Corporate Social Performance and Internal Control

Document Type : Original Article


1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management & Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran Corresponding author

2 MSc in Accounting, Faculty of Management & Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran


This study examines the relationship between corporate social performance and the Company's internal control. For the study, the definition of corporate social performance is used Wood (Wood, 1991) and social performance into the process (internal processes, management) and outcome (social impact) is divided. To assess the social performance of corporate social performance version of the questionnaire was used containers. The analysis of this study is generally divided into two main sections. The first part of the study to determine the ranking of the companies in the field of social functioning in both social accountability processes and consequences of the company's social behavior through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was carried out and the second part of the study also examines the relationship between the level of social performance and the company's internal control using logistic regression. The results showed a positive and significant relationship between the environmental assessment and stakeholder management processes social element status of internal control there. If the management issues (one of the social processes) there was no significant relationship with the status of internal control. This relationship shows that companies that have better social performance (the majority of), the status of internal control are desired.


  1. Arabsalehi, M. Sadeghi Gh. Moeindin M. (2013). Corporate Social responsibility and financial performance. Empirical Accouning Researches. 6. 1-20. (in persian)

  2. Babei, Z., Kliki M. Ahmadvand Zh. (2008). Impact of ownership structure on copmany’s performance, Financial Researches. 26(10). 41-60.

  3. Boulding, K. E., 1956. General systems theory: the skeleton of science. Management Science, p. 197-208

  4. Carroll, A. B., (1979). A Three-Dimentional Conceptual Model Of Corporate Performance. Academy of Management Review, pp. 497-505.

  5. Clarkson, M., (1995) .A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 1(20), pp. 92-117.

  6. Dando, N. & Swift, T., (2003). Transparency and Assurance: Minding the Credibility Gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, p. 195-200.

  7. Davis, K., (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, p.312-322.

  8. Dubbink, G. W., Graafland, J. J. & Liederkerke, L., (2008). CSR: Transparency and the role of intermediate organisations. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 17892.

  9. Freeman, E., (1984). Strategic Management : A Stakeholder Approach:Pitman.

  10. Mahoney, L. & Roberts, R. W., (2007). Corporate Social Performance, Financial Performance and Institutional Ownership in Canadian Firms.

  11. Makni, R., Francoeur, C. & Bellavance, F., (2009). Causality Between Corporate Social Performance and Financial Performance: Evidence from Canadian Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, p.409-422.

  12. Preston, L. E. & Post, J. E., 1975. Private Management and Public Policy. New York: Prentice Hall.

  13. Quaak, L., Aalbers, T. & Goedee, J., (2007). Transparency of Corporate Social Responsibility in Dutch Breweries. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, p. 293-308

  14. Senobar N. Khalili M. Saghafian H. (2011). Corporate social Responsibilty and firm performance. Research in Business Management. 4. 28-52.

  15. Sharbat Oghli, O. Afshari, D. Najmi M. (2010). Social responsibility in Tehran Stock Exchange Company. Science in Management and Economics Sharif University. 19(3). 63-81. (in persian)

  16. Wartick, S. L. & Cochran, P. L., (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, pp. 758-769.

  17. Wood, D. J., (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 4 (16). pp. 691-718.