Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability

Kenneth E. Aupperle, Archie B. Carroll and John D. Hatfield
The Academy of Management Journal
Vol. 28, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 446-463
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256210
Page Count: 18
Subjects: Business Sociology Management & Organizational Behavior
Find more content in these subjects: Business Sociology Management & Organizational Behavior
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.

Abstract

Although there has been considerable research into the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability, it has frequently reflected either an ideological bias or limited methodological procedures. Research has also been impeded by the difficulty of adequately measuring corporate social responsibility. This study, using an elaborate, forced-choice instrument administered to corporate CEOs, did not find any relationship between social responsibility and profitability. Specifically, varying levels of social orientation were not found to correlate with performance differences.

Notes and References

This item contains 19 references.

References
  • Abbott, W.F., & Monsen, J. R. 1979. On the measurement of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 22: 501- 515.
  • Alexander, G.J., & Buchholz, R. A. 1978. Corporate social responsibility and stock market performance. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 479-486.
  • Arlow, P., & Gannon, M. J. 1982. Social responsiveness, corporate structure, and economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 7: 235-241.
  • Bowman, E.H., & Haire, M. 1975. A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18 (2):49-58.
  • Bragdon, J.H., & Marlin, J. T. 1972. Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19 (4): 9-18.
  • Business and Society Review, 1972. So far so good, (2): 88.
  • Carroll, A.B.1979. A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497-505.
  • Corson, J.J., & Steiner, G. A. 1974. Measuring business' social performance: The corporate social audit. New York: Committee for Economic Development.
  • Eilbirt, H., & Parket, R. I. 1973. The practice of business: The current status of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 16 (4): 5-14.
  • Heinz, D.C.1976. Financial correlates of a social measure. Akron Business and Economic Review, 7 (1): 48-51.
  • Holmes, S.L.1977. Corporate social performance: Past and present areas of commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 20: 433- 538.
  • Jensen, R.E.1976. Phantasmagoric accounting: Research and analysis of economic, social, and environmental impact of corporate business. Sarasota, Fla.: American Accounting Association.
  • Moskowitz, M.1972. Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business and Society Review, (1): 71-75.
  • Ostlund, L.E.1977. Attitudes of managers toward corporate social policy. California Manage- ment Review, 19 (4): 35-49.
  • Paluszek, J.L.1976. Business and society: 1976-2000, an AMA report. New York: AMACOM.
  • Parket, R., & Eilbirt, H. 1975. Social responsibility: The underlying factors. Business Horizons, 18 (4): 5-10.
  • Sturdivant, F.D., & Ginter, J. L. 1977. Corporate social responsiveness. California Manage- ment Review, 19 (3): 30-39.
  • Value Line Investment Survey, 1981. Part IV, Glossary, 37 (1): 1-8.
  • Vance, S.C.1975. Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks? Management Review, 64 (8): 19-24.