Does Firm Size Confound the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance?
Author: Marc Orlitzky
Source: Journal of Business Ethics 33: 167–180, 2001.
ABSTRACT.
There has been some theoretical and empirical debate that the positive relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and firm financial performance (FFP) is spurious and in fact caused by a third factor, namely large firm size. This study examines this question by integrating three metaanalyses of more than two decades of research on (1) CSP and FFP, (2) firm size and CSP, and (3) firm size and FFP into one path-analytic model. The present study does not confirm size as a third factor which would confound the relationship between CSP and FFP. That is, even if firm size is controlled for across studies (comprising, on average, over 15 000 observations), CSP and FFP remain positively correlated, showing a “true-score” corrected path coefficient p of 0.37.
這文章特殊之處在於使用後設-統合分析(Meta-Analysis)
如何閱讀統合分析（Meta-analysis）的論文
Meta-analysis
The path model’s causal relations
Modern stakeholder theory, transaction cost economics, agency theory, and the resource based view of the firm can be used as theoretical explanations for a positive relationship between CSP and FFP.
Although the theoretical explanations (with CSP as a predictor of FFP) will not be reviewed here, it should be noted that FFP might also predict CSP positively (“slack resources theory”; Waddock and Graves , 1997). The theoretically possible, and empirically supported, bidirectional causality between CSP and FFP (Orlitzky, 1998; Waddock and Graves, 1997)
At the same time, firm size could also be positively related to FFP because firm size may lead to net economies of scale in manufacturing operations (Thompson, 1967), greater control over external stakeholders and resources (Aldrich and Pfeffer, 1976; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978), and increased promotional opportunities resulting in the attraction and retention of better employees (Mueller, 1969; Stanford, 1980; Williamson, 1975). For all these reasons, firm size may be a positive predictor of FFP (Gooding and Wagner, 1985; see also Figure 1).
要考慮不同研究之間的抽樣誤差、測量誤差，才能把不同的研究成果統合在一且
Results
As Table II shows, the 41 studies aggregated for the size-CSP meta-analysis had a mean observed correlation of 0.06 and a corrected mean correlation (ρ) of 0.11. The considered study artifacts accounted for 32% of observed variance, suggesting that at least one other (so far unknown) variable might moderate the relationship between firm size and CSP.
我猜這個調節變數 或許所謂是老闆的企業社會責任價值觀
The three meta-analyses formed the foundation for the path analyses. The path p1 between size and CSP is based on the present CSP-size findings (presented in Table II). Path p2 (size-FFP) is based on Gooding and Wagner’s (1985) mean observed correlation of 0.027 (with an observed variance of 0.0684). Finally, path p3 between CSP and FFP is based on the metaanalysis conducted by Orlitzky (1998).
Individual-link and fit analyses suggest that organizational size has no significant paths to CSP or FFP (Figure 2). The only path that cannot be dropped in this three-variable model is from CSP to FFP (or vice versa). Furthermore, the corrected path coefficient p3 of 0.37 between CSP and FFP (i.e., p3 corrected for sampling error and unreliability) remained stable across all possible modifications of the path model, with alternate paths (p1 and p2) dropped (not shown).
Moreover, the path-analytic results are supported by the analysis of the three statistical conditions that have to exist to answer the research question in the affirmative. First, across 41 studies with a total N of 6889, firm size and CSP are correlated to only a minor extent (robs = 0.06; t = 0.38; ns.). Second, CSP and FFP are significantly positively correlated (robs = 0.18; t = 3.58; significant at α = 0.0005). Also, the beta coefficient between CSP and FFP, as the only two variables in the model, is statistically significant (t = 3.515; p = 0.005). And finally, the corrected path coefficient p3 remains significant (at a probability level of p = 0.01) after the nonsignificant relationship (multiple-regression beta = 0.0162; p = 0.83) between firm size and FFP is added (and controlled for). Because of these results, based on an average total sample size of N = 15 241 (average k of 166 correlations meta-analyzed), we fail to conclude that firm size confounds the relationship between CSP and FFP. This finding is reassuring in that the positive CSP-FFP relationship appears to be generalizable regardless of firm size.
就個人的猜想，三者Firm Size, CSP&FFP三者之間，只具備相關性，不具備因果關係
就解釋Firm Size與財務績效FFP之間，個人認為SCP理論還比較具有解釋力：是成本導向的大公司(鴻海)還是niche的小公司，就財務績效而言，一個營收高/毛利率低，另外一個營收小但毛利率高；剛好是兩個極端，不應該拿水果跟魚肉比。而如果是同樣的產品與產業，那麼自然是大者恆大，市佔率越高者的公司規規和營收越大。
就企業社會表現CSP和財務績效FFP之間，兩者也是相關性不是因果關係：需多學者一直把CSP企業社會責任當成因，來解釋重視企業社會澤任的企業會有較佳的財務表現；當然也可以顛倒反過詮釋=>是企業錢賺夠了，才會行有餘力重視企業社會責任；而過程中，越大的公司越容易得到政府機關與新聞媒體的注意。
沒有留言:
張貼留言