The relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: Evidence from empirical studies

Mikołajek-Gocejna, Magdalena Article The relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: Evidence from empirical studies Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe Provided in Cooperation with: Institute of Economics, University of Łódź Suggested Citation: Mikołajek-Gocejna, Magdalena (2016) : The relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance: Evidence from empirical studies, Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe, ISSN 2082-6737, De Gruyter, Warsaw, Vol. 19, Iss. 4, pp. 67-84, https://doi.org/10.1515/cer-2016-0030 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/184407 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 Comparative Economic Research, Vol ume 19, Number 4, 2016 10.1515/cer-2016-0030 MAGDALENA MIKOŁAJEK-GOCEJNA * The Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility And Corporate Financial Performance – Evidence From Empirical Studies Abstract Socially responsible investment (SRI) has experienced strong growth in recent years. In 2012, $1 out of every $9 US assets under professional management was invested in some form of sustainable investment. 1 Global sustainable investment assets have expanded dramatically, rising from $13.3 trillion at the outset of 2012 to reach a total of $21.4 trillion at the start of 2014. Most of the SRI assets are in Europe (63.7 percent), but the relative contribution of the United States has increased from 28.2 percent in 2012 to 30.8 percent in 2014, and over this two-year period, the fastest growing region has been the United States, followed by Canada and Europe. These three regions are also the largest regions in terms of assets, accounting for 99 percent of global SRI. 2 With this growth one most important issues is whether it pays for organizations to concern themselves with social responsibility, and whether there are any tradeoffs to sustainable investing. Much of the present research on this question is based on the views of Friedman and Freeman. But changes in economic development, national and local security, and the growing expectations * Ph.D., Warsaw School of Economics, Institute of Value Management, e-mail: magdalena. [email protected] 1 Sustainable Reality: Understanding the Performance of Sustainable Investment Strategies. Morgan Stanley, Institute for Sustainable Investing, March 2015. 2 2014 Global Sustainable Investment Review 2012–2014, The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA), February 2015. 68 Magdalena Mikołajek-Gocejna of stakeholders influence how social performance is defined, and thus corporate performance as well. The aim of this article is to examine correlations between CSR and financial corporate performance, based on empirical studies conducted by other authors in different countries. In total, the analysis comprises 53 studies and the results obtained for 16,119 companies. Keywords: corporate social responsibility, company’s financial performance, environmental responsibility, sustainability 1. Introduction Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been a subject of academic studies for the past few decades. CSR has evolved from executives’ philanthropic activities to become a valuable component of stakeholder management and has been incorporated into strategic performance models (Kolodinsky et al. 2010, pp. 167–181). Engagement in CSR behaviors is prevalent across various types of businesses in different industries and countries. Various organisations face increasing pressure to act in a socially responsible manner. They develop codes of ethics, publish CSR statements and reports, and call in independent auditors to assess the implementation of their CSR policies and practices. However, despite its popularity the CSR concept still lacks a universally accepted definition. One of the most widely used CSR definitions has been offered by World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 1999). According to this definition, CSR is an organisation’s commitment to a behaviour that leads to economic development and contributes to the welfare of its employees, local community, and society at large. Similarly, Kotler and Lee (Kotler, Lee 2005) argue that CSR is an organisation’s commitment to the enhancement of the community’s well-being through ethical business practices and contributions of corporate resources. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be defined as “the voluntary integration of social and environmental concerns into business operations and into their interaction with stakeholders” (European Commission, 2002). Vilanova (Vilanova et al. 2009, pp. 57–69) proposed a definition of CSR that consists of five dimensions, including vision, community relations, workplace, accountability, and marketplace. McWilliams (McWilliams et al. 2006, pp. 1–18) defined CSR as an organisation’s disinterested and voluntary engagement, i.e. not required by law, into activities leading to the attainment of some social good. Thus, CSR can be treated as a voluntary organisational The Relation Between Corporate Social… 69 commitment to further the well-being of its employees and society at large, and to practice discretion in doing business. However, in this context the issue of the corporate benefits of CSR arises. Does CSR have an impact on organisational performance? Do CSR investments really lead to an improved corporate reputation, and hence to better economic performance? Does it pay to be morally good? This latter issue is probably one of the oldest philosophical dilemmas. Shelton was the first person to mention the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), in 1924, and he caused famous debate between Professor Berle and Doddin 1930s. Berle believed that corporate managers should only be the trustees of shareholders. However, Dodd conceived of a company as an economic institution with the functions of both profit-making and social service, hence managers were agents of employees, consumers, and the general public in addition to shareholders. The debate between Berle and Dodd has greatly influenced the research into CSR. (Chen and Wang 2011, p. 361). In the twentieth century, Howard Bowen first used the phrase CSR in his 1953 book “Social Responsibilities of the Businessman”, and defined these responsibilities as” the obligation of businessmen to pursue those polices, to take those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (Bowen 1953) Three years later a discussion was initiated by Levitt (Levitt 1958, pp. 41–50), who argued that a clear distinction should be made between the government’s and businesses’ activities and responsibilities. In 1960 Davis claimed that social responsibility can also bring long-run economic gain to a firm. Friedman’s agency theory (Friedman 1970, pp. 6–12) supports the idea that CSR refers merely to an organisation’s obligation to make maximum profit in compliance with the laws and minimal ethical restrictions, arguing that “there is one and only social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engaged activities designed to increase its profits so long as it says within the rules of the game.” WBCSD (1999) emphasises the fact that modern businesses still raise the concern that CSR does not provide any obvious benefits to the organisation. In addition, there is a quite common belief in business that the utilisation of corporate resources for non-commercial activities may have a negative effect on shareholder value. Freeman (Freeman 2004, pp. 228–241) further developed the concept of CSR in his stakeholder theory. He proposed that in order to be recognised as socially responsible, an organisation should take into consideration the interests of its multiple stakeholders (consumers, employees, suppliers, investors and the community), as they all have an impact on corporate financial performance. This idea contributed to pressure for greater transparency with regard to a company’s performance beyond pure financial measures, and for greater disclosure by company’s of their extra-financial activities – CSR reporting (Sustainable 70 Magdalena Mikołajek-Gocejna Investing: Establishing Long-Term Value and Performance, DB Climate Change Advisors, June 2012, p. 24). However, Freeman’s position was criticised by Greenwood (Greenwood 2007, pp. 315–327), who calls Freeman’s theory a myth. John Elkington, in his famous book “Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21 st Century Business” (Elkington 1998) claimed that ecological, social and economic criteria must be met before organizational success can be achieved. M Porter and M. Kramer added to the previous thinking about the stakeholder and corporate financial perspectives by introducing a new concept known as Corporate Shared Value (CSV) (Porter and Kramer 2006, pp. 78–92, 163), which “involves creating economic value in the way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and changes”. Contemporary CSR policies and procedures incorporate ESG factors (E-environment, S-society, G-governance) and refer to sustainability or sustainable development, which encompasses social welfare, protection of the environment, efficient use of natural resources, and economic well-being. 2. The Relationship between CSR and Financial Corporate Performance Although many researchers have examined the effect of CSR on corporate financial and economic performance, the findings remain mixed and indicate possible bi-directional relationship between CSR and economic performance. Numerous studies have viewed the practice of CSR as an interaction between an organization and its physical and social environment, including disclosures relating to human resources, community involvement, the natural environment, product/customer safety, and corporate financial performance (Deegan and Rankin 1996, pp. 52–69.) Previous studies regarding the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial performance have been based mainly on theoretical arguments. Those that have suggested a negative relation between social responsibility and financial performance have argued that high responsibility results in additional costs, which put the firm at an economic disadvantage compared to other, less socially responsible, firms (Bradgon 1972, pp. 9–18; Vance 1975, pp. 18–24; Aupperle et al. 1985, pp. 446–463; Ullmann 1985, pp. 540–577). However, other studies have concluded that the additional costs are potentially compensated for by a range of direct and indirect benefits which show a positive correlation between social responsibility and financial performance (Davis 1960, pp. 70–76; Parket and Eibert 1975, pp. 5–10; Soloman and Hansen 1985, Campbell and Kamlani 1997, pp. 759–789.; Becchetti et al. 2008, pp. 27–79). Firms having a public image of high CSR engagement may also achieve higher financial performance. (Gompers 2003, pp. 107–155). Waddock and Graves (Waddock and The Relation Between Corporate Social… 71 Graves 1997, pp. 303–319 ) reported that CSR programs that were aimed at the employees, community, environment, and diversity produced a positive effect on the firms’ financial performance. Inoue and Lee (Inoue and Lee 2011, pp. 790–804) also reported that the CSR programs that were oriented toward the employees, community, and environment increased the firms’ financial performance (see also: Buysse and Verbeke 2003, pp. 453–470 ; Boons and Wagner, 2009, pp. 1908–1914; Bansal and Roth, 2000, pp. 717–736.). Russo and Fouts (Russo and Fouts 1997, pp. 534–559) found a positive relationship between stock returns and environmental performance, and concluded that “it pays to be green”. Aragon-Correa (AragonCorrea et al. 2008, pp. 88–103) confirmed those findings on a unique sample of small medium-sized enterprises. Bauer (Bauer et al. 2004, pp. 91–104) demonstrated that the benefits in corporate governance – one of the CSR’s components – generate into higher prices, and hence corporate values. Higher CSR levels result in an increase in corporate value, by increasing a firm’s reputation (Alexander and Bucholtz, 1978, pp. 479–486.; Bowman and Haire,1975, pp. 49–58). Van de Velde. (Van de Velde et al. 2005, pp. 129–138) found that during the 2000–2003 period, highly rated sustainabilityoriented European firms received higher style-adjusted performances when estimated using the Fama and French model (Fama and French 1992, pp. 427–466). Schreck documents higher Tobin’s Q performance ratios for firms managed with a high environmental orientation. He posits that the CSR programs have a positive effect on the firms’ performance because they encompass the mechanisms intended to improve a firm’s competitiveness (Schreck 2011, pp. 167–188). At the same time, there are also a number of studies that show no significant direction in the link between CSR and corporate performance. McWilliams and Siegel (McWilliams and Siegel 2001, pp. 603–609) , for example, observe that the financial performance of CSR firms is not significantly different from other firms when per capita R&D expenditure is added to the regression function. Anderson and Frankel (Anderson and Frankel 1980, pp. 468–479) and Freeman and Jaggi (Freeman and Jaggi 1988, pp. 43–58) found their results inconclusive regarding the impact of CSR on corporate financial performance. According Crisóstomo (Crisóstomo et al. 2011, pp. 295–309), there are three-dimensional (positive, negative and neutral) arguments concerning the relationship between CSR and corporate financial performance. Griffin’s and Mahon’s (Griffin and Mahon 1997, pp. 126–133) analysis, based on 62 samples, found that nine of them revealed no definitive results between CRS and corporate financial performance, twenty were in favour of a negative relationship, and 33 of them supported a positive correlation. Orlitzky’s findings suggest that the commitment to social and environmental responsibility is likely to improve corporate performance (Orlitzky et al. 2003, pp. 403–441). 72 Magdalena Mikołajek-Gocejna The relationship between corporate sustainability practices and financial performance has been also investigated in theoretical and empirical studies by researchers on corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Weber 2008, pp. 247–261), environmental performance (Wagner and Schaltegger 2004, pp. 557–572) and sustainability performance (Wagner 2010, pp. 581–594). Most studies confirmed that incorporating sustainability in business can yield economic benefits (Wagner 2010, pp. 581–594). However, some authors advocate an inversely U-shaped curve, especially when discussing the link between environmental performance and economic performance (Schaltegger and Synnestvedt 2002, pp. 339–346), suggesting that there is an optimal level of environmental performance. 2.1. Methodology This analysis of the correlation between CSR and companies’ financial performance is based on the technique of literature studies. When reviewing literature, I firstly follow a qualitative analysis by searching scholar databases and publishers’ sites: Ebsco, Emeralnd, Springer, SSRN, Google Scholar, and Oxford Journals. I used selected terms: corporate social responsibility, social responsibility, social reputation in relation to corporate financial performance, and economic performance. Secondly, the list of received relevant articles from each of databases were reviewed in order to find empirical studies or analyses of the relationship between CRS and corporate financial performance (accounting-based performance and market-based performance). All the studies and analyses were in electronic format and were available on line on February and March of 2016. Correlations between CSR and corporate performance were grouped into four categories: positive, neutral, negative, and mixed. Within some of the study’s sample, it is possible that the same companies were analyzed by different authors in different countries at different times. 2.2. Results In total I chose 53 articles with empirical evidence from 16,119 companies (Table 1 below). All the results of these studies were standardized into one format, which includes: Author; year of study; number of studies; ‘CSR pays’ (i.e. a positive correlation between CSR and corporate financial performance); ‘CSR doesn’t matter’ (a neutral correlation between CSR and corporate financial performance); ‘CSR costs’ (a negative correlation between CSR and corporate financial performance), and ‘mixed correlations’ between CSR and corporate financial performance. Table1. Review of the studies on correlation between CSR and corporate financial performance Authors, year of study Number of analyzed companies CSR pays (positive correlation between CSR and corporate financial performance) CSR doesn’t matter (neutral correlation between CSR and corporate financial performance) CSR costs (negative correlations between CSR and corporate financial performance) mixed correlations between CSR and corporate financial performancez 1 Abbott, W.F. and Monse, R.J. (1979), 13 neutral 2 Aliyu Baba Usman Noor Afza Binti Amran, (2015) 68 Positive 3 Al-Tuwaijri, S.A., Christensen, T.E. and Hughes, K.E., II (2004) 198 Positive 4 Arlow & Ackelsberg (1991) 146 neutral 5 Balabanis et al. (1998) 56 neutral 6 Balabanis, G., Phillips, H.C. and Lyall, J. (1998) 114 Positive 7 Barnett ML, Salomon RM.(2006) 67 Positive 8 Becchetti, L. and Ciciretti, R. (2006) 233 Neutral 9 Benjamas Janamrung Panya Issarawornrawanich , (2015) 204 Mixed 10 Brammer et al. (2006) 451 negative 11 Brammer, S., Brooks, C. and Pavelin, S. (2006) 56 Positive 12 Brown (1998) 197 Positive 13 Carter et al. (2000) 437 Positive 14 Cochran, P.L. and Wood, R.A. (1984) 500 Positive 15 Dafna M. DiSegni Moshe Huly Sagi Akron, (2015) 99 Positive 16 Davidson, W.N. and Worrell, D.L. (1988) 27 negative 17 Eri Nakamura (2015) 185 Positive 18 Goll & Rasheed (2004) 62 Positive 19 Graves & Waddock (1999) 653 Positive 20 Hart, S.L. and Ahuja, G. (1996) 127 Positive 21 He Y., Tian Z., Y.Chen (2007) 438 Positive 22 Herremans et al. (1993) 96 Positive 23 Ho Ngoc Thao Liafisu Sina Yekini (2014) 20 Positive 24 Honghui Chen Xiayang Wang, (2011) 141 Positive 25 King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001) 652 Positive 26 Kumar et al. (2002) 87 Positive 27 Luo & Bhattacharya (2006) 113 Positive 28 Matjaž Maletic Damjan Maletic Jens Dahlgaard Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park Boštjan Gomišcek (2015) 247 Positive 29 McWilliams & Siegel (2000) 524 neutral 30 Mehdi Taghian Clare D’Souza Michael Polonsky (2015) 196 Mixed 31 Mingming Feng Xiaodan "Abby" Wang Jagjit S. Saini (2015) 181 Positive 32 Minna Yu Ronald Zhao (2015) 2544 Positive 33 Nelling, E. and Webb, E. (2009) 2300 Positive 34 Nguyen Anh Tu (2015) 173 Positive 35 Pava & Krausz (1996) 53 Positive 36 Pava,M. andKrausz, J.(1996), 53 Positive 37 Peloza, J. and Papania, L. (2008) 7 Mixed 38 Preston & O'bannon (1997) 67 Positive 39 Ruf et al. (2001) 488 Positive 40 Ruff, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R.M., Janney, J.J. and Paul, K. (2001) 50 Positive 41 Schnietz & Epstein (2005) 416 Positive 42 Seifert et al. (2003) 135 neutral 43 Seifert et al. (2004) 225 neutral 44 Shuo Wang Wei Huang Yuhui Gao Sean Ansett Shiyong Xu, (2015) 500 Mixed The Relation Between Corporate Social… 81 Inoue Y., Lee S. (2011), Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries, ‘Tourism Management’, No. 32. Issarawornrawanich B. (2015), The association between corporate social responsibility index and performance of firms in industrial products and resources industries: empirical evidence from Thailand, ‘Social Responsibility Journal’, Vol. 11, No. 4. King A.A. and Lenox M.J. (2001), Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance, ‘Journal of Industrial Ecology’, Vol. 5, No. 1. Kolodinsky R.W., Madden T.M., Zisk D.S., Henkel ET (2010). Attitudes About Corporate Social Responsibility: Business Student Predictors. ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, No. 91. Kotler P. and Lee N. (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause, Willey, Hoboken, NJ. Kumar R., Lamb W.B., Wokutch R.E. (2002), The End of South African Sanctions, Institutional Ownership, and the Stock Price Performance of Boycotted Firms, ‘Business and Society’, No. 41(2). Levitt T. (1958), The dangers of social responsibility, ‘Harvard Business Review’, Vol. 36, No. 5. Luo X., Bhattacharya C.B. (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value, ‘American Marketing Association’, No. 70(1). Maletič M., Maletič D., Dahlgaard J.J., Dahlgaard-Park S.M. and Gomišcˇek B. (2014), Sustainability exploration and sustainability exploitation: from a literature review towards a conceptual framework, ‘Journal of Cleaner Production’, Vol. 79, No. 1. Matjaž Maletic Damjan Maletic Jens Dahlgaard Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park Boštjan Gomišcek, (2015), Do corporate sustainability practices enhance organizational economic performance?, ‘International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences’, Vol. 7, No. 2/3. McWilliams A. and Siegel D. (2001), Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?, ‘Strategic Management Research’, Vol. 3. McWilliams A., Siegel D. (2000), Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification?, ‘Strategic Management Journal’, No. 21(5). McWilliams A., Siegel D.S. and Wright P.M. (2006), Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications, ‘Journal of Management Studies’, Vol. 43, No. 1. Mehdi Taghian Clare D’Souza Michael Polonsky (2015), A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility, reputation and business performance, ‘Social Responsibility Journal’, Vol. 11. No. 2. Mingming Feng Xiaodan “Abby” Wang Jagjit S. Saini, (2015), Monetary compensation, workforce oriented corporate social responsibility, and firm performance, ‘American Journal of Business’, Vol. 30, No. 3. Minna Yu Ronald Zhao (2015), Sustainability and firm valuation: an international investigation, ‘International Journal of Accounting and Information Management’, Vol. 23, No. 3. 82 Magdalena Mikołajek-Gocejna Nelling E. and Webb E. (2009), Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: the ‘virtuous circle’ revisited, ‘Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting’, Vol. 32, No. 2. Orlitzky M., Schmidt F. and Rynes S. (2003), Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis, ‘Organization Studies’, Vol. 24, No. 3. Parket R. and Eibert H. (1975), Social responsibility: the underlying factors, ‘Business Horizons’, Vol. 18 No. 4. Pava M.L., Krausz J. (1996), The Association Between Corporate SocialResponsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 15, No.3. Peloza J. and Papania L. (2008), The missing link between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: stakeholder salience and identification, ‘Corporate Reputation Review’, Vol. 11, No. 2. Porter ME, Kramer MR. (2006), Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility, ‘Harvard Business Review’, No. 84(12). Preston L.E., O’Bannon D.P. (1997), The Corporate Social-Financial Performance Relationship: A Typology and Analysis, “Business and Society” No. 36(4). Ruf B.M., Muralidhar K., Brown R.M., Janney J.J., Paul K. (2001), An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Change in Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, No. 32(2). Ruff B.M., Muralidhar K., Brown R.M., Janney J.J. and Paul K. (2001), An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: a stakeholder theory perspective, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 32. Russo M.V. and Fouts P.A. (1997), A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability, ‘Academy of Management Journal’, Vol. 40, No. 3. Schaltegger S. & Synnestvedt T. (2002), The Link between “Green” and Economic Success. Environmental Management as the Crucial Trigger between Environmental and Economic Performance, ‘Journal of Environmental Management’, Vol. 65, No. 2. Schnietz K.E., Epstein M.J. (2005), Exploring Financial Value of a reputation for Corporate Social Responsibility During a Crisis, ‘Corporate Reputation Review’, No. 7(4). Schreck P. (2011), Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: new evidence and analysis, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 103, No. 2. Seifert B., Morris S.A., Bartkus B.R. (2003), Comparing Big Givers and Small Givers: Financial Correlates of Corporate Philanthropy, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, No. 45. Seifert B., Morris S.A., Bartkus B.R. (2004), Having, Giving, and Getting: Slack Resources, Corporate Philanthropy, and Firm Financial Performance, ‘Buisness and Society’, No. 43. Shuo Wang Wei Huang Yuhui Gao Sean Ansett Shiyong Xu (2015), Can socially responsible leaders drive Chinese firm performance?, ‘Leadership & Organization Development Journal’, Vol. 36, No. 4. The Relation Between Corporate Social… 83 Soloman R. and Hansen K. (1985), It’s Good Business, Atheneum, New York, NY. Stanwick P.A. and Stanwick S.D. (1998), The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: an empirical examination, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 17, No. 2. Surroca J., Tribo J.A., Waddock S. (2010), Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the role of intangible resources, ‘Strategic Management Journal’, Vol. 31, No. 5. Tsoutsoura M. (2004), Corporate social responsibility and financial performance, Working Paper Series, Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley, Applied Financial Project, available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/111799p2. Ullmann A. (1985), Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance, ‘Academy of Management Review’, Vol. 10, No. 3. Van de Velde E., Vermeir W. and Corten F. (2005), Finance and accounting corporate social responsibility and financial performance, ‘Corporate Governance’, Vol. 5, No. 3. Van der Laan G., Van Ees H. and Van Witteloostuijn A. (2008), Corporate social and financial performance: an extended stakeholder theory and empirical test with accounting measures, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 79. Vance S. (1975), Are social responsible corporations good investment risks?, ‘Management Review’, Vol. 64. Velde van de E., Vermeir W., Corten F. (2005), Finance and Accounting: Corporate social responsibility and financial performance, ‘Corporate Governance’, No. 5(3). Vilanova M., Lozano J. and Arenas D. (2009), Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, Vol. 87, No. 1. Waddock S.A. and Graves S.B. (1997), The corporate social performance-financial performance link, ‘Strategic Management Journal’, Vol. 18 No. 4. Wagner M., (2010), Corporate social performance and innovation with high social benefits: a quantitative analysis, ‘Journal of Business Ethics’, No. 94. Wagner M., Schaltegger S. (2004), The Effect of Corporate Strategy Choice and Environmental Performance on Competitiveness and Economic Performance: An Empirical Study of EU Manufacturing, ‘European Management Journal’, Vol. 22 (5). WBCSD (1999), CSR: Meeting Changing Expectations, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva. Weber M. (2008), The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR, ‘European Management Journal’, No. 26. Wu M-L. (2006), Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size: a meta-analysis, ‘Journal of American Academy of Business’, Vol. 8. 84 Magdalena Mikołajek-Gocejna Streszczenie ZALEŻNOŚĆ MIĘDZY SPOŁECZNĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ PRZEDSIĘBIORSTW A ICH WYNIKAMI FINANSOWYMI – DOWODY Z BADAŃ EMPIRYCZNYCH Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu (CSR) jest przedmiotem intensywnych badań naukowych na przestrzeni ostatnich kilku dekad i niewątpliwie ewoluowała od działalności filantropijnej do cennego elementu zarządzania przedsiębiorstwem, głównie w zakresie tworzenia wartości dla interesariuszy, zostając tym samym włączona do strategicznych modeli efektywności działalności przedsiębiorstw. Mimo, że relacje pomiędzy CSR a wynikami finansowymi przedsiębiorstw były przedmiotem wielu analiz teoretycznych i empirycznych, ich ustalenia pozostają często mieszane, wskazując na ewentualnie dwukierunkową relację pomiędzy badanymi zmiennymi. Celem artykułu jest poszukiwanie zależności pomiędzy CSR i wynikami finansowymi przedsiębiorstw, na podstawie badań empirycznych przeprowadzonych przez innych autorów w różnych krajach. Łącznie analizą objęto 53 badania i wyniki uzyskane dla 16119 przedsiębiorstw. Słowa kluczowe: społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu, wyniki finansowe przedsiębiorstwa, odpowiedzialność za środowisko , zrównoważony rozwój