英语论文网

摘要：本文是作者的一篇英国本科毕业论文。任何一个企业和社会组织都是存在于环境之中的。企业环境可分成微观环境和宏观环境。微观环境包括那些直接影响企业履行其使命状况的行动者、供应商、各种市场中间商、顾客、竞争对手等。宏观环境包括那些影响企业微观环境中所有行动者的较广泛的社会力量或因素，包括人口的、经济的、技术的、政治的、法律的、以及社会文化方面的力量和因素。企业的经济环境包括：1、宏观经济形势，如国民经济发展水平及其发展趋势，政府财政。金融情况;2、本行业在整个经济体系中的地位和行业特点;3、企业的直接经济环境，包括人均实际收入、平均消费取向、消费支出分配模式。

Investment Forum (Barnett and Salomon, 2006); the Ethical Investment Research Service (EIRIS) (Brammer, Brooks and Pavelin, 2006); the Council of Concerned Businessmen Index (Sturdivant and Ginter, 1977).

Some studies used content analysis of relative corporate documents as the measures of corporate social responsibility. For example, Bowman and Haire (1975) investigated how corporate social responsibility in annual reports affected financial performance, found a positive relationship. And Parket and Eibert (1975) assessed the environmental performance by ranking the willingness of corporation to respond to a related questionnaire.

However, these measures have some disadvantages, as they might mix the concept of social issues and corporate actions. (Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield, 1985) McGuire, Sundgren and Schneeweis (1988) pointed out that due to the purposes of these corporate documents, such as public relations management, the information included in the document would be less useful to assess the actual corporate actions.

The third method of assessing the corporate environmental performance is using a proxy measure, such as pollution control or corporate philanthropy. Using pollution control has limitations, as it is only valid for certain industry. (Bragdon and Martin, 1972) For corporate philanthropy, researchers usually use information from ‘Corporate 500 Directory of Corporate Philanthropy’. (Griffin and Mahon, 1997)

Some studies chose to use multiple corporate social responsibility measures, so that the limitations of any one data could be overcome by the other measures, and they could compare which one is the best according to their results. (Griffin & Mahon, 1997)GriffinandMahon(1997) selected four measures, namely ‘the Fortune reputation survey’, ‘the KLD Index’, ‘the Toxics Release Inventory’ and ‘corporate philanthropy’.

2.3 Different corporate financial performance measures

There are four main different financial performance criteria, namely stock-market-based, accounting-based, risk measures and other firm-specific characteristics. (Pava and Krausz, 1996) In the following, I will compare these four criteria based on the pervious research results.

Stock-market-based measures include Earning Per Share (EPS), market price, market value to book value and so on. McGuire, Sundgren and Schneeweis (1988) reviewed the literatures using Stock-market-based measures, and the results are conflict. Examining the same samples, Moskowitz (1972) found a positive relationship; but Vance (1975) showed a negative relationship; and Alexander & Buchholz (1978), which adjusted for risk, found little association, and achieved a result that both Moskowitz (1972) and Vance (1975) were invalid.

Later Pava and Krausz (1996) found a positive relationship between CER and the market value to book value ratios, which ‘relates the market capitalization of firm to the accounting valuations’. On the contrast, Brammer, Brooks and Pavelin (2006) achieved the result that CEP is negatively related to stock returns. Barnett and Salomon (2006) suggested that there is a curvilinear relationship between CEP and market value change with risk adjustment. 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。