CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 194Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessSustainability and Innovation in Business

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does corporate sustainability impact firm profitability? Evidence from India

Bodhanwala, Shernaz, Bodhanwala, Ruzbeh·2018·Management Decision
DOI 10.1108/md-04-2017-0381
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study whether corporate sustainability impacts profitability performance. Design/methodology/approach The sample under study consists of 58 Indian firms that are consistently a part of Thomson Reuters Asset 4 ESG database. An empirical multivariate panel data model is developed to analyse the impact of sustainability (environmental, social and governance) on firm profitability. Further, the study seeks to understand whether firms ranked high on sustainability parameters perform better compared to low-ranked firms. This has been tested by applying parametrict-test. Findings The study reveals a significant positive relationship between sustainability and firm performance measures (return on invested capital, return on equity, return on assets and earnings per share). Empirical evidence suggests that firms that practice remarkable sustainable development strategies report higher profitability and have substantially low gearing level. Research limitations/implications This study provides empirical support for the practitioners, policy makers and academicians emphasising strongly on the role played by deployment of sustainable environmental, social and governance efforts in enabling firms to achieve the profit maximisation objective. In the long term, strategies that take sustainability criteria into account have the capacity to create long-term value and provide firms with competitive advantage. The findings provide impetus to many mid- and…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/md-04-2017-0381

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Quantitative techniques and applied structural equation modelling (SEM) are used to measure sustainability.

    “Literature has indicated that quantitative techniques and applied structural equation modelling (SEM) are used to measure sustainability (Bodhanwala and Bodhanwala, 2018;Hall and Wagner, 2012;Mundra and Mishra, 2021)”

    From Business sustainability measurement frameworks: a systematic literature review using a TCCM approach (2025) · cites this paper as Bodhanwala and Bodhanwala, 2018

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 2004, Corporate social responsibility: why business should act responsibly and be accountable, Australian Accounting Review, 14, 31
  2. 2012, Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: a study based on the top global corporations, Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 61, 10.1007/s10551-011-1063-y · DOI · Paper page
  3. 2010, Managing corporate performance: investigating the relationship between corporate social responsibility and financial performance in emerging markets, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 229, 10.1108/17410401011023573 · DOI
  4. 2010, The determinants of corporate sustainability performance, Accounting & Finance, 50, 31, 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2009.00315.x · DOI
  5. 1985, An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability, Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446, 10.2307/256210 · DOI
  6. 2010, Sustainability rises to top of strategy-setting for growing number of corporate leaders, Corporate Finance Review, 15, 32
  7. 2003, Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: a comment on perception and legitimacy, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16, 558, 10.1108/09513570310492308 · DOI
  8. 2014, Corporate social responsibility and access to finance, Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1, 10.1002/smj.2131 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 2011, Do stock investors value corporate sustainability? Evidence from an event study, Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 145, 10.1007/s10551-010-0646-3 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 1995, A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance, Academy of Management Review, 20, 92, 10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994 · DOI
  11. 1984, Corporate social responsibility and financial performance, Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42, 10.2307/255956 · DOI
  12. 2014, The benefits of socially responsible investing: an active manager’s perspective, The Journal of Investing, 24, 49
  13. 1996, Does isomorphism legitimate?, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024, 10.5465/256722 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 1975, Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior, Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122, 10.2307/1388226 · DOI
  15. 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach
  16. 2010, Does social performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity, Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 107, 10.1007/s10551-009-0143-8 · DOI
  17. 1995, ‘Mistakes were made’: organizations, apologia, and crises of social legitimacy, Communication Studies, 46, 1, 10.1080/10510979509368435 · DOI
  18. 2010, Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate performance, Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 641, 10.5172/jmo.2010.16.5.641 · DOI
  19. 2000, A contingency theory of corporate social performance, Business & Society, 39, 24, 10.1177/000765030003900104 · DOI
  20. 1995, On legitimacy, legitimation, and organizations: a critical review and integrative theoretical model, Academy of Management Journal, 1995, 241
  21. 2002, How to get started in corporate social responsibility, Financial Management, 5
  22. 2007, Is corporate sustainability a value-increasing strategy for business?, Corporate Governance: an International Review, 15, 345, 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00565.x · DOI
  23. 2007, Sustainable development and corporate performance: a study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 285, 10.1007/s10551-006-9253-8 · DOI
  24. 2012, How does the market value corporate sustainability performance?, Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 417, 10.1007/s10551-011-1102-8 · DOI
  25. 2015, Corporate social performance, analyst stock recommendations, and firm future returns, Strategic Management Journal, 36, 123, 10.1002/smj.2219 · DOI
  26. 2001, Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective, Academy of Management Review, 26, 117, 10.5465/amr.2001.4011987 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 2006, Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications, Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x · DOI · Paper page
  28. 2000, Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: the case of the United States and France, Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 283, 10.1023/A:1006262325211 · DOI
  29. 2015, Do corporate sustainability practices enhance organizational economic performance?, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 7, 184
  30. 2005, Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical conceptualization, Academy of Management Review, 30, 166, 10.5465/amr.2005.15281448 · DOI
  31. Meuter, M. (1999), “Consumer adoption of innovative self-service technologies: a multi-method investigation”, unpublished PhD thesis, Arizona State University, available at: search.proquest.com/business/docview/304496909/fulltextPDF/E61DD2070AE4EA (accessed 12 December 2016).
  32. 1997, Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts, Academy of Management Review, 22, 853, 10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 2002, The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, 80, 56
  34. 2017, Revisiting the relationship between corporate stakeholder commitment and social and financial performance, Sustainable Development, 1
  35. 1995, The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability, Academy of Management Review, 20, 936, 10.5465/amr.1995.9512280026 · DOI
  36. 2013, Corporate social responsibility and its link to financial performance: application to Johnson & Johnson, a pharmaceutical company, World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 10, 4, 10.1108/20425941311313065 · DOI
  37. 2014, Tri-criterion inverse portfolio optimization with application to socially responsible mutual funds, European Journal of Operational Research, 234, 491, 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.07.024 · DOI
  38. 2000, Corporate citizenship in the new millennium: foundation for an architecture of excellence, Business and Society Review, 105, 145, 10.1111/0045-3609.00069 · DOI
  39. 2000, The multiple bottom lines of corporate citizenship: social investing, reputation, and responsibility audits, Business and Society Review, 105, 323, 10.1111/0045-3609.00085 · DOI
  40. 1997, The corporate social performance-financial performance link, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199704)18:4<303::AID-SMJ869>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI · Paper page
  41. 2005, How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry, Journal of Environmental Management, 76, 105, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.021 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bodhanwala, S., & Bodhanwala, R.
Affiliations
Flame University (IN)
ORCID
Bodhanwala, Shernaz
Venue
Management Decision
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2018-04-10
Volume
56
Issue
8
Pages
1734-1747
ISSN
0025-1747 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/md-04-2017-0381
OpenAlex
W2887207464
Cited by
194
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11
FWCI
17.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
Management Decision (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Environmental Sustainability in Business
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Sustainability and Innovation in Business
Keywords
corporate sustainability, firm profitability, environmental, social and governance (ESG), ESG performance, return on invested capital, return on equity, return on assets, earnings per share, leverage, sustainable development strategy, Indian companies, developing countries

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