Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
0361-3682/92 $5 00+ O0
Pergamon Press Ltd
ROBIN W. ROBERTS
Abstract
A lack of sufficient theoreucal support for models destgned to explain corporate soctal responsibihty actisaty
led Ullmann (Academy of Management Rewew, 1985, pp. 540-577) to develop a framework for prechcting
corporate social activity based on a stakeholder theory of strategic management This study empirically tests
the ability of stakeholder theory to explain one s-Ix~ificcorporate social responsibility activtty - - social
responsibility disclosure. Results support this application, finding that measures of stakeholder power,
strategm posture, and economic performance are significantlyrelated to levels of corporate socml disclosure
UUmann ( 1 9 8 5 ) c r i t i c a l l y e v a l u a t e d p r i o r
r e s e a r c h in t h e a r e a o f c o r p o r a t e social r e s p o n sibility a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t s e v e r a l d e f i c i e n c i e s
e x i s t in t h e c u r r e n t b o d y o f c o r p o r a t e social
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e s e a r c h . F o r e m o s t in his c r i t i q u e
w a s t h e l a c k o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e social r e s p o n sibility t h e o r y sufficient to e x p l a i n w h y corporat i o n s e n g a g e in social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y e n d e a v o r s .
H e a r g u e s that this l a c k o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e
t h e o r y is r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s
o f m a n y studies. A c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k w a s
d e v e l o p e d b y U l l m a n n ( 1 9 8 5 ) as sufficient to
e x p l a i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g social disc l o s u r e , a n d social a n d e c o n o m i c p e r f o r m a n c e .
This f r a m e w o r k is b a s e d u p o n t h e s t a k e h o l d e r
approach to strategic management that was
f o r w a r d e d b y F r e e m a n ( 1 9 8 3 ) a n d o t h e r s , in
w h i c h c o n f l i c t i n g e x t e r n a l d e m a n d s o n t h e firm
m a y b e a d d r e s s e d . S o m e r e c e n t s t u d i e s in t h e
social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a r e a h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h e
r o l e o f s t a k e h o l d e r s in i n f l u e n c i n g c o r p o r a t e
d e c i s i o n s (e.g. M c G u i r e et al., 1988), b u t h a v e
n o t a t t e m p t e d t o e x p l i c i t l y test s t a k e h o l d e r
influences as d e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e l e v e l o f
c o r p o r a t e social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y activity. T h e
p u r p o s e o f this s t u d y is to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e t h e
stakeholder framework presented by Ullmann
a n d e m p i r i c a l l y test t h e effect o f o v e r a l l firm
s t r a t e g y o n o n e t y p e o f social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
a c t i v i t y - - social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y disclosure. T h e
present study improves on prior research by
p r e d i c t i n g t h e l e v e l o f c o r p o r a t e social disclosure within a comprehensive theoretical
f r a m e w o r k a n d b y a d o p t i n g i n d e p e n d e n t , thirdp a r t y e v a l u a t i o n s as m e a s u r e s o f t h e level o f
c o r p o r a t e social d i s c l o s u r e .
T h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e p a p e r is o r g a n i z e d as
follows. T h e n e x t t w o s e c t i o n s discuss p r i o r
r e s e a r c h in t h e a r e a o f c o r p o r a t e social r e s p o n sibility a n d s t a k e h o l d e r t h e o r y . Thereafter,
c o n s i d e r a t i o n is g i v e n t o U l l m a n n ' s f r a m e w o r k
for analyzing social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y disclosures.
T h e social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y d i s c l o s u r e m o d e l des i g n e d t o test Ullmarm's f r a m e w o r k is t h e n
e x p l a i n e d a n d t h e s a m p l e is d e s c r i b e d . T h e
r e s u l t s o f t h e e m p i r i c a l tests a n d t h e c o n c l u sions a n d l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s t u d y are p r e s e n t e d
in t h e final s e c t i o n s o f t h e p a p e r .
P r i o r r e s e a r c h has d e f i n e d c o r p o r a t e social
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y activities as p o l i c i e s o r a c t i o n s
w h i c h i d e n t i f y a c o m p a n y as b e i n g c o n c e r n e d
w i t h s o c i e t y - r e l a t e d issues. Studies h a v e e x a m i n e d c o r p o r a t e social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y activities in
595
596
R w ROBERTS
SOCIALRESPONSIBILITYDISCLOSURE
Mahapatra ( 1 9 8 4 ) concluded that corporate
social responsibility activities may lead to
increased systematic risk.
These studies w e r e c o n d u c t e d prior to
Ullmann ( 1 9 8 5 ) and are subject to his criticism
that empirical research in corporate social
responsibility has not developed a solid theoretical foundatiorL While some studies extended
earlier w o r k through methodological improvements or b y sampling from a different population of companies, theoretical advances w e r e
not substantial.
D e t e r m i n a n t s o f social responsibility
activities
Cochran & W o o d ( 1 9 8 4 ) used corporate
social responsibility rankings developed by
Moskowitz ( 1 9 7 2 ) to test the relationship
b e t w e e n corporate social responsibility activities and firm performance. After controlling for
industry classification and corporate age, a
weak, positive association b e t w e e n social responsibility activities and financial p e r f o r m a n c e
was found. Mills & Gardner ( 1 9 8 4 ) concluded
in their analysis of the relationship b e t w e e n
social disclosure and financial p e r f o r m a n c e that
companies are m o r e likely to disclose social
responsibility expenditures w h e n their financial statements indicate favorable financial
performance.
C o w e n et al. ( 1 9 8 7 ) examined the relationships b e t w e e n several corporate characteristics
and specific categories of social responsibility
disclosures. C o m p a n y size, industry classification, profitability, and the presence of a corporate
social responsibility c o m m i t t e e w e r e hypothesized as potential influences on corporate social
disclosure. The results of a multiple regression
analysis concluded, in general, that c o m p a n y
size and industry classification are associated
with corporate social disclosures. McGuire et
al. ( 1 9 8 8 ) used Fortune magazine's ratings of
corporate reputations to analyze the relationships between perceived corporate social responsibility p e r f o r m a n c e and financial performance.
Prior financial p e r f o r m a n c e of the firms, as
measured b y both stock market returns and
accounting-based measures, w e r e found to be
597
m o r e closely related to corlx)rate social responsibility than was subsequent financial performance. McGuire et al. ( 1 9 8 8 ) suggested that
financial p e r f o r m a n c e may b e a variable influencing social responsibility activities.
Conclusions drawn from this stream of
empirical research w e r e generally consistent with the theoretical m o d e l developed by
Ullmann (1985), but none of the studies
provided a comprehensive theory to predict
corporate social p e r f o r m a n c e or disclosure.
McGuire et al. ( 1 9 8 8 ) reference stakeholder
considerations but do not incorporate measures
of stakeholder p o w e r or strategic posture into
their empirical tests.
STAKEHOLDER THEORY
The stakeholder concept
Freeman ( 1 9 8 4 ) defines a stakeholder as "any
group or individual w h o can affect or is affected
b y the achievement of the firm's objectives".
Stakeholders of the firm include stockholders,
creditors, employees, customers, suppliers,
public interest groups, and governmental bodies.
Ansoff ( 1 9 6 5 ) was the first to use the term
"stakeholder theory" in defining the objectives
of the firm. A major objective of the firm was to
attain the ability to balance the conflicting
demands of various stakeholders in the firm.
Freeman ( 1 9 8 3 ) categorized the developm e n t of the stakeholder c o n c e p t into a corporate planning and business policy model and
a corporate social responsibility model of
stakeholder management. The corporate planning and business policy m o d e l of the stakeholder c o n c e p t focuses on developing and
evaluating the approval of corporate strategic
decisions by groups w h o s e support is required
for the corporation to continue to exist. The
behavior of various stakeholder groups is
considered a constraint on the strategy that is
developed b y m a n a g e m e n t to best match
corporate resources with its environment. In
this model stakeholders are identified as customers, owners, suppliers and public groups
and are not adversarial in nature.
598
R. W ROBERTS
ULLMANN'S FRAMEWORK
Ullmann ( 1 9 8 5 ) concluded that corporate
social responsibility models developed in prior
research are misspecified because the relationship of firm strategy to the social responsibility
decision has not b e e n incorporated into the
empirical tests. He developed a contingency
framework for predicting levels of corporate
social responsibility activity and disclosure
SOCIALRESPONSIBILITYDISCLOSURE
based on the stakeholder c o n c e p t formalized b y
Freeman (1984). Ullmann's f r a m e w o r k is consistent with the conceptual view of corporate
social reporting discussed b y Dierkes & Antal
(1985), that publicly disclosed information
regarding corporate social responsibility activities provides a basis for dialogue with various
business constituencies.
Ullmann (1985) presents a three-dimensional
model as sufficient to explain almost all correlations a m o n g social disclosure and social and
e c o n o m i c performance. Stakeholder p o w e r is
discussed as the first dimension of the model,
explaining that a firm will be responsive to the
intensity of stakeholder demands. A stakeholder's
(e.g. owners, creditors, or regulators) p o w e r to
influence corporate m a n a g e m e n t is viewed as a
function of the stakeholder's degree of control
o v e r resources required by the corporation
(Ullmann, 1985). The m o r e critical stakeholder
resources are to the continued viability and
success of the corporation, the greater the
expectation that stakeholder demands will be
addressed. If social responsibility activities are
viewed as an effective m a n a g e m e n t strategy for
dealing with stakeholders, a positive relationship b e t w e e n stakeholder p o w e r and social
p e r f o r m a n c e and social disclosure is expected.
As will be discussed b e l o w evidence suggests
that social responsibility activities are useful
in developing and maintaining satisfactory relationships with stockholders, creditors, and
political bodies. Developing a corporate reputation as being socially responsible, through
performing and disclosing social responsibility
activities, is part of a strategic plan for managing
stakeholder relationships.
The second dimension of the m o d e l is the
firm's strategic posture toward corporate social
responsibility activities. Strategic posture describes the m o d e of response of a company's
key decision makers concerning social demands.
UUmann dichotomizes strategic posture as
active or passive. A c o m p a n y w h o s e managem e n t tries to influence their organization's
status with key stakeholders through social
responsibility activities possesses an active
posture. If a c o m p a n y ' s m a n a g e m e n t is not
599
continuously monitoring its position with stakeholders and is not developing specific programs
to address stakeholder influences, then the
c o m p a n y is perceived to possess a passive
strategic posture. Thus, the m o r e active the
strategic posture the greater the e x p e c t e d
social responsibility activities and disclosures.
The model's third dimension concerns the
company's past and current economic performance. The importance placed on meeting
social responsibility goals may b e secondary to
meeting the e c o n o m i c demands that impact
directly on a company's continued viability.
Economic p e r f o r m a n c e directly affects the
financial capability to institute social responsibility programs. Therefore, given certain levels
of stakeholder p o w e r and strategic posture,
the better the economic p e r f o r m a n c e of a
company, the greater its social responsibility
activity and disclosures.
THE SOCIAL DISCLOSURE MODEL
The empirical tests in this study use measures
of stakeholder power, strategic posture toward
social responsibility, and economic performance
to predict cross-sectional variations in one
corporate social responsibility activity J corporate social responsibility disclosure. It is
also hypothesized that in constructing the
model, a time lag b e t w e e n measures of the
explanatory factors and social disclosure is
necessary. This lag is necessary due to: ( 1 ) the
dynamic nature of strategic planning, ( 2 ) the
focus of stakeholder theory on meeting the
long-term interests of stakeholders, ( 3 ) the
empirical findings of Cowen et al. ( 1 9 8 7 ) and
M c G u i r e e t al. (1988), and ( 4 ) the fact that
social disclosures relate primarily to past social
responsibility activities.
The empirical form of the model is:
SOCDISI,t = b0 + bl + b2 (PSHI,t-1)
+ b 3 (lnPACt,t_l) + b4 (DERATIO t,t-1)
+ b5 (PUBAFF~,t-I) + b6 (FOUNDs,t_,)
+ b7 (MGRROE~,t_~) + ba (BETA~.t-~)
+ b9 (AGEt,t-1) + blo (INDEFFt.t-I)
+ bit (lnSIZEt, t-I) + el,
600
R W ROBERTS
where:
= i n t e r c e p t terms;
= level o f c o r p o r a t e social r e s p o n sibility d i s c l o s u r e for firm i in
p e r i o d t; 0 -- p o o r , 1 = g o o d , 2 =
excellent;
PSH
= p e r c e n t a g e o f o w n e r s h i p in firm i
h e l d b y m a n a g e m e n t a n d shareh o l d e r s h o l d i n g m o r e t h a n 5% o f
c o m m o n s t o c k at p e r i o d t - 1;
PAC
= d o l l a r s c o n t r i b u t e d b y firm i t o
its c o r p o r a t e p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n c o m m i t t e e in p e r i o d t - 1;
DERATIO = a v e r a g e d e b t to e q u i t y r a t i o for
firm i in p e r i o d t - 1;
PUBAFF = a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f c o r p o r a t e
p u b l i c affairs staff m e m b e r s
e m p l o y e d b y firm i in p e r i o d t - 1;
FOUND = s p o n s o r s h i p o f a p h i l a n t h r o p i c
f o u n d a t i o n b y firm i in p e r i o d
t - 1; FOUND = 1 if a c o r p o r a t e
p h i l a n t h r o p i c f o u n d a t i o n exists.
O t h e r w i s e , FOUND = 0;
MGRROE --- a v e r a g e annual c h a n g e in r e t u r n
o n e q u i t y for firm i in p e r i o d t - I;
BETA
-- m a r k e t m o d e l m e a s u r e o f system a t i c risk for firm i at p e r i o d t - 1;
AGE
= age o f c o r p o r a t i o n at p e r i o d
t - 1;
INDEFF -- p r e s e n c e o f firm i in a h i g h
profile i n d u s t r y at p e r i o d t - 1;
INDEFF = 1 if a c o r p o r a t i o n is p a r t
o f a h i g h profile industry.
O t h e r w i s e , INDEFF = 0;
SIZE
= a v e r a g e r e v e n u e s o f firm i in
p e r i o d t - 1.
bo, b l
SOCDIS
In t h e e m p i r i c a l tests, p e r i o d t r e p r e s e n t s t h e
y e a r s 1 9 8 4 - 1 9 8 6 . F o r t h e i n d e p e n d e n t variables PSH, BETA, AGE, a n d INDEFF, t -- 1
r e p r e s e n t s 1984. F o r PAC, DERATIO, MGRROE,
a n d SIZE, t - 1 r e p r e s e n t s t h e y e a r s 1 9 8 1 1984. T h e p e r i o d t - 1 r e p r e s e n t s t h e y e a r s
1 9 8 3 - 1 9 8 4 for t h e variables PUBAFF a n d
FOUND. 2 L o g a r i t h m i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s o f t h e
variables PAC a n d SIZE a r e u s e d w h e n estimating t h e social d i s c l o s u r e m o d e l . T h e transform a t i o n is p e r f o r m e d b e c a u s e variables w i t h
o b s e r v a t i o n s that are large in a b s o l u t e a m o u n t s
c a n o v e r w h e l m o t h e r variables d u r i n g t h e
logistic r e g r e s s i o n i t e r a t i o n p r o c e s s . A c o m p l e t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e variables u s e d in t h e
m o d e l is p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 1.
D e p e n d e n t variable
T h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e for t h e social disc l o s u r e m o d e l ( S O C D I S ) is a d a p t e d f r o m an
e x t e n s i v e analysis o f t h e social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
activities o f 130 m a j o r c o r p o r a t i o n s that w a s
p u b l i s h e d b y t h e C o u n c i l o n E c o n o m i c Priorities ( C E P ) in 1986. T h e CEP analysis r e s u l t e d in
a rating of each corporation's level of disclosure
o f social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y activities f r o m 1984 to
1986. This extensive search b y the CEP involved:
( 1) direct communication with each company,
( 2 ) a r e v i e w o f c o r p o r a t e a n n u a l r e p o r t s , 10K
r e p o r t s , a n d p r o x y s t a t e m e n t s , ( 3 ) an i n - d e p t h
s t u d y o f n e w s p a p e r s , magazines, a n d o t h e r
p u b l i c a t i o n s , a n d ( 4 ) an analysis o f s e c o n d a r y
i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s s u c h as The Taft Corporate
2The National Directory of Corporate Public Affairs is the source for data relating to the variables PUBAFFand FOUND
This directory was not pubhshed before 1983. Therefore, PUBAFFand FOUND are limtted to two years of data
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYDISCLOSURE
601
Description
Data
source
PAC ( + )
Council on
Economic Priorittes
DERATIO ( + )
Compustat
National Directory
of Corporate Public
Affairs
Strategm posture
PUBAFF( + )
FOUND ( + )
Economic performance
MGRROE ( + )
Compustat
Compustat
Compustat
IN'DEFT( + )
council on
Economic Pnoritms
SIZE ( + / - )
Compustat
BETA ( - )
Control variables
AGE ( + )
to c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g c o r p o r a t e
social d i s cl o s u r e , t h e CEP ratings p r o v i d e an
i m p r o v e d measure of both the level and the
reliability o f c o r p o r a t e social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
disclosure.
Independent variables
T h e i n d e p e n d e n t variables u s e d in t h e e m p i r ical tests r e p r e s e n t t h e l e v e l o f s t a k e h o l d e r
p o w e r , t h e s t r a t e g ic p o s t u r e t o w a r d social
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y activities, o r t h e e c o n o m i c perf o r m a n c e o f a corporation. T h e p r o x i e s s e l e c t e d
to r e p r e s e n t t h e s e h y p o t h e s i z e d i n f l u e n c e s o n
c o r p o r a t e social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y d i s c l o s u r e s are
d i s c u s s e d in this s e c t i o n .
602
IZ w. ROBERTS
SOCIALRESPONSIBILITYDISCLOSURE
concerning a corporation's role in social responsibility activities. To test the hypothesis
that the level of c o r p o r a t e social responsibility
disclosure is directly related to the degree to
which a corporation is leveraged, the variable
DERATIO is included in the social disclosure
model. DERATIO is defined as the corporation's
average d e b t to equity ratio for 1981 to 1984.
The debt to equity ratio is chosen as a measure
of creditor stakeholder p o w e r because it captures the i m p o r t a n c e of creditors as stakeholders relative to equity investors. DERATIO is
e x p e c t e d to have a direct relationship to the
level of c o r p o r a t e social disclosure.
603
3As a revtewer pointed out, an "active" strategic posture toward social responsibility could imply an overt pohcy of
minimizing corporate social activities. I use the term "acttve strategic posture" to define a corporate strategy m whtch the
corporation portrays a positive stance toward social responsibility actavities
604
R W ROBERTS
E c o n o m i c p e r f o r m a n c e variables. Belkaoui
(1976), Ingram (1978), Mahapatra (1984),
McGuire et aL ( 1 9 8 8 ) and others have empirically tested the relationship between corporate
social disclosure and economic performance.
While some of the tests have controlled for firm
size, industry classification, or systematic risk,
the social disclosure/economic performance
association has not been investigated empirically
in a comprehensive social disclosure framework.
In this study, an accounting-based measure
(MGRROE) and a stock-market-based measure
(BETA) of economic performance are employed
to test the impact of prior economic performance
on a company's level of corporate social
responsibility disclosure.
Return on equity. Sustained growth in economic
returns to equity investors is a primary goal that
is c o m m o n to all corporate managers. Trends in
earnings-based measures of economic performance, such as return on equity, are frequently
used in evaluating the performance of corporate
officers. Given that in periods of low profitability
economic demands take priority over discretionary social responsibility expenditures, satisfactory financial performance has a definite
influence on the level of support top corporate
decision makers can commit to future social
responsibility activities (Ullmann, 1985). Thus,
stakeholder theory predicts a positive association between accounting-based measures of
prior economic performance and corporate
SOCIALRESPONSIBILITYDISCLOSURE
for in empirical tests (Cochran & Wood, 1984;
Ullmann, 1985; C o w e n et al., 1987). In addition, arguments can be made that corporate age
and industry classification represent some aspect
of stakeholder power, strategic posture, and/or
e c o n o m i c performance.
Age. As a corporation matures, its reputation
and history of involvement in social responsibility
activities can b e c o m e entrenched. 4 Stakeholder
expectations regarding sponsorship and involvement could make any drastic change in
corporate strategy very costly. Sponsorship
withdrawal could signal to stakeholders that the
corporation expects financial or managerial
disturbances. The age of each corporation in
1984 is included in the model through the
variable AGE and is expected to be directly
related to SOCDIS. 5
605
4 Navarro (1988) uses Texaco's sponsorshtp of the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts and AT & T's support of the pubhc
affairs program, the MacNeil--LehrerNews Hour, as examples of well-known corporate sponsorshtp
5A precise measure for the age of a corporation ts difficult due to the posstbthty of mergers, reorgamzations, and/or
signLtiCant changes in business activltmS. The Compustat measure supplies a conststent applicataon of an age calculation
method
606
R W. ROBERTS
TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics for independent variables by level of social responstbihty disclosure
Part A: Continuous variables
Independent
variables
Variable
name
26.943
11.659
16.403
9.417
16.588
85,292
89,221
65,854
83,982
88,149
1 395
0.941
1 767
1.967
5 108
10 332
14 143
8.465
14.188
12.642
131 352
7918
20.920
27 835
111 032
0 338
0.715
0 299
0 693
0.293
25.197
65.785
28.412
71 075
23 314
9482 6
13,271.0 17,O75.4
10,479.4
19,665.4
Independent
variables
Corporate sponsor of a
philanthropic foundation
High profile industry status
Vataable
name
FOUND
(31)
11
(79)
29
(73)
INDEFF
11
(42)
(57)
20
(50)
SOCIALRESPONSIBIUTYDISCLOSURE
607
SOCDIS
PSH
PAC
- 0 172t
(O 12)
0 172
(0 12)
0037
(0.73)
02O6
(006)
0361
(001)
0203
(007)
-0231
(003)
O 303
(001)
OO61
(0.59)
0.120
(0.29)
--0 226
(0o4)
0083
(045)
-O269
(002)
-0031
(0.78)
0097
(0 38)
0390
(0.01)
-O 020
(085)
-0.003
(097)
-0.274
(001)
0086
(0.44)
0356
(0.01)
0138
(0.22)
-0312
(001)
0036
(074)
- 0 029
(079)
0.012
(091)
0.386
(001)
-0.090
(043)
--0220
(0o5)
-0.105
(035)
0286
(001)
- 0 184
(0.10)
- 0 108
(0.34)
-0O89
(043)
0.256
(002)
-0036
(074)
-0058
(061)
0 163
(0 14)
- 0 190
(009)
0 727
(0.01)
0 161
(0.15)
--0 176
(0 11)
0 216
(005)
--O 173
(0 12)
0 156
(0 17)
--O.O64
(0.56)
0 033
(0.76)
--0 041
(072)
--0 101
(0.37)
-0.152
(0 17)
-0.144
(020)
-0.155
(0 17)
AGE
INDEFF
- 0 142
(0.21)
0 177
(0.12)
- 0 104
(0 36)
6O8
R W. ROBERTS
TABLE 4 Logtsttc regression results for the soctal responmbfllty dtsclosure mode l
Dependent variable = ratmg of corporate social responsibility disclosures for 1 9 8 4 - 1 9 8 6
Independent
variable
Variable
name
Expected
sign
Parameter
estimate
Standard
error
PSH
--
--0 013
O 015
0 74
Cojntrlbutmns to corporate
political actton c o m m i t t e e for
1981-1984
PAC
0 058
0 033
3.02**
DERATIO
0.166
0 105
2 51"
PUBAFF
0.048
0 038
1 63
Corporate sponsor of a
philanthropic foundation
FOUND
1 255
0 545
5 30***
MGRROE
0 007
0 004
3 41 **
BETA
--1 118
0 872
1 64*
AGE
0 030
0 O11
7 63***
Average g r o w t h m r eturn on
equity for 1 9 8 1 - 1 9 8 4
Cht-square
stat~stm
INDEFF
1 033
0 548
3 55**
SIZE
+/-
- 0 413
0 330
1 56
bo
n.a
0 931
2 613
0 13
bl
n.a
- 0 132
2 611
0 O0
Model chvsq uare = 34.29 w i t h 10 d f., stgnificant at less than the 0.001 level; R = 0 296
One-tailed tests ( e x c e p t for intercept terms): *** significant at 0 O1 level; ** stgntficant at 0.05 level, *stgntficant at 0 10
level
SOCIALRESPONSIBILITYDISCLOSURE
609
610
1L W ROBERTS
levels o f c o r p o r a t e social d i s c l o s u r e c o u l d
b e tested. In a d d i t i o n to s h a r e h o l d e r s , c r e d i t o r s ,
a n d legislative b o d i e s , F r e e m a n ( 1 9 8 4 ) inc l u d e d c u s t o m e r s , suppliers, a n d s p e c i a l int e r e s t g r o u p s as c o r p o r a t e s t a k e h o l d e r s . This
s t u d y c o u l d also b e r e p l i c a t e d u s i n g d i r e c t
m e a s u r e s o f c o r p o r a t e social p e r f o r m a n c e as
t h e d e p e n d e n t variable. Finally, t h e s t a k e h o l d e r
m o d e l c o u l d b e a d a p t e d to i n v e s t i g a t e specific
t y p e s o f social d i s c l o s u r e a l o n g t h e lines
s u g g e s t e d b y C o w e n et al. ( 1 9 8 7 ) .
T h e findings o f this s t u d y a r e s u b j e c t to
s e v e r a l limitations. W h i l e e x t e n s i v e efforts
w e r e m a d e t o d e v e l o p a c c u r a t e p r o x i e s for
the stakeholder power, strategic posture,
and e c o n o m i c p e r f o r m a n c e d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e
social d i s c l o s u r e m o d e l , d a t a c o n s t r a i n t s m a y
limit t h e c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y o f t h e s e l e c t e d
variables. Likewise, t h e e m p i r i c a l tests w e r e
p e r f o r m e d o n large, U.S.-based c o r p o r a t i o n s
a n d m a y limit t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e
findings. Finally, g i v e n t h e e x c e e d i n g l y c o m plex nature of the business environment, there
are i n h e r e n t limits in t h e ability o f p o s i t i v e
e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h to c a p t u r e all o f t h e d i m e n sions that influence c o r p o r a t e social r e s p o n sibility d e c i s i o n making.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, W & Monsen, R, On the Measurement of Corporate Social Responsabtlity self-reported
Disclosure as a Measure of Corporate Soctal Involvement, Academy of Management Journal (1979)
pp 501-515
Alexander, G & Buchholz, IL, Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Market Performance, Academy of
Management Journal (1978) pp. 479-486.
Anderson, J & Frankle, A., Voluntary Soctal Reporting. an Iso-Beta Portfoho Analysts,Accounting Rewew
(July 1980) pp 468-479
Ansoff, I, Corporate Strategy (New York. McGraw-Hill, 1965).
Barton, S., Hill, N, & Sundaram, S, An Empirtcal Test of Stakeholder Predtctaons of Capital Structure,
Financial Management (Sprang 1989) pp 36--44
Belkaom, A, The Impact of the Dtsclosure of the Environmental Effects of Orgamzatton Behavior on the
Market, Financial Management (1976) pp 26-31
Blatr, C., Scanmng the Corporate Hotazon Pubhc Affairs m the Strategically Managed Organizatton,
Canadian Business Review (Autumn 1986) pp 33-36
Bowman, E & Haire, M, A Strategic Posture Toward Corporate Soctal Responsibility, California
Management Review (1975) pp 49-58
Chakravarthy, B., Measuring Strategic Performance, Strategic Management Journal (1986) pp 437---458
Chen, K. & Metcalf, R, The Relationship Between Pollution Control Record and Fmanctal Indicators
Revisited, Accounting Review (January 1980) pp. 168-177
611
612
R . W . ROBERTS
Rosebush, J., Corporate Contribution and the Bottom Line, Business and Economic Review (Fall 1987)
pp 2 6 - 2 8
Shane, P. & Sptcer, B., Market Response to Environmental Information Produced Outside the Firm,
Accounting Review (July 1983) pp 5 2 1 - 5 3 8
Sptcer, B, Investors, Corporate Social Performance and Information Disclosure an Empirical Study,
Accounting Review (January 1978a) pp 9 4 - 1 1 1
Spicer, B, Market Risk, Accounting Data and C o m p a m e s Pollution Control Records, Journal of Busines,~
Finance and Accounting (1978b) pp 6 7 - 8 3
Spicer, B., The Relationship Between Pollution Control Record and Financial Indicators Revisited: Further
C o m m e n t , Accounting Review (January 1980) pp 1 7 8 - 1 8 5
Sterner, G., Social Pohcles for Business, Califorma Management Rev:ew (1972) p p 1 7 - 2 4
Sturdtvant, F., Executive and Activists Test of Stakeholder Management, California Management Review
(Fall 1979) pp 5 3 - 5 9
Trotman, K. & Bradley, G., Assoclataon Between Social Responsibility Disclosure and Characteristics of
Companies, Accountmg~ Orgamzations and Society ( 1981 ) pp 3 5 5 - 3 6 2
Ullmann, A, Data in Search of a Theory a Critical Examination of the Relattonstup A m o n g Social
Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance, Academy of Management Review ( 1985 )
pp 5 4 0 - 5 7 7
Watts, IL & Zlmmerman, J , Towards a Posiuve Theory of the Determination of A c c o u n t m g Standards,
Accounting Review (January 1978) pp 112-134.
Wiseman, J , An Evaluation of Environmental Disclosures Made m Corporate Annual Reports, Accountin~
Organizations and Society (1982) pp 5 3 - 6 3