The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk

By Kais Bouslah, Lawrence Kryzanowski, Bouchra M'Zali. 2013

390 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16d349b843cbe760a9fa660dd1584242a131ce3e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Do employee-friendly firms invest more efficiently? Evidence from labor investment efficiency (2020, neutral): “Bouslah et al. (2013) argue that the aggregate CSR measure may confound the influence of individual CSR dimensions and therefore each individual CSR dimension should be considered separately.”
Why Do Countries Matter so Much in Corporate Social Performance (2016, positive): “The firm chooses the level of CSP to maximize the following net profit function: , 0.5 (1) Taking the first-order condition, we can derive the optimal level of CSP, denoted by CSP*, as: 9 ∗ 1 ∗ (2) where 1 ∗ is the optimal amount of CSP circumvented, which depends both on the benefit of improving ”
Valuation effects of corporate social responsibility (2015, background): “Bouslah, Kryzanowski, and M’Zali (2013) find that the riskiness of the firm increases as concerns about its employees, diversity and corporate governance increase.”
Measuring the level and risk of corporate responsibility – An empirical comparison of different ESG rating approaches (2015, background): “Conversely, Bouslah et al (2013) come to the conclusion that the CSP of US firms in the observation period of 1991–2007 mainly impacts idiosyncratic risk.”
Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Debt Maturity (2015, background): “1 Bouslah et al.(2013) note that a large number of institutional investors worldwide have signed the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) agreement, the main objective of which is to integrate environmental, social and”
Corporate Social Responsibility and Investment Efficiency (2016, neutral): “Its rating is considered as a standard in CSR and has been widely used by researchers (e.g. Bae et al. 2011; Bouslah et al. 2013; Hillman and Keim 2001; Krüger 2015; Servaes and Tamayo 2013; Sharfman 1996).”
Operational Productivity, Corporate Social Performance, Financial Performance, and Risk in Manufacturing Firms (2016, background): “While some focus on the risk performance of a portfolio of stocks (e.g., Lee and Faff 2009, Boutin-Dufresne and Savaria 2004), other studies at the ﬁrm-level present ﬁndings on how individual dimensions of CSP differentially inﬂuence risks (Bouslah et al. 2013).”
CSR Strategies in Response to Competitive Pressures (2018, result): “It also would contradict Bouslah et al.’s (2013) findings that environmental strengths mitigate firm risk.”
Corporate social responsibility and bank risk (2019, neutral): “In economically weaker times, CSR-expenses are even increased to ensure shareholder support or as a justification for a lower FP (Bouslah et al. (2013)). The underlying problem here is that CSR-activity is not associated with fundamental changes within the company (“Greenwashing”) and CSR-costs are ”