Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility

By Michael L. Barnett. 2005

2,110 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Information Systems, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e3630f566802c22ef1a07076880b1b0d24a322e9

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Information Systems

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Value-Enhancing Capabilities of CSR: A Brief Review of Contemporary Literature (2014, background): “Barnett (2007) developed the construct of ‘‘stakeholder inﬂuence capacity’’ and offered an explanation as to how stakeholder inﬂuence capacity causes variations in the effects of CSR on ﬁrms’ economic performance across ﬁrms and time.”
The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility (2018, background): “Barnett and Salomon (2012) acknowledged the countervailing force of costs on returns to CSR and called for research on the efficiency by which firms are able to produce stakeholder favor through CSR.”
[Editorial] Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can't have your cake and eat it (2010, background): “Even though more recently some scholars have followed a more contingent approach to the business case for sustainability (Barnett, 2007; Rowley and Berman, 2000), the ultimate focus is still on the identifi cation of situations and strategies in which environmentally friendly and/or socially…”
The Harm of Symbolic Actions and Green-Washing: Corporate Actions and Communications on Environmental Performance and Their Financial Implications (2012, methodology): “…to move past one-size-fits-all prescriptions in our analysis of the relationship between environmental (or social) performance and financial performance, and to instead examine particular areas and contexts where financial benefits can be obtained (Barnett 2007; Brammer and Pavelin 2006).”
Green product quality, green corporate image, green customer satisfaction, and green customer loyalty (2010, methodology): “This study referred to the definitions of Oliver (1997), (2006), Bansal (2005), and Barnet (2007), and defined green customer satisfaction as the customer sensed that consumption fulfilled some need, goal, desire about environmental or green concerns and that this fulfillment was pleasurable.”
Under Positive Pressure (2016, background): “In response to CSR rankings, companies have begun enforcing CSR activities to achieve a better position (Adam & Shavit, 2008; Fassin & Van Rossem, 2009) and thereby attract consumers who prefer to purchase from the most socially responsible firms (Barnett, 2007).”
Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Performance: The Mediating Role of Productivity (2016, background): “Adopting a contingency perspective (Barnett 2007), we take our findings one step further.”
The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand Performance: The Mediating Effect of Industrial Brand Equity and Corporate Reputation (2010, background): “From the revenue side, improved stakeholder relationships bring in new customers as well as new investment opportunities, enabling a firm to charge premium prices (Barnett, 2008).”