CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,069Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingCorporate Identity and ReputationCorporate Governance and Financial Management

STAKEHOLDER MISMATCHING: A THEORETICAL PROBLEM IN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE

Wood, Donna J., Jones, Raymond E.·1995·The International Journal of Organizational Analysis
DOI 10.1108/eb028831
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper uses a stakeholder framework to review the empirical literature on corporate social performance (CSP), focusing particularly on studies attempting to correlate social with financial performance. Results show first that most studies correlate measures of business performance that as yet have no theoretical relationship (for example, the level of corporate charitable giving with return on investment). To make sense of this body of research, CSP studies must be integrated with stakeholder theory. Multiple stakeholders (a) set expectations for corporate performance, (b) experience the effects of corporate behavior, and (c) evaluate the outcomes of corporate behavior. However, we find that the empirical CSP literature mismatches variables in terms of which stakeholders are relevant to which kind of measure. Second, only the studies using market‐based variables and theory show a consistent relationship between social and financial performance, particularly those showing a negative abnormal return to the stock price of companies experiencing product recalls. Although this paper shows that the CSP construct is not yet well‐specified enough to produce stronger results, recent research suggests that much progress is being made both empirically and theoretically in developing valid and reliable measures of corporate social performance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/eb028831

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Stakeholder networks are likely to be characterized by tension.

    “They have different interests and, as a result, stakeholder networks are likely to be characterized by tension (Oliver 1991;Wood and Jones 1995;Neville and Menguc 2006).”

    From Stakeholder marketing: theoretical foundations and required capabilities (2015) · cites this paper as Wood and Jones 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Publisher
Emerald
Published
1995-03-01
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
229-267
ISSN
1055-3185 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/eb028831
OpenAlex
W1992943799
Cited by
1,069
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 49
FWCI
28.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Governance and Financial Management
Keywords
corporate social performance, stakeholder theory, corporate philanthropy, return on investment, abnormal returns, product recall, stakeholder expectations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review