外文翻譯--企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)重新建立的“良性循環(huán)”

1、<p>　　2080單詞，4238漢字</p><p>　　Source: Edward Nelling, Elizabeth Webb,2009.“Corporate social responsibility and ?nancial performance: the ‘‘virtuous circle’’ revisited”. Review of Quantitative Finance and

2、 Accounting,vol.32,no.2,pp.197–209.</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Corporate social responsibility and ?nancial</p><p>　　performance: the ‘‘virtuous circle’’ revisited<

3、/p><p>　　We examine the causal relation between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and ?nancial performance. Consistent with past studies, we ?nd that the two variables appear to be related when we use tradi

4、tional statistical techniques. However, using a time series ?xed effects approach, we ?nd that the relation between CSR and ?nancial performance is much weaker than previously thought. We also ?nd little evidence of caus

5、ality between ?nancial performance and narrower measures of social performance </p><p>　　The area of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a notable topic both in the business and academic press.

6、McWilliams and Siegel (2001) de?ne CSR as ‘‘a(chǎn)ctions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the ?rm and that which is required by law,’’. Examples of CSR include support of local businesses or ch

7、arities, developing recycling programs, and promoting minority employment. Though these activities certainly result in societal bene?ts, opinions differ as to whe</p><p>　　CSR has attracted the attention of

8、mutual fund investors, including TIAA CREF, and a number of funds use CSR as a screening device for investment selection. However, any bene?ts investors derive from including socially responsible ?rms in their portfolios

9、 do not appear to be in form of superior returns. Bello (2005) matches socially responsible mutual funds to conventional funds in the late 1990s and ?nds no signi?cant difference in long-run investment performance or por

10、tfolio diversi?cation bet</p><p>　　Academic research has examined the causal relation between CSR and ?nancial performance—what is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘virtuous circle’’—to determine if‘‘doing good

11、’’ socially leads to ‘‘doing well’’ ?nancially, and whether ?rms exhibiting superior ?nancial performance devote more resources to social activities. Why should a‘‘virtuous circle’’ exist? Waddock and Graves (1997) sugge

12、st that positive stakeholder relationships can reduce the likelihood of dif?culty when dealing with groups s</p><p>　　The empirical evidence suggests that a virtuous circle exists. Waddock and Graves (1997)

13、and Hillman and Keim (2001) ?nd that increased CSR leads to enhanced ?nancial performance and vice versa. McGuire et al. (1988) ?nd that prior year’s stock returns and accounting-based performance measures are related to

14、 current measures of CSR, but that a past record of good social performance does not affect the current ?nancial performance of a ?rm.</p><p>　　Despite the extensive body of research on CSR and ?nancial perf

15、ormance, we believe that additional analysis is warranted. In this study, we use alternative statistical techniques to provide new insights on the causal relationship between ?rm performance and CSR. The studies cited ab

16、ove and others on the topic have typically employed ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions with 1-year lagged values of one variable (e.g., CSR) used as determinants of the other (e.g., ROA). Indeed, we also ?nd tha<

17、;/p><p>　　This study contributes to the literature on CSR in several ways. We use a more comprehensive time-series of CSR data relative to past studies. Also, previous research analyzing the link between CSR an

18、d ?nancial performance does not account for possible persistence or unobservable characteristics that may play a role in the level of CSR activity undertaken by a ?rm. We examine these important considerations by using G

19、ranger causality and controlling for ?rm ?xed-effects in our time series. We als</p><p>　　To measure CSR, we use the KLD Socrates Database. This database rates companies on the various degrees of social resp

20、onsibility including community participation, diversity, employee interests, environmental considerations, and shareholder interests. This index is superior to alternative measures of CSR because it is compiled by an ind

21、ependent rating service that focuses on a wide range of ?rms over a broad spectrum of CSR screens, whereas alternative measures of CSR focus on a small sample of ?</p><p>　　We calculate a weighted average of

22、 the overall index to represent each ?rm’s aggregate level of CSR, using the weights developed by Waddock and Graves (1997). We use these weights to facilitate comparison of results, and to highlight the effect of a diff

23、erent estimation methodology on statistical inferences. Waddock and Graves calculate weights using expert panel evaluations on the relative importance of each CSR attribute. Weightings are as follows: Employee relations:

24、 0.168; Product: 0.154; Co</p><p>　　Previous studies of the relationship between ?nancial performance and social responsibility have failed to control for unobservable characteristics in panel data that diff

25、er between ?rms but are constant over time. For example, variables such as corporate culture or managerial in?uence may be signi?cant determinants of CSR activity. Using a ?xed effects regression model allows us to estim

26、ate the effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable while controlling for the effect of un</p><p>　　The regression results suggest a link between CSR and ?nancial performance. An interesti

27、ng question arises as to the nature of causality, if any, between doing ‘‘good’’ through greater CSR activity and doing ‘‘well’’ ?nancially. Does good ?nancial performance cause a ?rm to become more socially responsible,

28、 or does a high level of CSR lead to subsequent superior ?nancial performance? Good ?nancial performance may result in more resources being available for the pursuit of CSR goals. A high level</p><p>　　Befor

29、e discussing our results, a comment on model speci?cation is in order. The typical problem that arises in OLS regression when lagged dependent variables are included as regressors is serial correlation in the error term,

30、 rendering the parameter estimates biased and inconsistent. We test for this using the method of Maddala (1971) and ?nd that serial correlation is not a problem in our model.</p><p>　　Harrison and Freeman (1

31、999) note that research on CSR has over time focused more on speci?c measures of social responsibility, and less on the aggregate social performance measure. For instance, Hillman and Keim (2001) separate social performa

32、nce into two components: stakeholder management and social issue participation. Primary stakeholders include shareholders, employees, and customers, and they ?nd that this measure is directly related to shareholder value

33、 creation. However, social issue part</p><p>　　We test the relationship between ?nancial performance and speci?c aspects of CSR using individual factors in the KLD database rather than the weighted average C

34、SR score. The KLD database rates companies on eight different screens of social responsibility. Each screen focuses on ‘‘strengths’’ and ‘‘concerns’’ of a particular social indicator. We create separate ‘‘stakeholder man

35、agement’’ scores for community, diversity, employee relations, and environment by adding up the number of strengths list</p><p>　　A number of studies have examined the relationship between CSR and ?nancial p

36、erformance, and most have found that the two characteristics are directly related. In this paper, we analyze the existence and direction of causality between CSR and ?nancial performance by using a more comprehensive dat

37、a set and an improved statistical methodology.</p><p>　　We use the KLD index as the measure of CSR, and both return on assets and stock returns to assess ?nancial performance. First, we analyze causality usi

38、ng standard OLS regression analysis, similar to past research. Our results are consistent with the existing literature in that past ?nancial performance is signi?cant in explaining variability in CSR, and that CSR is sig

39、ni?cant in explaining variability in ?nancial performance.</p><p>　　However, when we introduce panel ?xed effects into the model, the results no longer suggest a strong relationship between CSR and ?nancial

40、performance. We further examine the link between CSR and ?nancial performance using Granger causality models. Results here again demonstrate the weakened evidence of a relationship between CSR and ?nancial performance. H

41、owever, there is some evidence that stock returns cause CSR performance. We then introduce both panel ?xed effects and Tobit models in the ca</p><p>　　In summary, CSR and ?nancial performance appear to be re

42、lated when using traditional OLS regression models. However, this ‘‘virtuous circle’’ is found to be much weaker when examined using a ?xed effects Granger causality approach. There is no evidence that CSR affects a ?rm’

43、s ?nancial performance, and the only aspect of CSR driven by stock market performance is employee relations. If socially responsible activities provide bene?ts to the ?rm, they appear to manifest themselves in forms unre

44、late</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)：重新建立的“良性循環(huán)”</p><p>　　通過研究企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)之間的因果關(guān)系，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)運(yùn)用傳統(tǒng)的統(tǒng)計(jì)技術(shù)時(shí)這兩個(gè)變量是相關(guān)的，并且與過去的研究結(jié)論一致。然而通過使用時(shí)間序列固定效應(yīng)的方法，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)之間的關(guān)系比之

45、前預(yù)想的更虛弱。我們也發(fā)現(xiàn)沒有跡象顯示財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效與重點(diǎn)在利益相關(guān)者管理上的采用狹隘措施的社會(huì)績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)之間存在因果關(guān)系。結(jié)果表明，強(qiáng)大的股票市場(chǎng)表現(xiàn)導(dǎo)致投資于企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任方面的公司更多地致力于員工關(guān)系，但是企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任活動(dòng)并沒有影響財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)。我們可以得出結(jié)論：企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任比財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效更能夠體現(xiàn)公司隱藏的特征。</p><p>　　無論是在商業(yè)還是學(xué)術(shù)出版物上，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任已成為一個(gè)值得關(guān)注的話題。麥克威廉姆斯和席格（2

46、001）定義企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任為“那些對(duì)社會(huì)長(zhǎng)期有利，超越企業(yè)利潤(rùn)的行為，這也正是法律所要求的”。企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的例子包括支持當(dāng)?shù)禺a(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)和慈善機(jī)構(gòu)，發(fā)展循環(huán)項(xiàng)目，和促進(jìn)少數(shù)名族人口就業(yè)問題。雖然這些活動(dòng)的結(jié)果肯定存在社會(huì)效益的，但是對(duì)于一個(gè)公司的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任是否能提高財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)是見仁見智的。例如，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任被認(rèn)為是“類似于化妝品治療”，而在財(cái)經(jīng)出版物上的一篇早期的文章則指出對(duì)于公司實(shí)踐企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任是具有經(jīng)濟(jì)優(yōu)勢(shì)的。</p>&l

47、t;p>　　企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任業(yè)績(jī)吸引了共同基金投資者們的注意，包括美國(guó)全美教師保險(xiǎn)及年金協(xié)會(huì)以及一些使用社會(huì)責(zé)任作為投資選擇的一個(gè)篩選工具的基金。然而，來自包括對(duì)社會(huì)負(fù)責(zé)任公司的投資組合中的任何利益都沒有表現(xiàn)出超額的投資回報(bào)的形式。貝洛（2005）測(cè)試了社會(huì)責(zé)任基金和上世紀(jì)90年代末期的傳統(tǒng)基金，發(fā)現(xiàn)在長(zhǎng)期投資業(yè)績(jī)上無顯著差異或者投資組合的多樣性。根據(jù)斯塔特曼（2000）的觀點(diǎn)，多米尼社會(huì)指數(shù)做到了標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)在1990至199

48、8年間的數(shù)據(jù)，并發(fā)現(xiàn)一些社會(huì)責(zé)任基金表現(xiàn)得比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾500指數(shù)和多米尼社會(huì)指數(shù)差，但是在同期內(nèi)表現(xiàn)并不遜于傳統(tǒng)的共同基金。</p><p>　　學(xué)術(shù)研究已經(jīng)檢驗(yàn)了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效之間的因果關(guān)系——它有時(shí)以“良性的循環(huán)”被提及——決定是否在社會(huì)責(zé)任方面做得好就會(huì)導(dǎo)致在財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)上表現(xiàn)得好，以及公司表現(xiàn)出卓越的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)后是否會(huì)增加在社會(huì)活動(dòng)上的投入?！傲夹匝h(huán)”為什么會(huì)存在呢？華道克和格雷烏斯（1997）認(rèn)為積極

49、的利益相關(guān)者的關(guān)系可以減少處理與員工、客戶和社會(huì)各界打交道的問題的可能性。此外，良好的社會(huì)業(yè)績(jī)與良好的管理實(shí)踐有一定的相關(guān)性，所以可能導(dǎo)致帶來強(qiáng)大的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)。例如，程孫儷等（2006）發(fā)現(xiàn)股東權(quán)利高度集中的公司比其他競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者更傾向于擁有一個(gè)較低的權(quán)益資本成本，這就支持了通過減少股東與管理層之間的代理問題來提高財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)的觀點(diǎn)。費(fèi)雷拉等（2008）發(fā)現(xiàn)大公司利益在長(zhǎng)期股票業(yè)績(jī)上伴隨著質(zhì)量管理的認(rèn)證。這表明在大公司中良好的管理實(shí)踐確實(shí)能提高公司

50、的底線。</p><p>　　經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)表明，確實(shí)存在一個(gè)良性循環(huán)。華道克和格雷烏斯（1997）以及希爾曼和凱姆（2001）發(fā)現(xiàn)社會(huì)責(zé)任的加強(qiáng)能帶動(dòng)財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)的增長(zhǎng)，反之亦然。麥奎爾等（1988）發(fā)現(xiàn)，前一年的股票回報(bào)率和會(huì)計(jì)為基礎(chǔ)的績(jī)效措施是關(guān)系到現(xiàn)行的社會(huì)責(zé)任措施的，但那是過去的良好社會(huì)表現(xiàn)的記錄，并不影響公司目前的財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效。</p><p>　　盡管存在廣泛而大量的有關(guān)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和財(cái)務(wù)

51、績(jī)效之間的研究，但我們?nèi)匀幌嘈蓬~外的分析是需要被保證的。在本研究中，我們使用替代統(tǒng)計(jì)方法應(yīng)用于提供新的關(guān)注點(diǎn)在公司的業(yè)績(jī)和社會(huì)責(zé)任兩者的因果聯(lián)系上。以上所提到的研究以及其他的話題已經(jīng)使用了具有代表性的普通最小二乘法，它根據(jù)一年內(nèi)回歸滯后測(cè)試值作為一個(gè)變量（如企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任），以用作其他變量（如資產(chǎn)收益率）的決定因素。事實(shí)上，我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的最小二乘法模型時(shí)，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效之間是有關(guān)聯(lián)的。然而，在時(shí)間序列固定效應(yīng)方法上以超過

52、2800家公司的年度觀察來看，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)兩者的關(guān)系比記錄在過去的研究上的要微弱些。我們也發(fā)現(xiàn)沒有跡象表明財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效和社會(huì)績(jī)效的狹隘措施之間存在因果聯(lián)系。總的來說，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)有微弱的證據(jù)表明，強(qiáng)烈的股票市場(chǎng)表現(xiàn)導(dǎo)致高水平的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，特別是在員工關(guān)系上。然而，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任活動(dòng)一般不會(huì)導(dǎo)致公司財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)的改變。</p><p>　　本研究從多方面對(duì)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任作出貢獻(xiàn)，相對(duì)于過去的研究，我們使用更全面的時(shí)間序列的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)

53、任數(shù)據(jù)。同時(shí)，以前的研究分析了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效之間的聯(lián)系，卻沒有對(duì)可能的持續(xù)性和未被發(fā)現(xiàn)的特征作出解釋，而這些有可能在公司正在進(jìn)行的社會(huì)責(zé)任活動(dòng)中起著重要的作用。我們通過使用格蘭杰因果關(guān)系和在時(shí)間序列里控制公司的固定影響來檢測(cè)這些重要的考慮因素。我們也使用托賓規(guī)格因果關(guān)系的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任模型區(qū)計(jì)算審查數(shù)據(jù)的性質(zhì)。最后，我們的技術(shù)參數(shù)也包括分析社會(huì)績(jī)效的狹隘措施，諸如公司如何對(duì)待員工，環(huán)境，社會(huì)等多樣性的問題。合適的統(tǒng)計(jì)方法的使用和對(duì)

54、企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任收益部分的檢查開闊了關(guān)于社會(huì)責(zé)任和財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效之間關(guān)系的視野。</p><p>　　衡量企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，我們使用KLD蘇格拉底的數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)。這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)認(rèn)為不同程度的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任包括社區(qū)參與、多樣性、員工利益，環(huán)境問題和股東利益。這個(gè)指標(biāo)優(yōu)于替代措施的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，因?yàn)樗怯瑟?dú)立的等級(jí)服務(wù)編制，聚焦于廣泛的社會(huì)責(zé)任屏幕下的大量的公司，而選擇方案的社會(huì)責(zé)任則聚焦于一個(gè)小樣本的公司或使用窄的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的屏幕。在每個(gè)

55、KLD數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)的屏幕上都對(duì)優(yōu)勢(shì)（正面價(jià)值觀）和關(guān)注點(diǎn)（負(fù)面值）進(jìn)行了總結(jié)。例如，社會(huì)屏幕是在優(yōu)勢(shì)和關(guān)注點(diǎn)的基礎(chǔ)上計(jì)算的，優(yōu)勢(shì)如慷慨捐贈(zèng)或支持在這個(gè)地區(qū)的教育，而關(guān)注點(diǎn)如投資爭(zhēng)議或者對(duì)社會(huì)消極的經(jīng)濟(jì)影響。</p><p>　　我們計(jì)算加權(quán)平均整體指數(shù)代表各公司企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的總體水平，利用維杜卡和格雷烏斯（1997）在權(quán)數(shù)上的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)。我們利用這些權(quán)值便于結(jié)果的對(duì)比，以突出不同的估計(jì)方法在統(tǒng)計(jì)推論上的效果不用。維杜卡和

56、格雷烏斯利用專家小組使用的相對(duì)重要性評(píng)價(jià)各企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的屬性來計(jì)算權(quán)數(shù)。權(quán)重如下：?jiǎn)T工關(guān)系：0.168；產(chǎn)品：0.154；社區(qū)關(guān)系：0.148；環(huán)境：0.142；婦女和少數(shù)民族的對(duì)待：0.136；核能：0.089；軍事合同：0.086；南非：0.076。我們樣本的延伸從1993年到2000年，包括超過600家美國(guó)公司的數(shù)據(jù)。我們?cè)u(píng)估財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)使用從數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)中的兩類數(shù)據(jù)：會(huì)計(jì)（資產(chǎn)收益率）和市場(chǎng)化（普通股票收益）。</p>&l

57、t;p>　　先前的關(guān)于財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效和社會(huì)責(zé)任之間的關(guān)系未能控制面板數(shù)據(jù)的特點(diǎn)，固定樣本數(shù)據(jù)在不同公司間是迥異的，但是它卻是常數(shù)。例如，一些變量，如企業(yè)文化和管理影響因素可能產(chǎn)生對(duì)企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的重大影響。使用固定效應(yīng)回歸模型當(dāng)控制不可見的變量的影響時(shí)，允許我們估計(jì)自變量相對(duì)于因變量的影響。</p><p>　　回歸分析的研究結(jié)果表明企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效之間村在聯(lián)系。基于這種因果聯(lián)系一個(gè)有趣的問題產(chǎn)生了，若有的話

58、，通過好的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任活動(dòng)來表現(xiàn)“好”和財(cái)務(wù)上表現(xiàn)得“好”之間的因果聯(lián)系。好的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)促使公司變得更具社會(huì)責(zé)任，還是高水平的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任導(dǎo)致隨后優(yōu)越的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)呢？?jī)?yōu)秀的財(cái)務(wù)表現(xiàn)可能導(dǎo)致為追求社會(huì)責(zé)任目標(biāo)而獲取更多的資源。高水平的企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任可能將更多的注意力集中在吸引投資者、顧客和激勵(lì)雇員以表現(xiàn)更好，降低成本，提高財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)。另一種可能是，“良性循環(huán)”的存在，在兩個(gè)方向上運(yùn)行的因果關(guān)系。</p><p>　　在討論

59、結(jié)果前，一個(gè)評(píng)價(jià)模型的設(shè)置是必要的。典型的問題出現(xiàn)在最小二乘回歸分析法中，當(dāng)被包括的滯后回歸的因變量作為回歸量誤差項(xiàng)中的序列參數(shù)，致使參數(shù)估計(jì)有偏甚至不一致。我們?cè)囼?yàn)使用的這個(gè)模型和邁達(dá)拉（1971）發(fā)現(xiàn)的序列相關(guān)不是同一個(gè)模型。哈里遜和弗里曼（1999）注意關(guān)于研究企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任隨著時(shí)間更多地關(guān)注社會(huì)責(zé)任的特殊的措施，而減少對(duì)總的社會(huì)效益措施的關(guān)注。例如，希爾曼和克坶（2001）講社會(huì)績(jī)效分成兩部分：利益相關(guān)者的管理和社會(huì)問題的參與。主

60、要利益相關(guān)者包括股東、員工和顧客，同時(shí)他們發(fā)現(xiàn)這項(xiàng)措施，直接關(guān)系到企業(yè)股東價(jià)值創(chuàng)造。然而，參與社會(huì)問題是指利用公司資源以解決社會(huì)問題等外公司策略，比如避免核能，避免飲酒、吸煙和賭博產(chǎn)業(yè)等，是負(fù)相關(guān)的股東財(cái)富變化。福斯曼等人特別關(guān)注企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任，并把它看作社會(huì)團(tuán)體在行業(yè)變化中的目標(biāo)。他們證明使用這項(xiàng)措施是合理的，因?yàn)檫@是最突出的元素，而且指出，直接指向社區(qū)能夠被用來作為分化公司在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈行業(yè)的一個(gè)工具。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)社區(qū)社會(huì)責(zé)任措施與廣告密集行

61、業(yè)的盈利能力呈正相關(guān)。我們?cè)跍y(cè)試財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效與企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的特殊方面時(shí)，使用了KLD數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)中的個(gè)體因素而不是加權(quán)平均企</p><p>　　大量的研究已經(jīng)檢驗(yàn)了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)之間的關(guān)系，而且大部分研究發(fā)現(xiàn)這兩者存在直接的聯(lián)系。文章通過使用一種一個(gè)更全面的數(shù)據(jù)集和一種改進(jìn)的統(tǒng)計(jì)方法分析了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)之間的因果關(guān)系的存在和發(fā)展方向。</p><p>　　我們使用KLD指數(shù)作為企業(yè)

62、社會(huì)責(zé)任的量度，以及資產(chǎn)和股票的回報(bào)率對(duì)財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)進(jìn)行評(píng)估。首先，通過使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)樣本來分析這種因果關(guān)系，類似于過去的回歸分析研究。我們的結(jié)果與過去的財(cái)務(wù)表現(xiàn)在現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)上是一致的，這對(duì)于解釋企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的變異性具有重大意義，同時(shí)對(duì)于解釋這一變異性在財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)中的表現(xiàn)也是非常重要的。</p><p>　　然而，當(dāng)我們引入固定效應(yīng)面板模型時(shí)，結(jié)果卻不在表現(xiàn)出企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效之間的密切關(guān)系了。我們通過使用格蘭杰因果關(guān)系模

63、型來進(jìn)一步研究?jī)烧咧g的聯(lián)系，結(jié)果再次表明了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任與財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效之間無力的證據(jù)。但是，有一些證據(jù)表明股票回報(bào)率引起了企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任的表現(xiàn)。然后通過介紹面板固定效應(yīng)和托比特模型在因果關(guān)系模型中的規(guī)格，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)從企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任到財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效沒有因果關(guān)系，而且從股票回報(bào)到一個(gè)企業(yè)的社會(huì)責(zé)任得分中可知，只有關(guān)于因果關(guān)系的微弱的證據(jù)。最后，通過檢測(cè)財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)和利益相關(guān)者關(guān)于社會(huì)責(zé)任的具體措施之間的關(guān)系，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，更高的股票回報(bào)率帶來更高的員工關(guān)系得分，但

64、是沒有找到證據(jù)證明在股票回報(bào)率和與社會(huì)責(zé)任相關(guān)的社區(qū)、多樣性和環(huán)境方面之間存在因果關(guān)系。</p><p>　　總之，當(dāng)使用傳統(tǒng)的最小二乘法回歸模型時(shí)，企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任和財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)表現(xiàn)出相關(guān)性。但是，當(dāng)使用一種固定效應(yīng)的格蘭杰因果關(guān)系方法時(shí)，這種“良性循環(huán)”表現(xiàn)得更弱些。沒有證據(jù)顯示企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任影響公司的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)，而且通過股票市場(chǎng)業(yè)績(jī)驅(qū)動(dòng)社會(huì)責(zé)任的唯一方面就是員工關(guān)系。如果具有社會(huì)責(zé)任的活動(dòng)向公司提供福利，他們似乎傾向于