Firm Size and Corporate Social Performance

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young K. Chang ◽  
Won-Yong Oh ◽  
Jae C. Jung ◽  
Jeong-Yeon Lee
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (13) ◽  
pp. 3698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Li ◽  
Taylor Morris ◽  
Brian Young

Outside of direct ownership, the general public may feel it is an implicit stakeholder of a firm. As the public becomes more vested in a firm’s actions, the firm may be more likely to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. We proxy for the public’s stake in a firm with public visibility. Based on 3400 unique newspaper publications from 1994–2008, we measure visibility for the S&P 500 firms with the frequency of print articles per year concerning the firm. We find that visibility has a signficant, positive relationship with the CSR rating. Evidence also suggests this relationship may be causal and working in one direction, from visibility to CSR. While the existing literature provides other factors that influence CSR, visibility proves to have the most significant impact when tested alongside those other factors. Visibility also has a mediating effect on the relationship between CSR rating and firm size. CSR rating and firm size relate negatively for the lowest visibility firms and positively for the highest. This paper provides strong evidence that visibility is an important factor to consider for studies on corporate social performance.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Foo Nin Ho ◽  
Hui-Ming Deanna Wang ◽  
Nga Ho-Dac ◽  
Scott J. Vitell

Purpose Firm size has been identified as one of the most important correlates with corporate social performance (CSP). Both conceptual and empirical research has been done to try to explicate and determine this relationship; however, the results from both theoretical and empirical research have indicated a mixed and sometimes inconsistent relationship because of endogeneity between firm size and CSP. This paper aims to add to the body of knowledge by identifying and addressing some of the limitations in determining the relationship between firm size and CSP. Design/methodology/approach Using the Arellano–Bond method to control for the endogeneity, this study tests the relationship between CSP and firm size using a panel of 380 public companies of various sizes; in various industry types; and across 19 countries in North America, Europe and Asia over a six-year period. Findings The results of the study show that firm size positively influences CSP and its subcomponents when endogeneity has been controlled for. Research limitations/implications This study lends support for the theory of the firm framework that CSP attributes are embedded in the production process that leads to higher economies of scale, and the resource-based view of firms where firms that possess valuable and inimitable resources in CSR can lead to a sustainable competitive advantage over competitors. This suggests that as firms grow in size, they can leverage their resources to achieve greater economies of scale that will lead to better CSP over time. Originality/value This study addresses the potential endogeneity problem between firm size and CSP and offers a broader testing context.


2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 742-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Schreck ◽  
Sascha Raithel

This study investigates the distinct and joint effects of corporate social performance (CSP), firm size, and visibility on a company’s decision to disclose sustainability-related information through sustainability reports. It seeks to provide more nuanced explanations for why certain companies tend to extensively report on their sustainability performance. First, while prior studies have predominantly focused on environmental reporting, the current analysis considers comprehensive sustainability reports that include both environmental and social issues. Second, the article argues that the effects of two important antecedents of legitimacy pressure—firm size and organizational visibility—should be analyzed separately rather than restricting the analysis on the effects of legitimacy pressure per se. Third, it argues that the hypothesized effects are nonlinear because the marginal costs and benefits of sustainability reporting vary with a company’s CSP level, its size, and its visibility in the public. Finally, although there is a strong link between CSP and sustainability reporting, the strength of this link depends on its size and visibility. The study of 280 companies in environmentally and socially sensitive industries provides considerable support for these hypotheses, including evidence that size and visibility independently affect sustainability reporting and that the shape of the CSP/sustainability reporting link is contingent upon firm size and visibility.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-44
Author(s):  
Doocheol Moon ◽  
Seungwha Chung ◽  
Hyunjung Choi

2001 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett A. Stone

The first iteration of a nonstatic special-purpose taxonomy of corporate social performance concepts is developed from a mailed, self-administered survey completed by managers of U.S. socially responsible mutual funds. The study combines the traditionally disparate research areas of Corporate Social Performance and Socially Responsible Investing. As a partial update of Rockness and Williams (1988), a descriptive account is presented of what mutual fund managers regard as the social issues that constitute corporate social performance. The resulting taxonomy represents an empirically derived framework useful in considering social accounting in general and accounting standard setting in particular.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document