Accelerat ing t he world's research.

When does it pay to be good e A

contingency perspective on corporate
social and financial performance:
would it ...
A. Rashid, Muzhar Javed

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

CSR and Firm Value: Evidence from China

dewi fauziyah

Inst it ut ional Logics in t he St udy of Organizat ions

M. Orlit zky

St akeholder influence capacit y and t he variabilit y of financial ret urns t o corporat e social responsibilit y
T SZ CHING HO
 Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

When does it pay to be good e A contingency perspective on

corporate social and financial performance: would it work?
Muzhar Javed a, *, Muhammad Amir Rashid a, Ghulam Hussain b
a
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
b
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Sahiwal, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The findings on corporate social and financial performance research has exposed the universal approach
Received 25 August 2015 as tenuous and questionable, so the current approach of corporate social and financial performance
Received in revised form research has been subject to severe criticism. Instead of exploring a universal corporate social and
20 May 2016
financial performance link, scholars have called for a contingency perspective in order to determine the
Accepted 25 May 2016
Available online 7 June 2016
conditions and context that catalyzes positive connections between the constructs.
This study systematically reviews the literature on the moderators exploited in corporate social and
financial performance research and finds, by and large, that a positive corporate social and financial
Keywords:
Corporate social performance
performance association dominates, although the relationship is stronger in advanced economies and
Corporate financial performance institutionalized contexts. Although research on the contingency perspective has progressed, theoretical
Contingency perspective support for this relationship is thin, and the lack of appropriate research design and stereotyped con-
Moderators structs thwart its positive implications.
Systematic review A review of the literature shows that although organizational factors seem to moderating the
corporate social and financial performance relationship strongly yet industry and country factors also
tend to affect this association. Important consistencies included that a dynamic business environment
reinforces the corporate social and financial performance relationship. Differentiation in social re-
sponsibility practices moderates the responsibility-performance link, but not often positively. The effect
of R&D intensity is equivocal, and advertising intensity did not strengthen this relationship across the
level. Avenues for future research conclude our discussion.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction controversial and tenuous (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). Some

With the increasing industrial activities, wasteful energy con-
sumption, deforestation, poor waste management, unsound man-
agement of chemicals, degradation of all segments (air, water &
land) of environment has resulted in ecological imbalance, threat-
ened life and remain a grave concern for the national managers in
Pakistan (Khwaja, 2012). Corporate social performance (CSP) has
also attracted the attention of both academia and business and
corporations have begun to focus on enhancing corporate social
performance because they believe that it pays off financially.
Research on corporate social and financial performance began four
decades ago and has continued unabated. However, research on a
link between CSP and corporate financial performance (CFP) has
produced inconsistent findings, so this relationship remains
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ92 300 411 3478.
E-mail addresses: mazhar@ciitsahiwal.edu.pk (M. Javed), amirrashid@ciitlahore.
edu.pk (M.A. Rashid), Hussain@ciitsahiwal.edu.pk (G. Hussain).
studies have found a positive association, a few studies have found
a negative connection, and a small number of studies have found no
relationship at all. Clearly, there is no consensus among researchers
about the relationship between these constructs.
Researchers have asserted that inconsistent findings in studies
are due to neglecting contingency factors, making measurement
errors, mis-specifying models, and using undersized and multi-
industry samples, a single CSP dimension, and elusive and wide-
ranging operationalization of variables (CSP and CFP) (Beurden
and Goessling, 2008; Elsayed and Paton, 2005; Godfrey and Hatch,
2007; Lockett et al., 2006; McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; Margolis
and Walsh, 2003; Ullmann, 1985; Graves and Waddock, 1999;
Wu, 2006). These factors significantly influence the relationship
between CSP and CFP. For example, in some studies the oper-
ationalization of variables moderates the CSP-CFP relationship,
making CSP appear to be closely related to accounting-based
measures of CFP and CSP reputation indices to be highly corre-
lated with CFP (Allouche and Laroche, 2005; Margolis and Walsh,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.163
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073
2003; Orlitzky et al., 2003), while other studies have reported that
perceptual measures of both constructs tend to reveal a stronger
CSP-CFP relationship (Wu, 2006).
Studies that have used a single dimension of CSP lack validity
because a single dimension does not capture firms' social perfor-
mance adequately or reflect the breadth of the construct, so it be-
comes difficult to generalize these studies' findings (Griffin and
Mahon, 1997; Rowley and Berman, 2000). Studies with small
samples are not representative, and their results may not be
compared with other studies (Cochran and Wood, 1984; Elsayed
and Paton, 2004; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Moreover, cross-sectional
studies are losing their significance, as the cross-sectional method
does not usually control for firm heterogeneity, and it masks indi-
vidual differences in specific industry contexts (Van Beurden and
Go€ ssling, 2008; Elsayed and Paton, 2004; Griffin and Mahon,
1997). Other methodological problems, such as those posed by
event studies, may provide insights into the short-term impact of
CSP on shareholders but not that on other stakeholders (Elsayed
and Paton, 2004). Omitting important contingency variables has
resulted in biased findings and overestimation of CSP's impact on
firms' financial performance (Margolis and Walsh, 2003;
McWilliams and Siegel, 2000). Scholars have begun to question
the continuity of research on CSP (Wood, 2000), suggesting less
research in this field (Carroll, 2000) and even calling for a mora-
torium (Rowley and Berman, 2000, p. 415). However, experts
regarded CSP research important for business and society. Husted
(2000) proposed a contingency perspective on CSP that might
help this stream of research flourish in a new direction.
It is evident that CSP-CFP research using the contingency
perspective has seen mixed and inconsistent findings (Bai and
Chang, 2015; Wang and Choi, 2013; Wang et al., 2008), so the
growing body of literature that uses the contingency perspective on
CSP-CFP requires systematic review to pinpoint the shortcomings
in previous research. The present study synthesizes the literature
on CSP-CFP to identify major consistencies and inconsistencies in
determining the CSP-CFP relationship and suggests avenues for
future research.
The remainder of the article is comprised of four sections. The
first section, following this introduction, addresses the conceptual
bases for this study, while the second section reviews the empirical
research on the CSP-CFP contingency perspective. The third section
analyzes and discusses the findings from the review, while the
fourth section concludes the study with some suggestions for
future research directions.
2. The contingency perspective on CSP-CFP
At a time when scholars were suggesting a hiatus in CSP-CFP
research, Husted (2000) developed a contingency theory of CSP
that reinvigorated this stream of research. Husted (2000) heralded
an issue-contingent model of social performance that suggests that
CSP is contingent on the nature of the social issue. The contingency
perspective hypothesizes that CSP is the outcome of the fit between
CSP's endogenous organizational variables and exogenous contex-
tual variables (Husted, 2000; Rowley and Berman, 2000;
McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). The contingency perspective posits
that organizational performance depends on contextual variables
(Gerdin and Greve, 2004). Further, contingency theory focuses on
the fit between the organization's socially responsible practices and
the contextual variable in attaining organizational performance
(Doty et al., 1993; Gerdin and Greve, 2004). Organizational per-
formance may include economic or financial performance and
other organizational outcomes, such as competitiveness. The con-
tingency view is an alternate choice to the universal view and is
applicable in CSP (Husted, 2000)din fact, in any setting of
1063
management practices (Gerdin and Greve, 2004). The contingency
perspective on CSP-CFP research calls for using situational contin-
gencies to determine the relationship between CSP and CFP.
Failing to find a universal link between CSP and CFP, several
scholars proposed using the contingency perspective to investigate
the relationship. Rowley and Berman (2000) investigated the con-
ditions under which stakeholders take action to influence an or-
ganization and, consequently, the CSP-CFP link. Berman was of the
view that it is naïve to think that CSP and CFP will be related under
all conditions; numerous factors can influence the relationship, so
it is necessary to define where the relationship does not exist.
Berman regarded the contingency framework as appropriate in this
effort because such questions force researchers to build theoretical
models for empirical investigation and eschew the unrealistic effort
to find a universal relationship. Orlitzky et al. (2003) endorsed
Rowley and Berman's (2000) view on the contingency approach for
the CSP-CFP link rather than investigating the relationship as stable
under all conditions. Branco and Rodrigues (2006) argued that the
contingency approach might help determine under which condi-
tions CSP could lead to a monetary gain. Barnett (2007) called for
more attention to the contingency approach and affirmed that all
CSP initiatives of all corporations cannot be financially rewarded all
the time. Barnett revealed that some corporations' CSP initiatives
can pay off financially some of the time but pointed out that which
ones and when are yet to be determined. He argued that the impact
of CSP varies across firms and that such variations might be
attributable to the specifics of each situation (Barnett, 2007). Since
situational contingencies shape the CSP-CFP relationship, CSP may
affect CFP positively in certain situations and adversely in others.
Therefore, investigating situational contingencies can help to
clarify the responsibilityeperformance relationship.
Carroll and Shabana (2010) contended that the CSP-CFP link is
better evaluated when situational contingencies are considered.
Wagner (2010) recommended the contingency approach to the
CSP-CFP link for both conceptual arguments and empirical
research. Galbreath and Shum (2012) suggested that the contin-
gency perspective might help determine how and why CSP could
positively influence CFP. Wang et al. (2015) meta-analytic study
suggested including contingencies to account for variances across
studies. The next section discusses the contingencies used in CSP-
CFP research so far.
3. Retrospection e empirical research
CSP and CFP have been used as an umbrella concept. It covers CSP
and other terms used interchangeably. Studies have sought to
determine when CSP fosters CFP using firm-specific, industry-spe-
cific, and country-specific contingencies (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012).
3.1. Firm-specific contingencies
The firm-specific contingencies that have been explored in
previous research include firm attributes, differentiation in socially
responsible practice, and managerial persona. Aguinis and Glavas
(2012) asserted that most of the research in the CSP-CFP stream
has focused on firm-level analysis and explained that firm attri-
butes significantly influence the CSP-CFP equation. The literature
has explored the moderating effect of firms' size, age, ownership,
strategic orientation, innovation, and differentiation.
Van Beurden and Gossling's (2008) review study found that firm
size has positive moderating effect on the CSP-CFP relationship,
such that larger firms that are comparatively rich in financial re-
sources are more likely to see a positive relationship. Agan et al.
(2016) also found that CSP's positive effect of CFP is greater in
larger firms. While analyzing previous research, Aguinis and Glavas
1064 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073
(2012)corroborated earlier positive findings on firm size, but
Dixon-Fowler et al. (2013) findings from a meta-analysis did not
agree, suggesting that smaller firms, having little at stake, are more
pliable and react more readily to environmental challenges than
larger firms do, so they reap greater dividends from CSP.
Ownership of the firm is another important attribute that has
been found to affect the CSP-CFP link. Although Dixon-Fowler et al.
(2013) did not observe significant performance differences be-
tween publicly and privately owned firms, Peng and Yang (2014)
found that when controlling shareholders have control rights in
excess of their cash-flow rights, it weakens the CSP-CFP link. Firm age
also influences the CSP-CFP relationship, as Wang and Bansal (2012)
noticed that younger firms, which comparatively lack knowledge,
competence, and monetary resources, are more likely than older
firms to see an adverse effect of CSP, although a long-term strategic
orientation offsets this detrimental impact. Wang and Bansal estab-
lished that new ventures with short-term orientations suppress the
positive effects and amplify the negative implications of CSP, whereas
long-term orientation helps to generate positive economic returns.
Researchers have argued that a firm's level of innovation is also
an important determinant of firm performance (McWilliams and
Siegel, 2000). Innovation has been used both as mediator in
(Reverte et al., 2016) and a moderator (Hull and Rothenberg, 2008)
of the CSP-CFP relationship. Innovation in CSP-CFP research is often
measured as a factor of R&D expenditures. Van Beurden and
Gossling's (2008) review study concluded that investment in R&D
affects the CSP-CFP relationship, while Hull and Rothenberg (2008)
demonstrated that the relationship abates in high-innovation en-
vironments, as less innovative firms reap comparatively higher
dividends from CSP than more innovative firms do. However, many
scholars have also seen a positive moderating effect of R&D on the
CSP-CFP relationship, as Lioui and Sharma (2012) observed that the
interaction of CSP and R&D has a positive and significant impact on
firm value. Aguinis and Glavas (2012) concluded that higher R&D
investments result in greater financial reward, while Wang and
Choi (2013) observed that the relationship between CSP and CFP
is more pronounced in a strong R&D environment.
Wagner (2010) also probed the R&D interaction in the CSP-CFP
relationship and pointed out that R&D intensity neither weakens
nor strengthens the link. Lee et al. (2016) substantiated these
findings.
Besides practicing CSP, it is equally imperative for a firm to keep
its stakeholders aware of its initiatives. Servaes and Tamayo (2013)
found that consumer awareness (measured by advertising in-
tensity) moderates the CSP-CFP relationship. Therefore, firms that
keep their customers well aware of their CSP activities benefit
financially, while those that do not lose, at least in economic terms.
Differentiation in CSP is another set of contingency factors that
impinge on the CSP-CFP relationship. Barnett (2007) affirmed that
not all CSP initiatives in all corporations can be financially rewarded
all the time, and Jayachandran et al. (2013) and Gilley et al. (2000)
pointed out that not every kind of CSP initiative yields the same
results. Although no appropriate level of CSP for a firm has been
determined, Brammer and Millington (2008) observed that orga-
nizations with unusually high or unusually CSP are rewarded more
financially than are other firms, adding that low performers benefit
in the short-run and good-performers benefit in the long-run.
While testing the relationship between CSP and shareholder reac-
tion, Flammer (2015) found a smaller positive reaction for firms
with higher levels of CSP. Besides the magnitude of CSP, how a firm
engages in CSP makes a significant difference. Tang et al. (2012)
found that firms that practice regular CSP earn greater financial
returns than those that do not and observed that a firm that en-
gages in interrelated CSP dimensions garners superior financial
benefits. However, the pace of CSP engagement does not influence
this relationship, as Wang and Choi (2013) reported that both
temporal and inter-domain consistency strengthen the overall
positive CSP-CFP relationship.
Research studies have revealed that product-oriented CSP out-
performs process-oriented and environment-oriented CSP (Busch
and Hoffmann, 2011; Gilley et al., 2000; Jayachandran et al., 2013;
Kurapatskie and Darnall, 2013). In testing the moderating effect of
philanthropy, CSP integration, and CSP innovation, Halme and Laurila
(2009) determined that only visible and action-oriented CSP will
improve financial and societal outcomes. Van der Laan et al. (2008)
found that a good CSP reputation has less effect on performance
than a bad CSP reputation does and that CSP dimensions concerning
primary stakeholders are more related to financial performance than
are dimensions that pertain to secondary stakeholders.
Some studies also highlight the significance of CSP responsive-
ness strategy (Brammer and Millington, 2008; Dixon-Fowler et al.,
2013), as firms that respond proactively to social issues benefit
more than those that do not (Dixon-Fowler et al., 2013). Husted and
Salazar (2006) observed that strategic CSP pays off significantly
more than altruistic or coerced CSP does. CSP reporting is consid-
ered an important element of CSP practice; but Schreck (2011)
determined that the quality of CSP reporting did not influence
the CSP-CFP relationship.
It is widely acknowledged that the attributes of the managers
responsible for organizational affairs significantly impinge on firms'
decision-making processes. Although the individual-level charac-
teristics that influence the CSP-CFP relationship are under-explored
(Aguinis and Glavas, 2012), some authors have investigated the
likely influence of managerial attributes. Kim and Statman (2012)
posited that firms whose managers are adaptable to changing
business dynamics outperform firms who managers do not have
such characteristics, and Aguinis and Glavas (2012)concluded in a
review study that managers' ethical leaning and sensitivity to eq-
uity strongly reinforces the CSP-CFP relationship.
3.2. Industry-specific contingencies
Scholars never plead a universal or unconditional business case
for CSP (Barnett, 2007), as the CSP-CFP relationship is not similar
under all conditions (Rowley and Berman, 2000). The CSP-CFP as-
sociation differs across industries, as contextual differences and
disparate stakeholder demands across industries affect it.
Analyzing the resource-based perspective for establishing a link
between environment performance, and profitability, Russo and
Fouts (1997) observed that firms in high-growth industries have
positive CSP-CFP relationships more often than those in low-
growth industries. Klassen and McLaughlin (1996) observed that
effective environmental management reinforces the CSP-CFP rela-
tionship more for firms in clean industries than for other firms, and
Baird et al. (2012) observed conversely that CSP-CFP link is robust in
polluting industries. However, Schreck (2011) found no support for
a moderating role of industry.
Hull and Rothenberg (2008) hypothesized that the CSP-CFP
relationship is contingent upon differentiation at the industry
level and found that highly differentiated industries are more likely
to see a positive relationship between CSP and CFP. Competitive
intensity across industries also influences this relationship, as Bai
and Chang (2015) observed a similar positive relationship for
firms in highly competitive industries.
3.3. Country-specific contingencies
As firm and industry-specific factors seem to moderating the
corporate social and financial performance relationship, country
factors also tend to affect this association. Among the country
 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073
factors, the general business environment has been widely explored,
and an effect between the macro or country environment has been
found to shape not just organizational performance but also CSP's
effect on CFP (Ortas et al., 2015). Aragon-Correa and Sharma (2003)
also conceptualized that the levels of uncertainty, complexity, and
munificence in the general business environment moderate the
positive relationship between CSP and CFP. Goll and Rasheed (2004)
explored whether environmental munificence and dynamism
moderated the relationship and found a significant relationship
between discretionary CSP and CFP in highly dynamic environ-
ments. Therefore, the results supported the moderating role of
environmental dynamism and munificence for the relationship be-
tween discretionary CSP and CFP. Wang et al. (2008) considered the
possible relationship between corporate philanthropy and financial
performance using environmental dynamism as a contingency fac-
tor and observed a curvilinear effect of charitable giving on financial
performance. They also found support for the moderating role of
industry dynamism in the association between giving and financial
performance. Bai and Chang (2015) found that market turbulence
positively moderates the relationship between CSP and CFP.
Economic conditions are one of the important determinants of
firm performance (Hitt et al., 2012). Research (Lee et al., 2013) that
used economic conditions as a contingency factor has observed an
insignificant effect of composite and dimensional CSP on firms'
performance, so CSP's main effect is non-significant, regardless of
economic conditions. As for the moderating role of economic
conditions, this study found that operations-related CSP does help
in recessionary periods.
4. Method
This study used systematic review (SR) as a research method. SR
is a methodical way of identifying, assessing, and analyzing earlier
studies in the process of investigating a research question
(Kitchenham and Charters, 2007; Staples and Niazi, 2007). Re-
searchers also recommend SR for management research because it
serves both academic and practitioner communities (Tranfield
et al., 2003). The basic steps involved in an SR are presented in
Fig. 1 (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007).
4.1. Research questions
The researchers formulated four research questions to achieve
the objective of this study.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Need for Systematic Review
Definition of Research Questions
Development of Review Protocols
Evaluation of Review Protocols
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification of Studies
Selection of Earlier Studies
Assessment of Study Quality
Conducting
Data Extraction
Data Synthesis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Reporting of Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 1. Systematic review process (Adapted from Kitchenham and Charters, 2007).
1065
RQ 1: Does CSP affect CFP positively?
RQ 2: When does CSP affect CFP positively?
RQ 3: What consistencies and inconsistencies are observed in
the CSP-CFP relationship using the contingency perspective?
RQ4: What are the main shortcomings of previous CSP-CFP
research that has used the contingency perspective?
4.2. Protocols for systematic review
The researchers pre-defined the protocols for executing the SR
and controlling potential bias. (These protocols are delineated in
subsequent sections).
4.3. Identification of studies-method
The researchers used a formal search strategy to identify the
relevant extant studies. This search strategy is explained in form of
a flowchart in Fig. 2.
For this study, at first step, the researchers searched several
electronic databases to identify relevant studies. The databases
were Emerald, EBSCOHost, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Palgrave Mac-
millan, Science Direct, SpringerLink, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis
Online and Wiley Online Library. Once databases were searched, a
list of studies and the journals in which they were published was
prepared. Then these journals were searched one by one. Each issue
of these journals was scanned to identify studies that were missed
in the first step. The journals were Journal of Business Ethics, The
Academy of Management Journal, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Social Responsibility Journal, European Business Review, Corporate
Governance: An International Review, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Soci-
ety, Strategic Management Journal, Business and Society Review,
Business Ethics, Quarterly, Business & Society, Journal of Management,
Global Business Review, Journal of Business Research, and Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization.
The keywords for the search, derived from the research ques-
tions, were used to retrieve the relevant studies from the available
literature on corporate social and financial performance. These
keywords and terms were “corporate social performance,”
“corporate financial performance,” and “corporate social and
financial performance.”
To ensure that no relevant study was missed, the researchers
also used similar keywords (e.g., “corporate social responsibility,”
“organizational performance”) and combination of keywords.
Moreover, the titles and abstracts of papers published in each issue
of the journals selected were inspected for relevant studies. Ref-
erences of the selected studies were examined.
After selecting the resources and keywords, the researchers
identified studies on the CSP-CFP relationship that used the
Select Resources
Select Keywords
Trial Search
Refine Keywords
Construction of a List of Papers
Fig. 2. Search strategy process.
1066 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073
contingency perspective by searching the databases, then exam-
ining the selected journals, and finally inspecting the selected
studies' references. This process identified 206 relevant studies.
4.4. Selection of studies
The researchers used a process presented in Fig. 2 to select the
studies that provided evidence on the research questions. Studies
that fulfilled three criteria were made a part of this systematic re-
view: (a) a conceptual, empirical, or review study or meta-analysis
that focused on the CSP-CFP relationship using the contingency
perspective (b) with the full text in the English language (c) that
was published in a peer-reviewed journal, regardless of the year of
publication.
After the 206 relevant studies were identified, the selection
procedure screened them to assess their eligibility against the se-
lection criteria. Researchers scrutinized each article and catego-
rized it as either “included in review” or “excluded from review.”
Studies that fulfilled the selection criteria were included in the
review and those that did not were excluded from it. When a study
did not fulfill the selection criteria clearly or the match of variables
was not clear, it was classified for “possible inclusion.” In the second
step, studies included in the review and those listed for possible
inclusion were assessed for quality. Studies that did not fulfill the
quality standard were excluded. After this scrutiny, 33 articles were
found to fulfill the selection criteria and were made a part of this
review. Among these 33 articles, 26 are empirical studies, 2 are
meta-analyses, 2 are review studies, and 3 are conceptual articles.
Selection process is presented in Fig. 3.
4.5. Assessment of study quality
The quality of each study was assessed during the data-
extraction process with respect to four questions. Thirty Three
(33) articles were deemed to be of good quality based on these
questions.
QA1: Has the aim of the research been explained well?
QA2: Has the research approach used in the study been clearly
explained?
QA3: Is the context of the study clear?
QA4: Have the findings of the study been clearly stated?
4.6. Data extraction process and analysis strategy
The researchers conducted the analysis in multiple rounds. In
the first round, each of the researchers prepared a list of the pa-
rameters from the selected studies and grouped the parameters
that appeared to be important. The researchers were in agreement
with 75 percent of the parameters they had listed. Next, they dis-
cussed them to reach a consensus on a final set of parameters that
were relevant to the research questions. Researchers were in full
agreement of 75 percent of the parameters. These parameters were
different measures for independent and dependent variables,
theoretical support, different contingency factors, and the main
findings of the study. Then the researchers extracted data on these
four parameters from the selected studies in an iterative manner:
Each researcher compiled a table of extracted data, these compiled
tables were reviewed several times, and then researchers consoli-
dated the extracted data.
In the second round of data extraction and analysis, the re-
searchers independently identified which contingency factors the
articles used repeatedly in determining the CSP-CFP relationship.
The researchers' initial level of agreement was 88 percent. After
discussing their differences, the researchers reached consensus on
the repeatedly used contingency factors and these factors included
general business environment, differentiation in social re-
sponsibility practices, R&D intensity and advertising intensity.
In the third round, once the researchers had identified the
repeatedly used contingency factors, they collected the relevant
findings of each study and independently analyzed the studies'
consistencies and inconsistencies based on the findings. The initial
level of agreement among the researchers was 94 percent. Then the
researchers discussed their differences and reached consensus on
the consistencies and inconsistencies that pertained to every con-
tingency factor. This thorough analysis helped the researchers to
identify the consistencies and inconsistencies in the CSP-CFP
relationship.
Data Synthesis: All of the relevant information from all 33
studies were then summarized and integrated to demonstrate
common points of observation that fulfilled the objectives of this
research. A database was created and then arranged in a systematic
way to create a firm foundation for the study. The results are re-
ported in the next section.
5. Findings and discussion
This section summarizes the findings on contingency perspec-
tive of CSP-CFP relationship and discusses these results critically. As
the contingency perspective moves beyond the basic question of
“Does it pay to be good? to include “When does it pay to be good?”
so findings are discussed in two sections.
5.1. Does it pay to be good?
Studies included in the review had varying results, ranging from
a positive CSP-CFP relationship (Bai and Chang, 2015; Russo and
Fouts, 1997; Wagner, 2010) to a negative relationship (Lioui and
Sharma, 2012; Wang and Bansal, 2012), to no relationship (Gilley
et al., 2000; Schreck, 2011) to mixed results (Brammer and
Millington, 2008; Jayachandran et al., 2013). The majority of
studies (57%) found a positive relationship, 7 percent found a
negative relationship, 10 percent found no relationship, and 25
found a mixed relationship. (Detail is appended.)These findings are
in line with the findings of prior CSP-CFP meta-analytic studies
(Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Literature-review
studies have also substantiated the CSP-CFP positive association (Lu
et al., 2014; Margolis and Walsh, 2003).
Studies included in the present review measured CSP with pa-
rameters that ranged from CSP rating and indices (Flammer, 2015)
to disclosure (Kurapatskie and Darnall, 2013) and perceptual
measures (Peng and Yang, 2014). CFP was also assessed using a
variety of measures, from accounting measures (Lee et al., 2016) to
market indicators (Kang and Wood, 1995), both accounting and
market measures (Tang et al., 2012), and perceptual measures (Bai
and Chang, 2015).
CSP positively influenced performance across all the CSP mea-
sures, including disclosure (Kurapatskie and Darnall, 2013), rank-
ings and indices (Russo and Fouts, 1997), and perceptual measures
(Bai and Chang, 2015). However, reputation indices were found to
be more closely related with CFP than other measures were. A
positive CSP-CFP relationship was also observed across all perfor-
mance parameters, including accounting measures (Lee et al.,
2016), market indicators (Wang and Choi, 2013), both market and
accounting measures (Tang et al., 2012), and perceptual parameters
(Bai and Chang, 2015). However, CSP was observed to be more
closely related with accounting measures than with other mea-
sures, which is in keeping with earlier findings (Orlitzky et al.,
2003).
 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073
Categorized as
Included in
review (42)
Some of these studies were excluded
Excluded from Included for
review (15) review (27)
Fig. 3. The selection process.
The review found that more than 90 percent of CSP-CFP research
has been conducted in US settings-a developed and institutional-
ized context. Nevertheless, the positive CSP-CFP has also been
found in other countries and throughout the time horizon of the
publications included in this review (1996e2015). Thus, a positive
CSP-CFP relationship has prevailed across contexts and over time.
Similar positive CSP-CFP relationship across different contexts and
over the period of time had already been reported (Lu et al., 2014;
Margolis and Walsh, 2003).
5.2. When does it pay to be good?
As research on identifying the CSP-CFP relationship continued,
scholars began to investigate the conditions under which CSP pays
off a firm by adding firm-, industry-, and country-level contin-
gencies to their CSP-CFP research. Analysis revealed that 19 percent
of studies tested the influence of industry-specific factors,12 percent
explored country-specific factors, and 77 percent investigated firm-
specific factors. Among the firm-specific factors, researchers have
frequently tested a differentiation strategy in CSP. However, re-
searchers have over-emphasized the micro environment and
employed firm-specific factors too frequently as contingencies,
leaving the macro environmental contingencies under-explored.
In evaluating the relative importance of firm- and industry-level
factors, research has found that the resource-based view (RBV)
regards the firm as an important source of variance in financial
performance (Short et al., 2007). Variance decomposition studies
have observed that both firm- and industry-level factors influence
CFP, but firm-level factors explain higher proportion of the variance
in CFP. The research has observed that firm-level factors explain
31.7e44.2 percent of the variance in CFP across firms (Misangyi
et al., 2006), while industry-level factors account for 4e20
percent of the variance in CFP (McGahan and Porter, 1997).
Research has also observed that firm-level factors explain 27.60
1067
Total
Articles 206
Excluded from Possible
Review (151) Inclusion (13)
These articles were reviewed by a team
and were classified as
Included for Excluded from
review (06) review (07)
Total Articles
included for
review (33)
percent of the variance in CFP, while industry-level factors explain
16.77 percent (Short et al., 2015).
(Table 1: Contingencies used in CSP-CFP relationship goes about
here).
5.3. R&D investment
Findings regarding the role of R&D in determining the CSP-CFP
relationship have been contradictory. Five studies used R&D in-
vestment as a contingency factor, with two finding that R&D has a
positive moderating role in the CSP-CFP relationship (Lioui and
Sharma, 2012; Wang and Choi, 2013), two finding that it has a
neutral role (Wagner, 2010; Lee et al., 2016), and one that it has a
negative role (Hull and Rothenberg, 2008). However, in their re-
view of the literature, Aguinis and Glavas (2012) found that the
higher the R&D investment, the greater the positive impact of CSP
on organizational outcomes, including CFP. Moreover, analysis, in
this review, found R&D to be closely related with market measures
of financial performance.
McWilliams and Siegel (2000) were first to highlight the role of
R&D in the CSP-CFP relationship when they regarded Waddock and
Graves (1997) model as mis-specified because it did not control the
effect of R&D intensity; their specified model controlled for the
effect of size, risk, and industry and revealed a positive CSP-CFP
relationship. Using the same sample, McWilliams and Siegel
(2000) tested this relationship after controlling for the effect of
R&D spending and found no relationship. McWilliams and Siegel's
(2000) finding was substantiated by Andersen and Dejoy (2011),
who tested other control variables and recommended size, risk,
industry, and R&D as appropriate control variables.
One explanation for the contradictory findings could be the
strategic orientation of R&D investment at the firm level such that
firms for which R&D is a long-term investment (capital expendi-
ture) see a positive effect on the CSP-CFP relationship, and firms for
1068 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073

Table 1 buy products with CSP attributes (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001;
Contingencies used in CSP-CFP relationship. Pino et al., 2016). However, there has been substantial delibera-
Contingencies tion on advertising's industry-level effects (Powell, 1996; Waring,
Firm-Specific
1996), although there is agreement that industry-level factors
Contingencies explain an insignificant percentage of the variation in firm
Firm attributes Firm size, Firm age, Type of ownership, profitability.
ownership concentration, strategic orientation,
innovation, consumer awareness
5.5. Differentiation in socially responsible practices
Differentiation in Intensity of CSP, Pace of CSP, Path of CSP,
CSP Practice Relatedness of CSP dimensions, Consistency
in CSP engagement, Temporal consistency, The differentiation strategy can help firms increase their
Interdomain consistency, Type of CSP initiatives, competitive advantage, and CSP practices can help a firm differ-
Types of CSP strategies, CSP reporting and interactions
entiate itself from its rivals. Firms that practice an appropriate level
with stakeholders
Managerial Persona Managerial action, Commitment to ethics,
of CSP benefit the most in financial return. The appropriate level of
Sensitivity to equity CSP depends on the firm's attributes and the cost of practicing CSP
Industry-Specific Contingencies activities (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Although there is a lack of
Industry context, Industry classification, Industry growth, Differentiation, agreement on the appropriate level of SCP, some researchers have
Competitive intensity
provided useful guidelines as to what level of CSP firms should
Country-Specific Contingencies
Economic conditions, Environmental munificence and dynamism, Uncertainty, practice. Flammer (2015) opined that CSP is a resource with
Complexity, and Munificence decreasing marginal returns such that the greater the CSP, the
lesser the reward will be, while Brammer and Millington (2008)
suggested that either lower or higher CSP will pay off.
Firms that consistently practice CSP benefit financially, as tem-
which R&D is a current expenditure see a negative moderating role. poral factors explain a high proportion of variance at the firm level
As researchers have pointed out, R&D expenditure is a long-term (Short et al., 2015). Moreover, CSP practices concerning primary
investment that takes time to yield results (Wang and Choi, stakeholders and internal to the firm are rewarded more than CSP
2013). The R&D effect has also been distorted by the use of cross- practices concerning secondary stakeholders and external to firm
sectional samples; R&D is not equally important in all industries, (Tang et al., 2012) because primary stakeholders are considered
so cross-sectional samples blur the effect of R&D intensity. more important than secondary stakeholders for a firm's survival
and success (Freeman, 1984). Although stakeholders' influence
varies depending on the context (Lu and Abeysekera, 2014), orga-
5.4. Advertising intensity
nizations are highly dependent on their primary stakeholders for
CFP (Clarkson, 1995). While secondary stakeholders can certainly
Advertising intensity is another variable whose role in the CSP-
affect a corporation, they are not directly engaged in transactions
CFP relationship has not been clear. Three studies that used
with the corporation and are not considered essential for survival
advertising intensity as a moderating variable observed contra-
(Clarkson, 1995). Proactively responding to stakeholders' issues and
dictory findings. Two studies, Servaes and Tamayo (2013) and
integrating CSP into products increase financial benefits, as doing
Wagner (2010), found a positive moderating role of advertising
so facilitates an organization's competitive advantage (Aragon-
intensity on the CSP-CFP relationship, and one, Hull and
Correa and Sharma, 2003). Proactive posturing seeks to meet
Rothenberg (2008), reported a negative moderating effect. All
stakeholders' expectations beyond legal requirements, while
studies were conducted in the US with cross-sectional sample and
product-related differentiation can be communicated easily, and
with the same CSP measure (KLD ratings1). However, Hull and
process-related differentiation, because it is less observable, is
Rothenberg (2008) used an accounting measure of performance,
difficult for stakeholders to evaluate (Jayachandran et al., 2013).
while the studies that reported positive moderation used a market
While CSP is a resource that can lead to competitive advantage
measure of CFP. Unlike the main relationship dynamics, in the
(Branco and Rodrigues, 2006), sustainable competitive advantage
contingency perspective, advertising as a moderator strengthens
relies on resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and
the CSP-CFP relationship when market measures of performance
non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). Resources are difficult to copy
are used.
when they are path-dependent, causally ambiguous, and socially
Moreover, advertising intensity strengthens the CSP-CFP
complex (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2003). Differentiation in CSP can
relationship when advertising is used as firm-specific attribute
help a firm develop an intangible resource like corporate reputation
and negatively moderates the relationship when it is used as an
(Branco and Rodrigues, 2006), which is considered path-
industry-specific attribute. Researchers have posited that adver-
dependent, highly-specific, and socially complexda strong
tising at the firm-level bridges the information gap by helping
resource. Moreover, reputation is built, not bought. Signaling the-
customers recognize the firm's involvement in socially respon-
ory suggests that reputational assets inform external constituents
sible activities and reward it for its efforts (Servaes and Tamayo,
about the firm's trust worthiness, credibility, and quality; influence
2013). These researchers recommended that companies increase
a positive reaction toward a firm, and positively impact organiza-
CSP awareness levels if they want CSP to be a profitable strategic
tional success. Moreover, an organization's socially responsible
investment. Advertising is both a way to differentiate and a way
behavior increases demand for its products (Cruz, 2013).
to signal the firm's performance; therefore, advertising amplifies
the CSP effects (Valiente et al., 2012). Advertising significantly
5.6. Industry differentiation
helps increase the awareness of customers who are inclined to
This review reveals that CSP provides greater benefits to firms
1
that operate in high-growth industries than it does to firms that
KLD refers to Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini and Co., which prepares a social re-
sponsibility index based on eight dimensions: community, corporate governance,
work in low-growth industries. Moreover, firms in industries that
diversity, employee relations, environment, human rights, and product and exclu- face greater competition are also likely to have higher financial
sionary screens. returns than do firms that operate in industries with less
 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073
competition. It contradicts the misplaced belief that practicing CSP
might weaken a firm's competitiveness, as it shows that practicing
CSP affects a firm's competitive position positively and significantly
(Gallardo-Vazquez and Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014). Generally, firms
in high-growth and highly competitive industries take greater risks
that help them reap more dividends, but an environment-based
classification of industry (clean industry vs. polluting industry)
reveals contradictory findings because environmental manage-
ment is not practiced at the same level and valued in the same way
across industries. For example, CSP is practiced through environ-
ment management more in the forestry industry (Rana €ngen and
Zobel, 2014), and stakeholders give more importance to environ-
mental protection in the construction industry (Jiang and Wong,
2015).
5.7. General business environment
Research findings have suggested that complex, munificent and
dynamic environment prompts the CSP-CFP relationship.
Schoemaker and Amit (1993) argued that firms in uncertain envi-
ronments are likely to be more successful if managers anticipate
likely changes than if they do not. Moreover, firms in uncertain
business environments take more risks and use innovative strate-
gies more than do firms in stable business environments (Miles
et al., 1978). Firms seek to identify and adopt products and pro-
cesses that help to control environmental effects (Buchko, 1994).
For example, firms in dynamic environments adopt differentiated
structures and sophisticated integration devices (Lawrence and
Lorsch, 1967). Moreover, Miller and Shamsie (1999) posited that
greater the uncertainty, more the product variety. In complex
business environments, managers become cautious, and firms find
it difficult to experience superior returns if they use appropriate
resources and capabilities (Schoemaker and Amit, 1993). An envi-
ronment that can support the organization's sustained growth
helps the firm in terms of subsidies, tax incentives, easy borrowing,
and low insurance premiums (Aragon-Correa and Sharma, 2003),
so it increases the opportunities for acquiring resources (Deeds and
Decarolis, 1999).
5.8. Theoretical and methodological concerns
The theoretical foundations from which to explore CSP-CFP
relationship are narrow; the overwhelming majority of studies
use two common theories, the RBV and stakeholder theory. While
there is little theoretical support for a universal CSP-CFP relation-
ship, there is even less theoretical support for the contingency
perspective.
CSP-CFP studies have frequently used secondary data in
designing their research. Only two studies have used perceptual
measures to operationalizing CSP and CFP. Perceptual measures are
subjective and are not considered important for empirical research.
Although they are essential to getting insight into a firm's CSP, more
focus in CSP-CFP research has been on using databases like KLD.
Notwithstanding the various names of contingency factors, only
a dozen of moderators have been used, and they have been used
time and again. Common contingency factors like firm age, size,
ownership, industry context, industry growth, and changes in
business environment have been investigated repeatedly. Many of
these variables have even been established as control variables.
The studies in this review used from one to five control vari-
ables. Realizing the significance of control variables in obtaining
reliable results, Andersen and Dejoy (2011) explored which vari-
ables should be controlled when testing the CSP-CFP relationship.
They tested five variablesdsize, industry, risk, R&D expenditures,
and advertising expendituredand tested the effect of each control
1069
variable independently. Their findings revealed that the best
specified model is one that controls the effect of size, industry, risk,
and R&D expenditures.
However, none of the studies controlled for the effect of all four
of these variables. McWilliams and Siegel (2000) regarded an
estimated model as mis-specified if the effect of R&D expenditures
was not controlled, but only three studies controlled for this effect.
Firm performance, an influential concept in organizational
research, is difficult to apply in a scientific way (Rowe and Morrow,
1999). Most of the studies reviewed here are inconsistent in using
appropriate constructs in CSP-CFP research. Using the RBV, re-
searchers have investigated a particular set of valuable, scarce,
difficult-to-imitate, and unsubstitutable resources, but arguing
theoretically, researchers have usually hypothesized that having
more of these specific resources adds to firm performance. But
performance has been used as a general construct that measures
performance as a composite of several dimensions. So, there is a
need to distinguish between a multi-dimensional approach, a
separate construct approach, and an aggregate construct approach
to firm performance when using it in conceptual arguments and
empirical research (Miller et al., 2013).
6. Implications for research, practice, and society
Although this study is primarily based on reported data, it still
offers useful insights for diverse stakeholders. This study has
several positive implications for research, practice, and society. As
this study highlighted theoretical and methodological concerns in
CSP-CFP research using the contingency perspective, scholars
should heed warnings about studies in this stream of research.
Moreover, researchers should avoid repeating commonly used
contingency factors and, instead, conduct studies using new con-
tingency factors. Doing so will help the CSP-CFP contingency
perspective flourish.
Findings regarding the contingency perspective are significant
for managers at the firm and national levels. In the current
corporate world, firms face diverse stakeholders' expectations for
superior financial performance along with socially responsible
behavior. At the same time, firms face multi-dimensional contin-
gencies, so it has become difficult for corporations to remain
profitable while living up to disparate stakeholders' expectations.
This research has encapsulated consistencies and inconsistencies in
positive CSP-CFP research and has identified conditions under
which CSP can come along with financial benefits. The findings of
the review can promote the strategic perspective on CSP, where
corporations can create value for diverse stakeholders. Since the
systematic review has defined the boundaries within which firms
can yield financial benefits, firms can know when socially respon-
sible practices payoff and so will be encouraged to pursue them.
Moreover, this study helps firms to optimize their CSP investments.
This review concludes that CSP pays off in competitive envi-
ronments and does not impede growth, so it dispels the misplaced
notion of a negative association between CSP and CFP in highly
competitive settings. It also dismisses the perception that socially
responsible behavior will halt growth. Consequently, organizations
can be encouraged to practice socially responsible activities.
The findings of this study also help governments in policy-
making. As national governments contemplate making CSP
mandatory for firms, the study helps regulators define the di-
mensions of their legislation. It also helps regulators to delineate
the conditions under which it would be obligatory for organiza-
tions to practice socially responsible behavior and when organi-
zations would be exempt from practicing CSP in exceptional
circumstances. The study's findings help governments to under-
stand the type of environment that is required for promoting
1070 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073

socially responsible behavior at the firm and industry levels. For
example, the review revealed that dynamic environments foster
socially responsible practices. The results can also help govern-
ments formulate appropriate policy during recessionary trends to
facilitate firms' ability to remain profitable.
As the contingency perspective encourages firms to pursue so-
cially responsible activities, more initiatives for societal improve-
ment will result and society will receive greater benefits. Moreover,
the review's findings help to persuade firms to practice strategic
CSP, which will create value for both society and organizations.
7. Conclusion and future research directions
This study reviewed the literature on contingency factors in the
CSPeCFP relationship and found that this relationship is under-
explored and under-developed, despite repeated calls to explore
the contingency perspective on the relationship. Previous research
has provided valuable insights, yet the overall attention paid to the
subject remains negligible.
The review found that, although firm-level factors have been the
focus of research, managerial attributes at the firm level have been
under-examined. Leadership styles and especially the re-
sponsibility orientation of managers at the firm level remain to be
explored as contingency factors. Further, stakeholders significantly
influence organizational outcomes, so researchers should explore
the moderating effect of stakeholders' dimensions on the CSP-CFP
relationship. Recent research has revealed that temporal factors
explain a high proportion of the variance in CFP at the firm level,
but researchers have not yet explored the moderating effect of
these temporal factors. Although firm age has been explored, re-
searchers should investigate the likely moderating effect of the
organizational life cycle.
Further, there is a need to explore industry-and country-specific
factors. At the industry level, researchers can explore the moder-
ating effect of regulation and de-regulation policy. Although one
study tested the moderating effect of recession, the effects of the
phases of the business cycle on the CSP-CFP relationship can also be
explored.
The integrative theoretical approach, which blends relational,
managerial, and utilitarian stream theories, can also be helpful in
furthering the CSP-CFP research. Further, the “theory of the firm,”
which delineates the demand- and supply-based contingency
perspective on CSP, can provide considerable theoretical support
for determining the CSP-CFP relationship. Furthermore, the con-
tingency perspective is derived from strategic management, so
various strategic management theories can broaden the theoretical
base for the CSP-CFP stream of research.
Appendix 1. Studies included in review

Study ID DV Moderator Main findings

1. Klassen and CEP RoE Industry context CEP-CFP relationship fluctuates across
McLaughlin (1996) industries. Superior environment management
influences CFP more strongly in clean industries
than in polluting industries.
2. Russo and Fouts (1997) CEP Return on Industry growth CEP influences CFP positively and industry
Assets growth reinforces this relationship.
3. Gilley et al. (2000) CEP Stock returns Type of greening initiative CEP does not influence CFP. However stock
market reacts positively to product-related
greening initiatives and negatively to process-
related initiatives.
4. Ruf et al. (2001) CSP-KLD RoE, RoS Changes in CSR engagement There is a positive relationship between CSP
Growth in sales eCFP. Stakeholder perspective positively
moderates CFP.
5. Goll and Rashid (2004) Discretionary RoA, RoS Environmental munificence and dynamism Discretionary social responsibility positively
influenced CFP. This relationship is louder in
dynamic and munificent environment.
6. Hull and CSP-KLD Return on Innovation, Industry Differentiation Interaction of firm innovation and
Rothenberg (2008) Assets differentiation with CSP positively influences
CFP.
7. Brammer and CSP Disclosure Sharpe ratio Intensity of CSP CSP and CFP have U-shaped relationship, firms
Millington (2008) with abnormally high and low CSP experience
greater financial benefits. Poor performers
benefit in the short-run and good performers in
the long-run.
8. Wang et al. (2008) Philanthropy Return on Environmental dynamism CSP-CFP relationship is inverted U-shaped and
Assets, Tobin's dynamic environment positively moderates
q relationship.
9. Van der Laan et al. (2008) CSP KLD RoA, EPS Interactions with different stakeholder CSP-CFP relationship is asymmetric and
interaction with primary stakeholders is more
rewarded financially.
10. Wagner (2010) CSP KLD Tobin's q R&D and advertising intensity CSP-CFP relationship is positive. However,
advertising intensity at firm level moderates
this relation but R&D not
11. Busch and CEP RoA, RoE Measurement Approach When CEP measurement is outcome-based, it
Hoffmann (2011) Tobin's q positively influences and when measurement is
process-based it negatively influences CFP.
12. Schreck (2011) CSP Tobin's q Industry classification Quality of CSR Reporting This study finds neither causality in CSP-CFP
activities relationship nor support for moderating role of
industry type and quality of CSR reporting
13. Lioui and sharma (2012) CSP KLD RoA Tobin's q R&D
 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073 1071

(continued )

Study ID DV Moderator Main findings

CSP-CFP relationship is negative and with

interaction of R&D, CSP positively influences
CFP.
14. Kim and Statman (2012) CEP KLD RoA Tobin's q Managerial adaptability CSP-CFP witnesses inverted U-shaped
relationship and managers' adaptability
positively moderates it.
15. Baird et al. (2012) CSP KLD Stock Price Industry context CSP-CFP positive link varies across the
industries.
16. Tang et al. (2012) CSP KLD Return on Pace, Path, Consistency and relatedness of CSR CSPeCFP positive relationship is strengthened
Assets Tobin's q when a firm is consistently engaged in related
CSR dimensions and starts with the CSR aspects
more internal to firm.
17. Wang and CSP Overall firm Strategic orientation CSP-CFP relationship is negative and long-term
Bansal (2012) performance orientation positively moderates this
relationship.
18. Jayachandran et al. (2013) CSP KLD Index Tobin's q Type of Social Performance Product-based SP strongly and positive
influences CFP as compared to ESP
19. Servaes and CSP KLD Firm value Consumer awareness CSP-CFP positive relationship is reinforced with
Tamayo (2013) Tobin's q high consumer awareness.
20. Wang and Choi (2013) CSP KLD Index CFP Tobin's q Temporal consistency Interdomain consistency General CSP-CFP positive relationship is
Knowledge intensity positively moderated by temporal and
Interdomain consistency and further reinforced
in higher knowledge intensity.
21. Flammer (2015) CSP KLD Stock returns Type of CSP CSP-CFP positive relationship is positively
moderated with quality of CSR.
22. Lee et al. (2013) CSP KLD Tobin's q Economic conditions This study finds positive relationship between
operation-related CSR only and CFP and positive
implications multiply during recessionary
trends.
23. Kurapatskie and CSP Perceptual Type of CS activity Both types of activities witness positive
Darnall (2013) measure association with financial performance,
However the magnitude relationship seemingly
differs.
24. Lee et al. (2016) Perceptual RoA, RoE R&D Environmental performance influenced firm
performance positively but R&D intensity did
not moderate this relationship.
25. Peng and Perceptual EPS, ROA, ROE, Ownership concentration This study finds that divergence between
Yang (2014) CFA control rights and cash flow rights of controlling
owners negatively moderated the link between
corporate social and short- and long-run
financial performance
26. Bai and Chang (2015) Perceptual Perceptual Competitive intensity and market turbulence CSP-CFP positive association is positively
measure measure moderated by competitive intensity and market
turbulence.
27. Orlitzky et al. (2003) CSP Accounting, Artifacts Measurement strategies CSP-CFP have positive association which is both
Market and bidirectional and simultaneous. Measurement
Perceptual strategy moderates this relationship
28. Dixon-Fowler et al. (2013) CEP Accounting, Environmental strategy, Firm characteristics Findings suggest that positive relationship of
Market and and Methodological issues CEPeCFP is moderated differently by
Perceptual environmental strategy, firm characteristics
and methodological issues.
29. Aragon-Correa and CEP CFP Uncertainty, Complexity Munificence Certain features of general business
Sharma, 2003 environment, as uncertainty, complexity, and
munificence moderate general positive
relationship.
30. Husted and CSP CFP Types of approaches towards CSR A trade-off relationship exists between CSP
Salazar (2006) eCFP. However, strategic approach will catch
greater financial benefits.
31. Halme and Laurila (2009) CRP CFP Types of CR strategies CSP-CFP have positive relationship but
implementation strategy moderates this
relationship.
32. Van Beurden and CSP CFP Firm size, Industry R&D, Risk Basic CSP-CFP positive relationship is
Gossling (2008) moderated by Firm size, Industry, R&D, Risk.
33. Aguinis and CSP Organizational Institutional, Organizational Individual-level Literature on CSP-CFP relationship is dispersed
Glavas (2012) outcome factors and many factors moderate this relationship

References between corporate social and financial performance. Rev. Gest. Resour. Hum. 57,
18.
an, Y., Kuzey, C., Acar, M.F., Açıkgo
€z, A., 2016. The relationships between corporate Andersen, M.L., Dejoy, J.S., 2011. Corporate social and financial performance: the
Ag
role of size, industry, risk, R&D and advertising expenses as control variables.
social responsibility, environmental supplier development, and firm perfor-
Bus. Soc. Rev. 116, 237e256.
mance. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1872e1881.
Aragon-Correa, J.A., Sharma, S., 2003. A contingent resource-based view of proac-
Aguinis, H., Glavas, A., 2012. What we know and don't know about corporate social
tive corporate environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28, 71e88.
responsibility: a review and research agenda. J. Manag. 38, 932e968.
Bai, X., Chang, J., 2015. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: the
Allouche, J., Laroche, P., 2005. A meta-analytical investigation of the relationship
1072 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073
mediating role of marketing competence and the moderating role of market
environment. Asia-Pacific J. Manag. 32, 505e530.
Baird, P., Geylani, P., Roberts, J., 2012. Corporate social and financial performance re-
examined: industry effects in a linear mixed model analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 109,
367e388.
Barnett, M.L., 2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial
returns to corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 794e816.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17,
99e120.
Bowman, C., Ambrosini, V., 2003. How the resource-based and the dynamic capa-
bility views of the firm inform corporate-level strategy. Br. J. Manag. 14,
289e303.
Brammer, S., Millington, A., 2008. Does it pay to be different? an analysis of the
relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic
Manag. J. 29, 325e1343.
Branco, M.C., Rodrigues, L.L., 2006. Corporate social responsibility and resource-
based perspectives. J. Bus. Ethics 69, 111e132.
Buchko, A.A., 1994. Conceptualization and measurement of environmental uncer-
tainty: an assessment of the miles and snow perceived environmental uncer-
tainty scale. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 410e425.
Busch, T., Hoffmann, V.H., 2011. How hot is your bottom line? Linking carbon and
financial performance. Bus. Soc. 50, 233e265.
Carroll, A.B., 2000. A commentary and an overview of key questions on corporate
social performance measurement. Bus. Soc. 39, 466e478.
Carroll, A.B., Shabana, K.M., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility:
a review of concepts, research and practice. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 85e105.
Clarkson, M.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 92e117.
Cochran, P.L., Wood, R.A., 1984. Corporate social responsibility and financial per-
formance. Acad. Manag. J. 27, 42e56.
Cruz, J.M., 2013. Modeling the relationship of globalized supply chains and corpo-
rate social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 73e85.
Deeds, D.L., Decarolis, D.M., 1999. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational
knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotech-
nology industry. Strategic Manag. J. 20 (10). Version of Record online: 28 SEP
1999.
Dixon-Fowler, H.R., Slater, D.J., Johnson, J.L., Ellstrand, A.E., Romi, A.M., 2013. Beyond
“does it pay to be green?” A meta-analysis of moderators of the CEPeCFP
relationship. J. Bus. Ethics 112, 353e366.
Doty, D.A., Click, W.H., Huber, C.P., 1993. Fit, equifinality, and organizational effec-
tiveness: a west of two configurational theories. Acad. Manag. J. 36, 1196e1250.
Elsayed, K., Paton, D., 2005. The impact of environmental performance on firm
performance: static and dynamic panel data evidence. Struct. Change Econ.
Dyn. 16, 395e412.
Flammer, C., 2015. Does product market competition foster corporate social re-
sponsibility? Evidence from trade liberalization. Strategic Manag. J. 36 (10),
1469e1485. Version of Record online: 22 AUG 2014.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Stakeholder Management: Framework and Philosophy. Pitman,
Mansfield, MA.
Galbreath, J., Shum, P., 2012. Do customer satisfaction and reputation mediate the
CSReFP link? Evidence from Australia. Aust. J. Manag. 37, 211e229.
Gallardo-Va zquez, D., Sanchez-Hernandez, M.I., 2014. Measuring corporate social
responsibility for competitive success at a regional level. J. Clean. Prod. 72, 14e22.
Gerdin, J., Greve, J., 2004. Forms of contingency fit in management accounting
research: a critical review. Account. Organ. Soc. 29, 303e326.
Gilley, K.M., Worrell, D.L., Davidson Iii, W.N., El-Jelly, A., 2000. Corporate environ-
mental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: the differential effects of
process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. J. Manag. 26,
1199e1216.
Godfrey, P.C., Hatch, N.W., 2007. Researching corporate social responsibility: an
agenda for the 21st century. J. Bus. Ethics. 70, 87e98.
Goll, I., Rasheed, A.A., 2004. The moderating effect of environmental munificence
and dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility
and firm performance. J. Bus. Ethics 49, 41e54.
Graves, S.B., Waddock, S.A., 1999. A look at the financial-social performance nexus
when quality of management is held constant. Int. J. Value-Based Manag. 12,
87e99.
Griffin, J.J., Mahon, J.F., 1997. The corporate social performance and corporate
financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Bus.
Soc. 36, 5e31.
Halme, M., Laurila, J., 2009. Philanthropy, integration or innovation? Exploring the
financial and societal outcomes of different types of corporate responsibility.
J. Bus. Ethics 84, 325e339.
Hitt, M., Ireland, R.D., Hoskisson, R., 2012. Strategic Management Cases: Competi-
tiveness and Globalization. Cengage Learning.
Hull, C.E., Rothenberg, S., 2008. Firm performance: the interactions of corporate
social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic
Manag. J. 29, 781e789.
Husted, B.W., 2000. A contingency theory of corporate social performance. Bus. Soc.
39, 24e48.
Husted, B.W., Salazar, J.D.J., 2006. Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits
and social performance. J. Manag. Stud. 43, 75e91.
Jayachandran, S., Kalaignanam, K., Eilert, M., 2013. Product and environmental social
performance: varying effect on firm performance. Strategic Manag. J. 34,1255e1264.
Jiang, W., Wong, J.K., 2015. Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
in the construction industry: a study of China. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.093.
Kang, Y.C., Wood, D.J., 1995. Before-profit corporate social responsibility: turning
the economic paradigm upside-down. In: Nigh, D., Collins, D. (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the International Association for Business and Society. IABS, Vienna,
Austria, pp. 408e418.
Khwaja, M.A., 2012. Environmental Challenges and Constraints to Policy Issues for
Sustainable Industrial Development in Pakistan. Environment, Trade and
Governance for Sustainable Development.
Kim, Y., Statman, M., 2012. Do corporations invest enough in environmental re-
sponsibility? J. Bus. Ethics 105, 115e129.
Kitchenham, B., Charters, S., 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Litera-
ture Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE-2007e01.
Software Eng. Group, Keele Univ. and Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of
Durham, UK.
Klassen, R.D., McLaughlin, C.P., 1996. The impact of environmental management on
firm performance. Manag. Sci. 42, 1199e1214.
Kurapatskie, B., Darnall, N., 2013. Which corporate sustainability activities are
associated with greater financial payoffs? Bus. Strategy Environ. 22, 49e61.
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex orga-
nizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1e47.
Lee, S., Singal, M., Kang, K.H., 2013. The corporate social responsibilityefinancial
performance link in the US restaurant industry: do economic conditions mat-
ter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 32, 2e10.
Lee, K.H., Cin, B.C., Lee, E.Y., 2016. Environmental responsibility and firm perfor-
mance: the application of an environmental, social and governance model. Bus.
Strategy Environ. 25, 40e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1855. Published on-
line 19 May 2014.
Lioui, A., Sharma, Z., 2012. Environmental corporate social responsibility and
financial performance: disentangling direct and indirect effects. Ecol. Econ. 78,
100e111.
Lockett, A., Moon, J., Visser, W., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in manage-
ment research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. J. Manag. Stud.
43, 115e136.
Lu, Y., Abeysekera, I., 2014. Stakeholders' power, corporate characteristics, and social
and environmental disclosure: evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 64, 426e436.
Lu, W., Chau, K.W., Wang, H., Pan, W., 2014. A decade's debate on the nexus between
corporate social and corporate financial performance: a critical review of
empirical studies 2002e2011. J. Clean. Prod. 79, 195e206.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 2000. Research notes and communications. Corporate
social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?
Strategic Manag. J. 21, 603e609.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26, 117e127.
Margolis, J.D., Walsh, J.P., 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives
by business. Adm. Sci. Q. 48, 268e305.
McGahan, A.M., Porter, M.E., 1997. How Much Does Industry Matter, Really?.
Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D., Coleman, H.J., 1978. Organizational strategy,
structure, and process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 3, 546e562.
Miller, D., Shamsie, J., 1999. Strategic responses to three kinds of uncertainty:
product line simplicity at the Hollywood film studios. J. Manag. 25, 97e116.
Miller, C.C., Washburn, N.T., Glick, W.H., 2013. Perspectivedthe myth of firm per-
formance. Organ. Sci. 24, 948e964.
Misangyi, V.F., Elms, H., Greckhamer, T., Lepine, J.A., 2006. A new perspective on a
fundamental debate: a multilevel approach to industry, corporate, and business
unit effects. Strategic Manag. J. 27, 571e590.

Ortas, E., Alvarez, I., Jaussaud, J., Garayar, A., 2015. The impact of institutional and
social context on corporate environmental, social and governance performance
of companies committed to voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives.
J. Clean. Prod. 108, 673e684.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., Rynes, S.L., 2003. Corporate social and financial perfor-
mance: a meta-analysis. Organ. Stud. 24, 403e441.
Peng, C.W., Yang, M.L., 2014. The effect of corporate social performance on financial
performance: the moderating effect of ownership concentration. J. Bus. Ethics
123, 171e182.
Pino, G., Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Peluso, A.M., 2016. The influence of corporate
social responsibility on consumers' attitudes and intentions toward genetically
modified foods: evidence from Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2861e2869.
Powell, T.C., 1996. Research notes and communications. How much does industry
matter? an alternative empirical test. Strategic Manag. J. 17, 323e334.
Ran€angen, H., Zobel, T., 2014. Revisiting the ‘how’of corporate social responsibility
in extractive industries and forestry. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 299e312.
Reverte, C., Gomez-Melero, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., 2016. The influence of corpo-
rate social responsibility practices on organizational performance: evidence
from Eco-Responsible Spanish firms. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2870e2884.
Rowe, W.G., Morrow, J.L., 1999. A note on the dimensionality of the firm financial
performance construct using accounting, market and subjective measures. Can.
J. Adm. Sci. 16, 58e70.
Rowley, T., Berman, S., 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance.
Bus. Soc. 39, 397e418.
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 perfor-
mance and financial performance: a stakeholder theory perspective. J. Bus.
Ethics 32 (2), 143e156.
Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate
 M. Javed et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 133 (2016) 1062e1073
environmental performance and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 40, 534e559.
Schreck, P., 2011. Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility:
new evidence and analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 103, 167e188.
Schoemaker, P.J., Amit, R., 1993. Investment in Strategic Assets: Industry and Firm-
level Perspectives. Wharton School, SEI Center for Advanced Studies in
Management.
Servaes, H., Tamayo, A., 2013. The impact of corporate social responsibility on firm
value: the role of customer awareness. Manag. Sci. 59, 1045e1061.
Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J., Palmer, T.B., Hult, G.T.M., 2007. Firm, strategic group, and
industry influences on performance. Strategic Manag. J. 28, 147e167.
Short, J.C., McKenny, A.F., Ketchen, D.J., Snow, C.C., Hult, G.T.M., 2015. An Empirical
Examination of Firm, Industry, and Temporal Effects on Corporate Social Per-
formance. Business & Society, 0007650315574848.
Staples, M., Niazi, M., 2007. Experiences using systematic review guidelines. J. Syst.
Softw. 80, 1425e1437.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br.
J. Manag. 14, 207e222.
Tang, Z., Hull, C.E., Rothenberg, S., 2012. How corporate social responsibility
engagement strategy moderates the CSRefinancial performance relationship.
J. Manag. Stud. 49, 1274e1303.
Ullmann, A.A., 1985. Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the re-
lationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic perfor-
mance of US firms. Acad. Manag. Rev. 10, 540e557.
Valiente, J.M.A., Ayerbe, C.G., Figueras, M.S., 2012. Social responsibility practices and
evaluation of corporate social performance. J. Clean. Prod. 35, 25e38.
Van Beurden, P., Go €ssling, T., 2008. The worth of valuesea literature review on the
1073
relation between corporate social and financial performance. J. Bus. Ethics 82
(2), 407e424.
Van der Laan, G., Van Ees, H., Van Witteloostuijn, A., 2008. Corporate social and
financial performance: an extended stakeholder theory, and empirical test with
accounting measures. J. Bus. Ethics 79, 299e310.
Waddock, S.A., Graves, S.B., 1997. The corporate social performance-financial per-
formance link. Strategic Manag. J. 18, 303e319.
Wagner, M., 2010. The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic
performance: a firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecol. Econ. 69,
1553e1560.
Wang, T., Bansal, P., 2012. Social responsibility in new ventures: profiting from a
long-term orientation. Strategic Manag. J. 33, 1135e1153.
Wang, H., Choi, J., 2013. A new look at the corporate socialefinancial performance
relationship the moderating roles of temporal and interdomain consistency in
corporate social performance. J. Manag. 39, 416e441.
Wang, H., Choi, J., Li, J., 2008. Too little or too much? Untangling the relationship
between corporate philanthropy and firm financial performance. Organ. Sci. 19,
143e159.
Wang, Q., Dou, J., Jia, S., 2015. A Meta-analytic Review of Corporate Social Re-
sponsibility and Corporate Financial Performance: the Moderating Effect of
Contextual Factors. Business & Society, 0007650315584317.
Waring, G.F., 1996. Industry Differences in the Persistence of Firm-specific Returns.
The American Economic Review, pp. 1253e1265.
Wood, D.J., 2000. Theory and integrity in business and society. Bus. Soc. 39,
359e378.
Wu, M.L., 2006. Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and
firm size: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Acad. Bus. 8, 163e171.