Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective

Abagail McWilliams and Donald Siegel
The Academy of Management Review
Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 117-127
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL:
Page Count: 11
  • 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.

Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective


We outline a supply and demand model of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Based on this framework, we hypothesize that a firm's level of CSR will depend on its size, level of diversification, research and development, advertising, government sales, consumer income, labor market conditions, and stage in the industry life cycle. From these hypotheses, we conclude that there is an "ideal" level of CSR, which managers can determine via cost-benefit analysis, and that there is a neutral relationship between CSR and financial performance.

Notes and References

This item contains 29 references.

  • 1
    Griffin and Mahon (1997)
  • Barney, J.1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
  • Carroll, A.1979. A three dimensional model of corporate per- formance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497-505.
  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20: 65-91.
  • Fedderson, T., & Gilligan, T. 1998. Saints and markets. Work- ing paper, Northwestern University, Evanston IL.
  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Repu- tation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233-258.
  • Foulkes, F. K.1980. Personnel policies in large nonunion companies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Freeman, R.1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. 1983. What do unions do? New York: Basic Books.
  • Friedman, M.1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times, September 13: 122-126.
  • Griffin, J., & Mahon, J. F. 1997. The corporate social perfor- mance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36: 5-31.
  • Griliches, Z.1990. Hedonic price indexes and the measurement of capital and productivity: Some historical reflections. In E. Berndt & J. Triplett (Eds.), Fifty years of economic mea- surement: The jubilee of the conference on research in income and wealth, 185-202. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.
  • Jensen, M.1988. Takeovers: Their causes and consequences. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(1): 21-44.
  • Jones, T.1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20: 404-437.
  • Jones, T., & Wicks, A. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24: 206-221.
  • Link, A.1982. A disaggregated analysis of industrial R&D: Product versus process innovation. In D. Sahal (Ed.), The transfer and utilization of technical knowledge, 45-63. Lexington, MA: Heath.
  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2000. Corporate social responsibil- ity and financial performance: Correlation or misspecifi- cation? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 603-609.
  • Mills, D. Q.1994. Labor-management relations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853-886.
  • Moskowitz, M.1972. Choosing socially responsible stocks. Business & Society Review, 1: 71-75.
  • Nelson, P.1970. Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78: 311-329.
  • Nelson, P.1974. Advertising as information. Journal of Polit- ical Economy, 81: 729-754.
  • Parket, I., & Eibert, H. 1975. Social responsibility; the under- lying factors. Business Horizons, 18(4): 5-10.
  • Preston, L. (Ed.). 1978. Research in corporate social perfor- mance and policy, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. 1997. A resource-based perspec- tive on corporate environmental performance and prof- itability. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 534-559.
  • Siegel, D.1999. Skill-biased technological change: Evidence from a firm-level survey. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute Press.
  • Waddock, S., & Graves, S. 1997. The corporate social perfor- mance-financial performance link. Strategic Manage- ment Journal, 18: 303-319.
  • Weigelt, K., & Camerer, C. 1988. Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and application. Stra- tegic Management Journal, 9: 443-454.
  • Wright, P., & Ferris, S. 1997. Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic management Journal, 18: 77-83.