The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Legitimacy, Visibility, and the Antecedents of Corporate Social Performance: An Investigation of the Instrumental Perspective
Open accessAbstract
Using institutional theory as the foundation, this study examines the role of organizational visibility from a variety of sources (i.e., slack visibility, industry visibility, and visibility to multiple stakeholders) in influencing corporate social performance (CSP). The conceptual framework offers important insights regarding the instrumental motives of managers in performing CSP initiatives. Based on a sample of 124 S&P 500 firms, the authors found that it is a firm’s visibility to stakeholders, rather than its economic performance, that has the larger impact on managers’ decisions regarding how much CSP their firms exhibit. The results show that more profitable firms may not be motivated to engage actively in CSP unless they are under greater scrutiny by various firm stakeholders. The authors also found that organizational slack (estimated as cost of capital) is positively associated with a Social CSP dimension but negatively associated with a Strategic CSP dimension. This research contributes to the current CSP literature by demonstrating that motivations in addition to normative or ethical ones may be at play in the decisions firms make regarding their CSP.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
CAPITAL ASSET PRICES: A THEORY OF MARKET EQUILIBRIUM UNDER CONDITIONS OF RISK*
Sharpe, W. F. (1964) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1964.tb02865.x · Cited by 19,441
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910 · Cited by 7,641
Practical issues in structural modeling
BENTLER, P. M., & CHOU, C.-P. (1987) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004 · Cited by 5,804
STAKEHOLDER MISMATCHING: A THEORETICAL PROBLEM IN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995) · The International Journal of Organizational Analysis · doi:10.1108/eb028831 · Cited by 1,069
Jackson, D. L. (2001) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0802_3 · Cited by 321
Cited by
Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement
Henisz, W. J., Dorobantu, S., & Nartey, L. J. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2180 · Cited by 546
Metadata
- Authors
- Chiu, S.-C., & Sharfman, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-10-19
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1558-1585
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2156220499
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 11.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.