Purpose: The authors aim to develop and test a theory of dual responsibility to explain the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm performance. The authors empirically examine whether firms that meet their economic and social responsibilities simultaneously perform better than firms that fail to do so. In doing so, the authors theoretically extend and empirically test Barney's (2018) call to incorporate the stakeholder perspective with resource-based view (RBV). The authors also examine the moderating effects of firm status on this relationship.Design/methodology/approach: The authors use a longitudinal panel sample of 137 S&P 500 firms and data for the years between 2004 and 2013 collected from multiple data sources. The authors use stochastic frontiers analysis to measure firm capabilities in the areas of R&D, operations and marketing. These capability measures are then used along with CSR measures and a measure of firm status to test the hypotheses of this study. The authors also conducted several robustness checks and various supplementary analyses using different econometrics techniques and different operationalizations of the key variables of interests.Findings: The results show that firm CSR is positively related to firm performance and that the effect of CSR on performance is stronger for firms with higher levels of R&D capability and operational capability. The authors also find support for the three-way interaction between CSR, economic responsibility and firm status, suggesting that firms high in both social and economic responsibilities and status will enjoy the highest levels of performance.Research limitations/implications: The findings of this study are based on large, publicly listed firms in North America. Therefore, their generalizability to other contexts and other types of firms require additional research. The reliance on KLD measures is also a limitation, especially because they have not reported CSR ratings after 2013.Practical implications: For practicing managers, the main implication of this study is that an optimal balance between market and nonmarket strategies is key for superior performance.Social implications: The continued debate regarding the firm's purpose can be understood by focusing equally on the two main responsibilities of firms: nonsocial responsibility and social responsibility toward all stakeholders.Originality/value: The study answers the call to incorporate stakeholder theory into the RBV of the firm by highlighting the critical role of firm capabilities in the relationship between CSR and performance. The study also highlights the role that firm status plays in the relationship between market and nonmarket strategies and firm performance.

We investigate the relationship between CEO narcissism and corporate social responsibility (CSR). We suggest an alternative to the current assumption of a linear relationship between CEO narcissism and CSR. Instead, we propose an inverted U relationship between the two. Although narcissistic CEOs may engage in CSR, we argue that highly narcissistic CEOs may be drawn to actions that would garner greater attention and they may be less inclined to engage in CSR. Based on a sample of Fortune 500 firms during the period 2006–2013, we find support for an inverted U relationship and support for our arguments that CEO power moderates the relationship between CEO narcissism and CSR.

Purpose: The purpose of the current study is to revisit the relationship between CSR and firm market performance. The authors examine whether a gap between the firm's internal and external CSR moderates the CSR-firm market performance relationship. Additionally, the authors propose that the moderating effect of the CSR gap on this relationship is mediated by firm visibility.Design/methodology/approach: The initial sample is the Fortune 500 firms during the years 2004–2013. The final panel data sample consisted of 1,300 firms and 6,128 observations from 2004 to 2013. The authors obtained data from five different sources: Compustat North America Fundamental Annual, GMI Ratings, Execucomp, IBES and KLD Stats.Findings: The results of this research find evidence that both internal CSR and external CSR were positively related to firm market performance, but that the relationship was stronger for firms with equal emphasis on external and internal CSR activities. Furthermore, the negative moderating effect of the CSR gap was mediated by the firm visibility.Originality/value: The findings of the study advance our understanding of the CSR-FP relationship. First, the theoretical arguments and the empirical evidence highlight that the CSR-FP relationship exists and that its magnitude is contingent upon the gap between internal and external CSR investments. Second, the authors enhanced theoretical understanding of how and why CSR relates to firm performance by exploring firm visibility as a mediator. Specifically, the authors introduced firm visibility as a mechanism which explains the effect of the interaction of overall CSR with the CSR gap on firm performance.

Purpose: In light of the conflict between scholarly findings supporting corporate social responsibility’s positive impact on corporate financial performance (CFP) versus findings showing negative impact on CFP, the academic literature has reoriented toward determining the contingency conditions that affect the underlying relationships. This paper aims to investigate two potential contingency factors, the chief executive officer’s (CEO) corporate social responsibility (CSR) expertise and board members’ CSR expertise. Design/methodology/approach: This paper uses an unbalanced panel of archival data of 168 firms from the S&P 500 index for the period 2006–2013. The analytic model is estimated using the feasible generalized least squares regression method with heteroscedasticity and panel-specific AR1 autocorrelation. Findings: The findings reinforce the perspective that CSR positively affects the firm’s financial performance. The authors find that firms realize optimal results from their CSR investments when both the board and the CEO have greater CSR expertise. In other words, both, CEO CSR expertise and board CSR expertise positively impact the CSR–CFP relationship. Research limitations/implications: The findings of this study advance the literature in three important areas, namely, the social responsibility–financial responsibility relationship, the governance literature and upper echelons theory. First, the theoretical arguments and the empirical evidence highlight that CSR–CFP relationship is at least partly contingent upon the CEO’s and board members’ CSR expertise. Second, this study introduces two important variables: the CEO and board’s CSR experience as proxies for their CSR expertise. Future researchers may consider decomposing the various components of CSR to study the differential impact of each component on financial performance. Practical implications: First, this study finds that while the CEO CSR expertise may be of value for the firm, such value can only be realized under a capable and effective board that has adequate knowledge in the field of CSR. Second, this study shows that the best-case scenario for firms occurs when both its board members and CEO have had greater prior CSR involvement that contributed to their knowledge inventory and skills. Greater knowledge and skills enhance the quality of the decisions that comprise the firm’s CSR strategy. Originality/value: While it seems intuitive that prior CSR knowledge and expertise should lead to more and better CSR initiatives, there are few if any studies that empirically examine the effects of this premise on a firm’s financial performance. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study appears to be the first that directly tests the relationship between executives’ CSR experience and firm performance.

This research aims to examine how the prior experiences of the chief executive officer (CEO) and board influence the focal firm’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. Further, the present study examines how CEO overconfidence influences the diffusion of CSR activities. The authors theorize that overconfident CEOs are influenced more by the corporate strategies they experienced on other boards and less by the corporate strategies experienced by other directors. Through longitudinal analyses of the CSR profiles a sample of S&P 500 companies for the period 2006-2013, the study shows that CEO and board prior CSR experience are positively related to the firm’s current CSR activities. The authors find a significant positive moderating effect of CEO overconfidence on the relationship between CEO prior CSR and the focal firm’s CSR. The theory and results highlight how CEO and board prior CSR exposure may influence the focal firm’s stances toward CSR and that CEO overconfidence may have differential effects on these relationships.