A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance

Max B. E. Clarkson
The Academy of Management Review
Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 92-117
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258888
Page Count: 26
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

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


Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance


This article presents conclusions from a 10-year research program, the purpose of which has been to develop a framework and methodology, grounded in the reality of corporate behavior, for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. There are three principal sections: (a) a summary of the approaches, models, and methodologies used in conducting more than 70 field studies of corporate social performance from 1983-1993; (b) a discussion of the principal conclusions derived from the data that (1) corporations manage relationships with stakeholder groups rather than with society as a whole, (2) it is important to distinguish between social issues and stakeholder issues, and (3) it is necessary to identify the appropriate level of analysis in order to evaluate CSP; and (c) a discussion of propositions and areas for further research.

Notes and References

This item contains 20 references.

  • Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. 1985. An empirical examination of the rela- tionship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 28(2): 446-463.
  • Carroll, A. B.1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad- emy of Management Review, 4: 497-505.
  • Clarkson, M. B. E.1988. Corporate social performance in Canada, 1976-86. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 10: 241-265. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Clarkson, M. B. E.1991. Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: The stakeholder management model. In L. E. Preston (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 12: 331-358. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Clarkson, M. B. E., & Deck, M. C. 1993. Applying the stakeholder management to the anal- ysis and evaluation of corporate codes. In D. C. Ludwig (Ed.), Business and society in a changing world order: 55-76. New York: Mellen Press.
  • Clarkson, M. B. E., Deck, M. C., & Shiner, N. J. 1992. The stakeholder management model in practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV.
  • Freeman, R. E.1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman/ Ballinger.
  • Friedman, M.1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, Sept. 13.
  • Kelly, D., & McTaggart, T. 1979. Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • McAdam, T. W.1973. How to put corporate responsibility into practice. Business and Society Review/Innovation, 6: 8-16.
  • Preston, L. E. (Ed.). 1988. Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Preston, L. E.1990. Stakeholder management and corporate performance. Journal of Behav- ioral Economics, 19(4): 361-375.
  • The Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration (RCCC). 1977. Corporate social perfor- mance in Canada (Study No. 21). Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
  • Starik, M., Pinkston, T. S., & Carroll, A. B. 1989. Evolutionary and performance aspects of performance management. Unpublished paper, College of Business, University of Geor- gia, Athens.
  • Vincent, J., Olliers, I., & Starasts, J. 1986. A social audit of Bank of Montreal. Unpublished paper, Faculty of Management, University of Toronto.
  • Votaw, D.1973. Genius becomes rare. In D. Votaw & S. P. Sethi (Eds.), The corporate di- lemma: Traditional values versus contemporary problems: 11-45. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Wall Street Journal. 1993. Shawmut settles charges of bias in its lending. December 14: A2.
  • Wall Street Journal. 1994. Family friendly: Many companies go farther than the law requires. January 11: A1.
  • Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 4: 758-769.
  • Wood, D.1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16: 691-718.