Breaking down the Wall of Codes: Evaluating Non-Financial Performance Measurement

By Aaron K. Chatterji, D. Levine. 2005

314 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5734451b536c74b35cc7490beb06d9f44a755220

How researchers see this paper

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

In Marketing

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Should corporate social reporting be voluntary or mandatory? Evidence from the banking sector in France and the United States (2010, background): “Furthermore, opponents of rating-agency-driven reporting note that its usefulness may be limited due to the propensity to reduce these efforts to mere check-listing (Ryan and Sands, 2004) and that the methodology is often problematic (Chatterji and Levine, 2006).”
Triangulating Environmental Performance: What Do Corporate Social Responsibility Ratings Really Capture? (2013, background): “Yet the proprietary nature of rating methodologies often precludes full transparency; as a consequence, little is known about the specifics behind each rating scheme (Chatterji & Levine, 2006; Delmas & Blass, 2010).”
Corporate Social Performance Disoriented: Saving the Lost Paradigm? (2010, background): “Our intention is not to critique the KLD measures (or any other measures), given that this debate has been played out elsewhere (e.g., Chatterji & Levine, 2006; Entine, 2003; Schepers & Sethi, 2003; Waddock, 2003), and there is nothing wrong with the use of proxies to capture a complex empirical…”
Corporate Social Responsibility, Noise, and Stock Market Volatility (2012, background): “In fact, the available evidence suggests that false market signaling is particularly likely if organizational phenomena are intangible and relatively difficult to measure or sanction (Chatterji & Levine, 2006; Laufer, 2003).”
The Sociology of Finance (2011, background): “Various codes now purport to measure the “social performance” of firms (Chatterji & Levine 2006), although their validity is sometimes questionable (Chatterji et al. 2009).”
Balanced scorecard based performance measurement of European airlines using a hybrid multicriteria decision making approach under the fuzzy environment (2017, background): “For instance, communication levels within companies give significant information related to the companies, but are impossible to achieve using only financial reports (Chatterji and Levine, 2006).”
The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World – A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy (2011, unknown): “Scholars have started to examine the development of “soft law” regimes within supply chains (Egels-Zandén 2007) as well as their performance (Chatterji and Levine 2006; Kolk and van Tulder 2002; Santoro 2003), credibility (Laufer 2003), and auditing challenges (Hess 2001).”
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability (2011, result): “In conjunction with other work (e.g., Chatterji & Levine, 2006; Chatterji, Levine, & Toffel, 2009; Orlitzky & Swanson, 2008), this important, measurement-oriented study points to critical limitations of widely used data sets in the study of CSR. Walls, Phan, and Berrone’s findings regarding the two…”
The Role of Collaboration in Achieving Corporate Social Responsibility Objectives (2009, background): “In short, involvement for member companies provides methods for managing different ethical responsibilities and increases the social impact of their activities.(45)”
Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance (2013, methodology): “We recommend instead that researchers examine each of the individual variables closely and include only those that best fit their theory (Chatterji & Levine, 2006) rather than relying on the five-factor measure simply because is has been used previously.”
Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles (2019, background): “This makes understanding what ESG rating agencies are measuring and making comparisons between them difficult [7,19,22,29].”