implicationsThe continued debate regarding the firm's purpose can be understood by focusing equally on the two main responsibilities of firms: nonsocial responsibility and social responsibility toward all stakeholders.Originality/valueThe study answers the call to incorporate stakeholder theory into the RBV of the firm by highlighting the critical role of firm capabilities in the relationship between CSR and performance. The study also highlights the role that firm status plays in the relationship between market and nonmarket strategies and firm performance.

Drawing on the institutional theory, stakeholder perspective, and ownership literature on corporate social responsibility, this article sheds light on the relationship between the firm social performance and the financial performance of the firm. Singularly, the paper explores a moderating effect of both corporate reputation as a proxy for firm social activities' publicity and the institutional investors in the firm. The paper proposes that expected positive impact of both reputation and institutional investors on the relationship between CSR and firm performance. Such that, the firm can best benefit from CSR activities when it has a good reputation among major stakeholders. The effect of institutional owners is expected to positively moderate the relationship between CSR activities and firm performance. Overall, the paper suggests that corporate ownership structure, as well as corporate consistent reputation will have influence on the extent to which a firm may benefit from its CSR activities which would open a new avenue for research on governance structure with regard to CSR and firm performance. Implications for both academics and practitioners are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.

PurposeThe purpose of the current study is to revisit the relationship between CSR and firm market performance. The authors examine whether a gap between the firm's internal and external CSR moderates the CSR-firm market performance relationship. Additionally, the authors propose that the moderating effect of the CSR gap on this relationship is mediated by firm visibility.Design/methodology/approachThe initial sample is the Fortune 500 firms during the years 2004–2013. The final panel data sample consisted of 1,300 firms and 6,128 observations from 2004 to 2013. The authors obtained data from five different sources: Compustat North America Fundamental Annual, GMI Ratings, Execucomp, IBES and KLD Stats.FindingsThe results of this research find evidence that both internal CSR and external CSR were positively related to firm market performance, but that the relationship was stronger for firms with equal emphasis on external and internal CSR activities. Furthermore, the negative moderating effect of the CSR gap was mediated by the firm visibility.Originality/valueThe findings of the study advance our understanding of the CSR-FP relationship. First, the theoretical arguments and the empirical evidence highlight that the CSR-FP relationship exists and that its magnitude is contingent upon the gap between internal and external CSR investments. Second, the authors enhanced theoretical understanding of how and why CSR relates to firm performance by exploring firm visibility as a mediator. Specifically, the authors introduced firm visibility as a mechanism which explains the effect of the interaction of overall CSR with the CSR gap on firm performance.

We investigate the relationship between CEO narcissism and corporate social responsibility (CSR). We suggest an alternative to the current assumption of a linear relationship between CEO narcissism and CSR. Instead, we propose an inverted U relationship between the two. Although narcissistic CEOs may engage in CSR, we argue that highly narcissistic CEOs may be drawn to actions that would garner greater attention and they may be less inclined to engage in CSR. Based on a sample of Fortune 500 firms during the period 2006–2013, we find support for an inverted U relationship and support for our arguments that CEO power moderates the relationship between CEO narcissism and CSR.