||This research is based on a sample of the large-scale enterprises that have won the CSR Corporate Citizen Awards from 2007 to 2017, and extends the basic model of Anderson et al. (2003) to build a model to investigate the correlation between cost stickiness and corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, and also examine the moderating effect of CSR vision. In this research, CSR activities use the corporate social performance scores of award-winning companies by CommonWealth Magazine as proxy variables, and the CSR vision is measured by analyzing the vision statement of the company′s website.|
The results of this study found that the more CSR activities companies commit to corporate commitment and social participation, the greater the degree of cost stickiness; but the companies invest in environmental sustainability CSR activities make the stickiness of costs reverses. In addition, this study also investigates the moderating effect of CSR vision on the CSR activities and cost stickiness. The results show that: CSR vision increase the degree of cost stickiness in the CSR activities of employees; but the moderating effect of CSR vision on social aspects of CSR activities let the stickiness of costs reverses. And, the CSR vision has no significant impact on environmental CSR activities.
A stitch in time. 2008. The Economist, 386：12. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/node/10491043
Anderson, M. C., R. D. Banker, and S. N. Janakiraman. 2003. Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1)：47-63.
Bartkus, B. R., and M. Glassman. 2008. Do firms practice what they preach? the relationship between mission statements and stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2)：207-216.
Chauvin, K. W., and J. P. Guthrie. 1994. Labor market reputation and the value of the firm. Managerial and Decision Economics, 15(6)：543-552.
Dodes, R., and S. Schechner. 2009. Luxury-goods makers brandish green credentials：To court younger crowd, LVMH buys stake in organic clothing maker, PPR sponsors film about environment. The Wall Street Journal：B8.
Graafland, J., and B. V. D. Ven. 2006. Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship(22)：111-123.
Habib, A., and M. M. Hasan. 2015. Corporate social responsibility and cost stickiness. Business & Society, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2638593 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2638593.
Jensen, M. 2001. Value maximisation, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. European financial management, 7(3)：297-317.
Murray, S. 2007. Bottom-line benefits special award corporate responsibility: Ethical concerns are a growing factor in staff motivation. Financial Times：11.
McWilliams, A., and D. Siegel. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, 26(1)：117-127.
Nimwegen, G. V., L. Bollen, H. Hassink, and T. Thijssens. 2008. A stakeholder perspective on mission statements: an international empirical study. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 16(1/2)：61-82.
Porter, M. E., and M. R. Kramer. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard business review, 80(12)：56-68.
Smith, N. C. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California management review, 45(4)：52-76.
Sims, R. L., and T. L. Keon. 1997. Ethical work climate as a factor in the development of person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(11)：1095-1105.
Sprinkle, G. B., and L. A. Maines. 2010. The benefits and costs of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 53(5)：445-453.
Wal-Mart. 2006. Wal-Mart launches 5-year plan to reduce packaging. Retrieved from https://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2006/09/22/wal-mart-launches-5-year-plan-to-reduce-packaging.
Watson, L. 2015. Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 34：1-16.