11.isea vol 0004www.iiste.org call for paper no 1 pp. 40-64

Abstract
The objectives of this study is to investigate whether business environment, business strategy,
formalization, decentralization, reliance on combination of belief & boundary system, reliance
on combination of diagnostic & interactive control system, reliance on interactive control sys-
tem moderate the relationship between CSR and CFP under the slack resource and good man-
agement theories. 220 respondents from manufacturing companies listed on the Jakarta Stock
Exchange were selected and two regression models were developed to examine the relationship
between the related variables. The findings show that business environment has moderated the
CSR-CFP link under good management theory, decentralization has moderated the CSR-CFP
link under slack resource theory, and reliance on combination of diagnostic and interactive con-
trol system has moderated the CSR and CFP link based on slack resource theory.
Keywords: CSR, slack resource theory, good management theory, contextual variables, finan-
cial performance, business environment, business strategy, Decentralization, formalization,
specialization, belief system, boundary system, diagnostic control system, interactive control
system, Indonesia.
Hasan Fauzi, Ph.D. is senior lecturer (Lektor kepala, equivalent to Associate Professor) at Faculty of Economics,
Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia and Director of Indonesian Center for Social and Environmental Accounting
Research and Development (ICSEARD) of Sebelas Maret University, email: hfauzi@icseard.uns.ac.id. Kamil Md.
Idris, Ph.D. is Associate Professor at College of Business, University Utara Malaysia, email: kamil@uum.edu.my. The
authors are very grateful to some reviewers including Prof. Mustaffa M.Zein of UiTM Malaysia, and Prof. Ku Noor
Izzah Ku Ismail of Universiti Utara Malaysia and others for their direction and helpful suggestion on final stage of
research project and to some anonymous referees for comments
Introduction
To date studies that looked at the rela-
tionship between CSR (corporate social
responsibility performance) and CFP
(corporate financial performance) have
produced inconsistent results (e.g.
Frooman, 1997; Griffin & Mahon, 1997;
McWilliams & Siegel, 2000, 2001;
Moore, 2001; Murphy, 2002; Orlitzky,
2001; Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2001; Ro-
man et al., 1999; Ruf et al., 2001; Simp-
Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting
Vol. 4, No. 1 June 2010
Pp 40-64
The Effect of Contextual Variables in the Rela-
tionship between CSR and CFP: Evidence from
Indonesian Companies
Hasan Fauzi
Faculty of Economics
Sebelas Maret University Indonesia
Kamil M. Idris
College of Business
Nothern University of Malayia

H. Fauzi, K.M. Idris / Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1 (2010) 40-64 41
son & Kohers, 2002; Waddock &
Graves, 1997; Worrell et al., 1997;
Wright & Ferris, 1997), and there have
been attempts to explain the conflicting
results. Some have noted that the con-
flicting results may have been caused by
two main factors: lack of theoretical
foundation and methodological problem
(Husted, 2000; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Ruf
et al., 2001; Wagner, 2001).
So far the argument for considering the
contingency perspective in explaining
the relationship of CSR and CFP has
been that CSR is the result of fit between
endogenous organization variables of
CSR and exogenous contextual variables
(Husted, 2000; McWilliam & Siegel,
2001; Russo & Fouts, 1997; Rowley &
Berman, 2000). For example, Russo and
Fouts (1997) found that the type of in-
dustry will determine the relationship
between CSR and CFP, while Husted
(2000) argues that the relationship de-
pends upon stakeholder issues.
Despite the importance of contingency
perspective proposed by previous stud-
ies, many still neglect to integrate the
contingency factors in examining the
determinants of CSR. It is argued that
such consideration is important because
CSR is an extended corporate perform-
ance of TBL. Hence, in this context, this
study is an attempt to relate CSR-CFP to
the important variables of corporate per-
formance.
The literatures on accounting and strate-
gic management highlight that corporate
performance is a function of fit between
business environment, strategy, internal
structure, and control system
(Govindarajan, 1988; Govindarajan &
Gupta, 1985; Gupta & Govindarajan,
1982; Langsfield-Smit, 1997; Lenz,
1980; Tan & Lischert, 1994). The pre-
sent study thus considers these variables
- business environment, strategy, struc-
ture, and control system – in an attempt
to seek explanation of the relationship
between CSR and CFP. By using the
integrated model as suggested in the ac-
counting and strategic management lit-
eratures, the present study hopes to pro-
vide a holistic explanation to the rela-
tionship.
Previous studies (e.g. Hilman & Keim,
2001; Husted, 2000; Neville, 2005; Or-
liztky et al., 2003; Pos et al., 2002) did
not clearly relate contingency variable
(i.e. strategy) to corporate performance
in the context of TBL. Furthermore, the
variable of strategy in those studies was
not operationalized as business strategy
per se but activities related to handling
social issues. Previous studies have also
only common variables such as industry
type and company size as moderating
variables to explain the relationship be-
tween CSR and CFP (Brammer &
Pavelin, 2006; Fauzi, 2004; Fauzi et al.,
2007), and have not considered other
factors that are more relevant in affect-
ing corporate performance. Thus, this
current study will address the gap by
using the above variables as contingency
factors to explain the relationship be-
tween CSR and CFP. More explicitly,
the present study looks at how variables
such as business environment, business
strategy, organizational structure, and
control system can affect the relation-
ship between CSR and CFP.
This study attempted to contribute to the
literature by addressing the following
research questions: Under the slack re-
source theory, do the following variables
moderate the relationship between CFP
and CSR, business environment, busi-

42 H. Fauzi, K.M. Idris / Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting 1 (2010) 40-64
ness strategy, formalization, specializa-
tion, decentralization, belief system,
boundary system, diagnostic control sys-
tem, and interactive control system? Un-
der the good management theory, do the
following variables moderate the rela-
tionship between CSR and CFP, busi-
ness environment, business strategy,
formalization, decentralization, speciali-
zation, belief system, boundary system,
diagnostic control system, and interac-
tive control system?
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Development
Contingency Approach to Studying CSR
and CFP Link
As noted in the previous sections, the
mixed result of the relationship of CSR
and CFP was due to the omission of the
contingency aspect (Ullmann, 1985).
Other researchers also did suggest that
variations in the result of the relationship
between CSR and CFP be solved by us-
ing the contingency theory perspective
(Wagner, 2001; Husted, 2000; Margol-
ish and Walsch, 2003; Orlitzky et al.,
2003). Due to the fact that CSR and CFP
are not related under one condition, the
contingency perspective needs to be
used to examine under which condition
the relationship is be valid (Hedesström
and Biel, 2008). In addition, Orlitzky et
al., (2003) found that the strength of the
relationship will be dependent upon con-
tingency such as reputation and con-
struct operationalization. Some other
researchers also have shown that CSR
and CFP relation was positive using re-
source-based view (strategy) as contin-
gent variable (Hilman and Keim, 2001;
Orliztky et al., 2003; Pos et al., 2002).
Based on the review of strategic man-
agement literature, it can be found that
corporate performances are matching of
business environment, business strategy,
internal structure, and control system
(Lenz, 1980; Gupta and Govindarajan,
1982 and 1984; Govindarajan et al.,
1988; Govindarajan, 1988; Tan and
Lischert, 1994; Langsfield-Smit, 1997).
Thus, it can be argued that corporate
performances referred to the notion of
TBL should be affected by some impor-
tant variables: business environment,
business strategy, structure, and control
system. Therefore, research to seek an
explanation of the relationship between
CSR and CFP need to be conducted us-
ing the integrated model as suggested in
the strategic management literature.
Thus, this current study addresses the
gap by using moderating effect of busi-
ness environment, business strategy,
organizational structure, and control sys-
tem as contingency factors to explain the
relationship of CSR and CFP under two
theories- slack resource and good man-
agement.
Business Environment and CSR-CFP
Link
Business environment can be defined as
conditions an organization faces that are
normally changing and unpredictable.
Lenz (1980) included market structure,
regulated industry, and other relevant
environments in the concept of the busi-
ness environment as factors affecting
corporate financial performance. Jawor-
ski and Kohli (1993) extended the defi-
nition of business environment to in-
clude market turbulence, competitive
intensity, and technological turbulence.
Market turbulence is the rate of change
in the composition of customers and

preferences (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).
An organization operating under high
market turbulence will tend to modify its
product or services continually in order
to satisfy its customers. Adversely, when
the market is stable there is no change in
customers’ preference, and the organiza-
tion is not likely to change its product or
service. Therefore, market turbulence is
expected to relate positively to organiza-
tion performance. Competitive intensity
refers to market condition in which a
company has to compete with. In the
absence of competition, a company can
perform well with no significant effort
as customers have no choice or alterna-
tive to satisfy their need. However, in
high competition indicated by many al-
ternatives for customers to satisfy their
want, a company has to devote its best
effort to satisfy the customers. There-
fore, competitive intensity is expected to
relate positively to organization per-
formance. The last aspect of business
environment is technological turbulence,
which means simply the rate of techno-
logical change. If a company has to be
sensitive to technological change, inno-
vation resulting from technological
change can increase the company’s com-
petitive advantage without having to
focus more on the market orientation.
By contrast, if a company is not preoc-
cupied with innovation in technology, it
should strive to focus more on market
orientation. Therefore, technological
change is expected to relate negatively
to organization performance.
Business environment can also be
viewed as a multidimensional construct
of three dimensions: dynamism, com-
plexity, and hostility (Duncan, 1972;
Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967, as cited in
Tan & Lischert, 1994). The dimensions
of dynamism and complexity have been
referred to as perceived information un-
certainty, while hostility is similar to
resource dependence (Tan & Lischert,
1994). Following the concept of busi-
ness environment as multidimensional
construct, Jauch et al. (1980) and Tan
and Lischert (1994) had extended the
concept of business environment to in-
stitutional environment which considers
more varied elements dimensions similar
to stakeholder concept such as (1) com-
petitors, (2) customer, (3) suppliers, (4)
technological, (5) regulatory, (6) eco-
nomics, (7) social-cultural, and (8) inter-
national. Dill (1958) asserts that busi-
ness environment will increase or de-
crease corporate performance. An or-
ganization facing high uncertainty in
business environment has less ability to
attain the organization’s goal. This argu-
ment has been echoed by Simons (2000)
who asserts that business environment
influences strategic uncertainty that in
turn will decrease the organization’s
ability to achieve its goal.
Based on the theory of slack resource,
the interaction or fit between business
environment and corporate financial per-
formance (CFP) can affect corporate
social performance due to fact that in-
crease in CFP resulting from business
environment aspect enables the com-
pany to have more chance to do the
CSR. Thus, it is reasonable to expect
from this study that business environ-
ment can moderate or affect the relation-
ship between CFP and CSR. The hy-
pothesis for the current study is as fol-
lows:
H1a: Business environment moderates
the relationship between CFP and
CSR based on the slack resource
theory

Similarly, Higgin and Currie (2004)
identified some factors that affect corpo-
rate social performance. They are busi-
ness climate, human nature, societal cli-
mate, the competitiveness of the global
business environment, and the nature of
competitive organization performance.
Hence, in an effort to seek the relation-
ship between CSR and CFP derived
from good management theory, business
environment is expected to moderate the
CSR and CFP relationship. Based on of
slack resource theory the interaction or
fit between business environment and
corporate financial performance (CFP)
can affect corporate social performance
because an increase in CFP due to favor-
able business environment will enable a
company to conduct CSR. On the other
hand, based on good management the-
ory, the interaction or fit between busi-
ness environment and corporate social
performance (CSR) can affect the corpo-
rate financial performance because an
increase in CSR due to favorable busi-
ness environment aspect will enable the
company to gain financial performance.
Thus, this study may close the existing
gap by using business environment vari-
able to affect the CSR-CFP link.
Based on the arguments and finding
from the previous studies, it can be con-
cluded that the link between CSR and
CFP will be contingent upon the busi-
ness environment variable. The follow-
ing is the hypothesis:
H1b: Business environmental moderates
the relationship between CSR and
CFP based on good management
theory.
Business Strategy and CSR-CFP Link
Strategy is a complex concept that has
consequently led to proliferation of its
definition (Lenz, 1980). Mintzbeg
(1987, as cited in Simons, 2000) viewed
strategy in different lenses including
strategy as perspective, position, plan,
pattern in action, and ploy. Strategy as
perspective refers to mission and vision
of a company as a basis for all activities
of a company. As a position, strategy
indicates the way a company will pursue
to compete in the market. This view has
led the use of Porter’s typology of strat-
egy: differentiation and low cost
(Simons, 2000). Strategy as a plan is
differentiated as either short-term or
long-term plan. Strategy as pattern in
action is a company’s action plan to
cope with the failure of the strategy im-
plementation. It is in this view that
emerging strategy is coined (Simons,
2000). Finally, strategy as ploy is a tac-
tic a company can employ to compete.
Based on these views, if the strategy is
well implemented, it can be an important
determinant of the company’s perform-
ance.
Previous studies have considered fit be-
tween strategy and corporate perform-
ance (see for example Fisher, 1995;
Fisher & Govindarajan, 1993; Govinda-
rajan & Fisher, 1990; Govindarajan,
1988; Simon, 1987). But whether or not
the strategy will work to help achieve
corporate performance depends upon the
environment faced by a company. In this
regard, Mintzberg (1973) defined strat-
egy as patterns of stream of decision
focusing on a set of a resource allocation
in an attempt to accomplish a position in

an environment faced by the company.
Using focus on decision as developed
Mintzberg (1973), Ventakraman (1989),
Miller and Frieson (1982), and Tan and
Lischert (1994) extended the concept of
strategy using dimensionality approach
including: (1) analysis, (2) defensive-
ness, (3) futurity, (4) proactiveness, and
(5) riskiness.
Based on theory of slack resource, the
interaction or fit between strategy and
corporate financial performance (CFP)
can affect the corporate social perform-
ance due to fact that increase in CFP
resulting from strategy enables the com-
pany has more chance to do the CSR.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect from this
study that the strategy can moderate or
affect the relationship between CFP and
CSR. The hypothesis for the current
study is as follows:
H2a: Business strategy moderates the
relationship between CFP and
theory
In an effort to seek the relationship be-
tween CSR and CFP derived from the
good management theory, the strategy
variable is expected to be able to moder-
ate the relationship between the link be-
tween CSR and CFP. Based on the argu-
ments and finding from the previous
studies, it can be concluded that the link
between CSR and CFP will be contin-
gent upon the strategy. The following
hypothesis is thus formulated:
H2b: Business strategy moderates the
relationship between CSR and
theory.
Organization Structure and CSR-CFP
Link
Corporate performance is highly deter-
mined by how effectively and efficiently
the company’s business strategy is im-
plemented (Walker et al., 1987, as cited
in Olson, 2005). The success of the com-
pany’s strategy implementation is highly
influenced by how well the company is
organized (Olson, 2005; Vorhies et al.,
2003). Organization structure is needed
to manage jobs in the organization con-
sistent with the intended strategy. Or-
ganization structure is reflected in for-
malization, centralization, and speciali-
zation (Olson et al., 2005; Walker et al,
1987). These three components are cen-
tral points of Mintzberg’s analysis of
organization structure (Olson et al.,
2005).
Formalization refers to the level of for-
mality of rules and procedures used to
govern jobs and working relationships
so that the organization is run efficiently
by reducing administrative cost espe-
cially in an environment characterized
by simple and repetitive tasks (Olson el
at., 2005; Ruekert et al., 1985; Walker et
al., 1987). A company with highly for-
mal rules and procedures is called me-
chanic organization, while one with
fewer formal rules and procedures is
referred to organic organization (Burns
& Stalker, as cited in Olson et al., 2005).
Organic organization enables people in a
company to have vertical and horizontal
communication. It also enables a com-
pany to be rapidly awareness of and re-
spond accordingly to the changes in
competition and market, have more ef-
fective information, and reduce lag time
between decision and action (Miles and

Snow, 1992; Olson, 2005).
Centralization is a condition on whether
autonomy of making decision is held by
top managers or be delegated to the
lower level managers. In management
literature, this construct includes two
terms in the opposite ends: centralized
and decentralized organization (Olson,
2005). In centralized organization,
autonomy to make decision is held by
top managers. Although fewer innova-
tive ideas can be created in centralized
organizations, implementation of the
decision is straight forward after the de-
cision is made (Olson, 2005). However,
the benefit can only be realized in stable
and in noncomplex environment (Olson
et al., 1995; Olson et al., 2005; Ruekert,
1985). In an unstable and complex envi-
ronment indicated by rapid changes in
competition and market, the use of or-
ganization structure providing lower
managers with autonomy of making de-
cision is needed. In a decentralized or-
ganization, a variety of views and inno-
vative ideas may emerge from different
levels of organization. Due to the fact
that autonomy of making decision is
dispersed, it may take longer to make
and implement the decision (Olson et al.,
1995; Olson et al., 2005). However, in a
non routine task taking place in complex
environment, the use of decentralized
organization is more effective to achieve
the organization goal as the type of or-
ganization empower managers who are
very close to the decision in question
and to make the decision and implement
it quickly (Ruekert et al., 1985).
Specialization is the level of division of
tasks and activities in organization and
level of control people may have in con-
ducting those tasks and activities (Olson,
2005). Organization with high speciali-
zation may have high proportion of spe-
cialists to conduct a well-defined set of
activities (Ruekert et al., 1985; Olson,
2005). A specialist is someone who has
expertise in respective areas and, in cer-
tain condition he or she can be equipped
with a sufficient authority to determine
the best approach to complete the special
tasks (Mintzberg, as cited in Olson,
2005). The expertise is needed by or-
ganizations to respond quickly to the
changes in competition and market in
order to meet organization goals
(Walker et al., 1987).
interaction or the fit between organiza-
tion structure and corporate financial
performance (CFP) can affect the corpo-
rate social performance due to fact that
an increase in CFP resulting from or-
ganization design enables the company
to have more chance to do the CSR.
Thus, it is reasonable to expect from this
study that the organization structure can
moderate or affect the relationship be-
tween CFP and CSR. The hypotheses
for the current study are as follows:
H3a1: Formalization moderates the rela-
tionship between CFP and CSR
based on the slack theory
H3a2: Decentralization moderates the
relationship between CFP and
theory
H3a3: Specialization moderates the rela-
based on the slack resource the-
ory
As mentioned above, another factor af-
fecting corporate financial performance
(CFP) is the strategic behaviors in an
organization. In the context of corporate
social performance, the concept of stra-

tegic behaviors can be extended using
the stakeholder theory to explain the fit
between organization structure and cor-
porate social performance (CSR). Ac-
cording to Chen (1996); Gatignon and
Xeureb (1997); and Olson et al. (2005),
the strategic behaviors can be identified
into some components: customer-
oriented behavior, competitor oriented
behavior, innovation-oriented behavior,
and internal-cost behavior. The concept
can be extended using components of
stakeholder as contended by Donaldson
and Preston (1995). Supplier-focused
behavior, employee-focused behavior,
society aspect-focused behavior, and
environment-focused behavior are stake-
holder-based strategic behavior to be
expected to improve corporate financial
performance. Using the argument, CSR
will affect CFP.
Based on the finding and the logic, the
concern of this study is that the fit be-
tween organization structure and CSR
will affect the financial performance.
Hypotheses for this current research are
as follows:
H3b1: Formalization moderates the rela-
tionship between CSR and CSR
based on good management the-
ory
H3b2: Decentralization moderates the
relationship between CSR and
theory
H3b3: Specialization moderates the rela-
tionship between CSR and CFP
based on good management the-
ory
Control System and CSR-CFP Link
One important function of management
control system or control system for
short is management tool to implement
the organization strategy. Of the typolo-
gies in control system, Simons’ (2000)
typology is more complete and compre-
hensive, including belief system, bound-
ary system, diagnostic control system,
and interactive control system.
The careful and consistent use of the
control system typology, often called
levers of control, can lead to the im-
proved performance (CFP). The follow-
ing is discussion on how the components
of levers of control can be associated
with the performance and, therefore, the
expectation of the impact of the use of
components of the control systems on
the relationship between CSR and CFP
can be based upon.
Belief system is the one used in an or-
ganization to communicate an organiza-
tion’s core value to inspire people in the
organization to search for new opportu-
nities or ways to serve customer’s needs
based on the core values (Simons, 1994,
1995a, 1995b, 2000). In an organization
the belief system has been created using
a variety of instruments such as sym-
bolic use of information. The instru-
ments are used to communicate the or-
ganization’s vision, mission, and state-
ment of purpose such that people in the
organization can well understand the
organization’s core value.
The belief system can make people in an
organization inspired to commit to or-
ganization goals or purposes. In this
regard, commitment means believing in
organizational values and willingness to
attempt some efforts to achieve the or-
ganizational goal (Simons, 1995a and
1995b). Therefore, the goal commit-
ment can lead to improved corporate
performance (Locke et al., 1988). The

conclusion is consistent with what Klein
and Kim (1998) found in their study on
situation constraints including goal com-
mitment and sales performance. Chong
and Chong (2002) who studied the effect
of goal commitment and the information
role of budget and job performance dem-
onstrate the same finding.
The resultant of belief system is new
opportunities that may contain some
problems. The boundary system con-
cerns on how to avoid some risks of in-
novation resulting from the belief sys-
tem (Simons, 1994). The risks that pos-
sibly emerge can be operating, assets
impairment, competitive, and franchise
risks (Simons, 2000). On the other hand,
the boundary system provides allowable
limits for opportunity seekers to inno-
vate as conditions encouraged in the be-
lief system.
Strategic boundaries are defined as rules
and limitation applied to decisions to be
made by managers needing the organiza-
tion’s resource allocation as response of
opportunities identified in the belief sys-
tem (Simons, 1995 a, 1995b, 2000).
In his study using case approach in UK
Telecommunication company, Margin-
son (2002) found that the boundary sys-
tem-strategic boundary can motivate
people in that company to search for
new ideas or opportunities within the
prescribed acceptable area. Thus, if well
implemented, this system can avoid the
potential risks and, in turn, can improve
the organization performance.
Diagnostic control system is the one
used by management to evaluate the im-
plementation of an organization’s strat-
egy by focusing on critical performance
variables, which are the ones that can
determine the success of strategy imple-
mentation and, at the same time, can
conserve the management attention
through the use of management by ex-
ception (Simons, 1995a, 1995b, and
2000). As a system relying upon the
feedback mechanism, the diagnostic
control system is an example of applica-
tion of single loop learning whose pur-
pose is to inform managers of outcomes
that are not meeting expectation and in
accordance with plan (Argyris, 1977 as
cited by Simon, 1995b; Widener, 2006,
2007). The single loop learning is a part
of organization learning that indicates
benefits of implementing management
control system in general.
interaction or fit between control system,
including belief system, boundary sys-
tem,, diagnostic control system, and in-
teractive control system, as well as CFP
can affect CSR due to fact that increase
in CFP resulting from the appropriate
use of control system components en-
ables the company to have more chance
to do the CSR. Thus, it is reasonable to
expect from this study to formulate the
hypotheses of current study as follows:
H4a1: reliance on belief system moder-
ates the relationship between CFP
and CSR based on the slack re-
source theory.
H4a2: reliance on boundary system mod-
erates the relationship between
CFP and CSR based on the slack
resource theory
H4a3: reliance on diagnostic control sys-
tem moderates the relationship
between CFP and CSR based on
the slack resource theory
H4a4: reliance on interactive control sys-
slack resource theory.

As stated by Ouchi (1977) and Robbins
(2002), organization behavior refers to
behaviors of members of an organiza-
tion. In general, any organization is con-
cerned about controlling the behavior of
the employees and this can be achieved
by using a well designed control system
(Snell, 1992). One instrument to be used
in the control system is strategic behav-
iors. Chen (1996), Gatignon & Xeureb
(1997), and Olson et al. (2005) listed
strategic behaviors to include customer
oriented behavior, competitor oriented
behavior, innovation oriented behavior,
and internal/cost oriented behavior. The
list can be referred to input-output model
of Donaldson and Preston (1995). The
list can also be extended using the con-
tingency theory. Thus, corporate social
performance is strategic behavior af-
fected by control system and, this in turn
is expected to improve corporate finan-
cial performance.
Based on the finding and the logic, the
concern of this study is that the fit be-
tween control system and CSR will af-
fect the corporate financial performance.
Thus hypotheses for the current studies
are as follows:
H4b1: reliance on belief system moder-
ates the relationship between CSR
and CFP based on the good man-
agement theory
H4b2: reliance on boundary system mod-
CSR and CFP based on the good
management theory
H4b3: reliance on diagnostic control sys-
between CSR and CFP based on
the good management theory
H4b4: reliance on interactive control sys-
between CSR and CFP based on
the good management theory
Research Method
There are several variables used in this
study: Corporate social performance,
corporate financial performance, busi-
ness environment, strategy, organization
structure, and control system as main
variable; and company size and type of
company (in term of ownership: state-
owned company non state-owned com-
pany) as control variables. The measure
for CSR variable in this study used the
MJRA’s dimensions of CSR by deleting
some indicators to adjust Indonesian
environment. This CFP variable was
measured by using the perceptual
method to match with the CSR measure
(Wood and Jones, 1995). In this ap-
proach, some subjective judgments were
provided by respondents using 8 (eight)
indicators developed by Ventakraman
(1989) comprising of two dimensions:
growth and profitability dimension.
Business environment were measured
using managers’ perception of the level
of hostility, dynamism, and complexity
in each environmental dimension using a
7-point scale (Tan and Lischert, 1994).
The business strategy variable was
measured by strategic orientation. Using
focus on decision as developed by
Mintzberg (1973), the strategic orienta-
tion were broken down into several di-
mensions including (1) analysis, (2) de-
fensiveness, (3) futurity, (4) proactive-
ness, and (5) riskiness. The organization
structure was measured using three di-
mensions: formalization, decentraliza-
tion, and specialization. Control system
was defined by using typology of control
of Simons (1995 and 2000) including
belief system, boundary system, diag-
nostic control system, and interactive
control system. The company size fol-
lowed the measure used by Mahoney
and Robert (2007) with the argument
that total asset is “money machine” to

generate sales and income. Type of
company was measured using dummy
variable. The measure of 1 is for state-
owned company and while 0 is for non-
state-owned company.
Unit of analysis in this study is Indone-
sian managers. Population of this study
is all Indonesian managers working in
the Jakarta stock exchange’s listed com-
panies and in state-owned companies.
Data set of manufacturing sector in pub-
licly traded companies’ stock (private-
owned companies) and in the directory
of state companies in State Ministry of
State Owned Company (state-owned
companies=BUMN) was used with the
intention to reduce mismatching prob-
lem as suggested by Wood and Jones
(1995) in addition to lessen the sampling
error. The data are perception and views
of managers in BUMN and private-
owned companies pertaining to the indi-
cators of corporate social performance,
companies’ financial performance, busi-
ness environment, strategy, organization
structure, and management control sys-
tem. In broader sense, state-owned com-
panies can be defined as a legal entity
created by a government to undertake
commercial or business activities on be-
half of an owner government.
Data for the non state (private)-owned
companies were taken from the compa-
nies listed in Jakarta Stock exchange
(Indonesia Stock Exchange). The choice
of the manufacturing sector is based on
the fact that this sector (including all
mining companies) has contributed more
to the aspect of people (social) and
planet (environmental) than other sec-
tors. In addition to having the data on
indicators of corporate social perform-
ance, this study also captured the data on
business environment, strategy, organi-
zation structure, and management con-
trol system to test the moderating effect
of the contextual variables on CSR-CFP
link and to test managers’ perception
toward CSR. Using the same way, data
for state-owned companies were selected
from the list of manufacturing sector
(including mining) in Indonesian State-
Owned Companies under control of the
Indonesian Ministry of State-Owned
Companies. The sampling selection for
two sets of data was conducted using the
purposive sampling method. Given that
method, samples were selected from the
two sampling frames: list of companies
listed in Jakarta Stock Exchange in 2007
for non state companies and list of state-
owned companies under Ministry of
State-Owned Companies.
There are several techniques used to
analysis the data (1) psychometric analy-
sis, (2) factor analysis, (3) and multiple
regression analysis. The psychometric
analysis is used to determine consistency
or reliability of the measured result.
Exploratory factor analyses including
coefficient alpha and item-to-total corre-
lation were estimated to assess the psy-
chometric characteristics of scales for
each variable.
Due to the fact that latent variables are
used in this study coming from con-
structs that have been developed based
on some dimensions of concept, factor
analysis was need to reduce the dimen-
sions becoming the single measure of
the latent variables. There were criteria
used in conducting factor analysis: Kai-
ser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), and (2) factor
loading.
There two models used in this study: (1)
model 1 and (2) model 2. Model 1 is

needed to test the CFP-CSR link under
slack resource theory by considering
moderating effect. Like model 1, Model
2 is based on the good management the-
ory to test the CSR-CFP link.
The main theoretical model under slack
resource theory (model 1) and good
management theory (model 2) are as
follows, respectively:
CSR = f {CFP, BEV, STG, FOR, DEC,
SPE, BEL, BND, DNT, INC,
CFP/BEV, CFP/STG, CFP/
FOR, CFP/DEC, CFP/SPE,
CFP/BEL, CFP/BND, CFP/
DNT, CFP/INC}
CFP = f {CSR, BEV, STG, FOR, DEC,
SPE, BEL, BND, DNT, INC,
CSR/BEV, CSR/STG, CSR/
FOR, CSR/DEC, CSR/SPE,
CSR/BEL, CSR/BND, CSR/
DNT, CSR/INC}
Where:
CFP=Corporate financial performance
CSR=Corporate social responsibility
BEV=Business environment
STG=Strategy
FOR=Formalization
DEC=Decentralization
SPE=Specialization
BEL=Belief system
BND=Boundary system
DNT=Diagnostic control system
INC=Interactive control system
CFP/BEV=Interaction between CFP and
BEV
CFP/STG=Interaction between CFP and
STG
CFP/FOR=Interaction between CFP and
FOR
CFP/DEC=Interaction between CFP and
DEC
CFP/SPE=Interaction between CFP and
SPE
CFP/BEL=Interaction between CFP and
BEL
CFP/BND=Interaction between CFP and
BND
CFP/DNT=Interaction between CFP and
DNT
CFP/INC= Interaction between CFP and
INC
CSR/BEV=Interaction between CSR
and BEV
CSR/STG=Interaction between CSR and
STG
CSR/FOR= Interaction between CSR
and FOR
CSR/DEC= Interaction between CSR
and DEC
CSR/SPE= Interaction between CSR and
SPE
CSR/BEL= Interaction between CSR
and BEL
CSR/BND= Interaction between CSR
and BND
CSR/DNT= Interaction between CSR
and DNT
CSR/INC= Interaction between CSR and
INC
Results and Discussion
Based on the factor analysis result
(Rotated component matrix), the factors
created for organization structure and
control system are not the same as the
initial dimensions. Rather, they undergo
some modification. The created factors
for organization structure have two di-
mensions: (1) formalization (FOR) and
(2) decentralization (DEC). The created
factors for control system having three
dimensions include: (1) CBELBGOU,
(2) CDIAINT, and (3) INT. Given the
new variable, the new hypotheses are
formulated as follows:
H3a1: Formalization moderates the rela-

Regression Model Model 1 Model 2
Dependent Variables CSR CFP
Adjusted-R2
0.731 0.468
p-value of F Statistics 0.000* 0.000*
SIZE 0.000
(0.987)
0.000
(0.829)
TYPE 0.961
(0.616)
-0.200
(0.795)
CSR 0.079
(0.004)*
CFP 0.615
(0.000)*
BEV 0.182
(0.005)*
-0.016
(0.482)
STG -0.086
(0.419)
-0.035
(0.456)
FOR 2.613
(0.182)
0.075
(0.456)
DEC 2.596
(0.056)***
1.058
(0.087)
CBELBOU 13.517
(0.000)
2.998
(0.001)
CDIAINT 9.269
(0.000)
0.267
(0.624)
INT 4.836
(0.000)*
0.321
(0.601)
CFP*BEV -0.002
(0.785)
CFP*STG 0.012
(0.298)
CFP*FOR 0.351
(0.103)
CFP*DEC 0.539
(0.001*
CFP*CBELBOU -0.203
(0.441)
CFP*CDIAINT 0.661
(0.002)*
CFP*INT -0.153
0.496
CSR*BEV 0.002
(0.012)**
CSR*STG -0.001
(0.629)
Table 1. Summary of Regression Results

based on slack resource theory
H3a2: Decentralization moderates the
relationship between CFP and CSR
based on slack resource theory
H3b1: Formalization moderates the rela-
tionship between CSR and CSR
based on good management theory
H3b2: Decentralization moderates the
relationship between CSR and CFP
based on good management theory
H4a1: Reliance on combination of belief
system and boundary system mod-
CFP and CSR based on slack re-
source theory
H4a2: Reliance on combination of diag-
nostic and interactive control sys-
tem control system moderates the
relationship between CFP and CSR
based on the slack resource theory
H4a3: Reliance on interactive control sys-
slack resource theory
H4b1: Reliance on combination of belief
system and boundary system mod-
CFP and CSR based on good man-
agement theory
H5b2: Reliance on combination of diag-
nostic and Interactive control sys-
good management theory
H5b3: Reliance on interactive control sys-
good management theory
Therefore, given the modification of the
dimensions of organization structure and
control system construct, the corre-
sponding models are modified in terms
of variables resulting from the created
dimensions. The modified models are:
Model 1:
CSR =α + β1 CFP + β2 BEV + β3 STG +
β4 FOR + β5 DEC + β6 CBEL-
BOU + β7 CDIAINT + β8 INT +
β9 CFP*BEV + β10 CFP*STG +
β11 CFP*FOR + β12 CFP*DEC +
β 1 3 C F P * C B E L B O U +
β1 4 CFP*CDIAINT + β1 5
CFP*INT + β16 SIZE + β17
TYPE+ e
Where
CSR= Composite score of corporate so-
cial responsibility
CFP = Composite score of corporate
financial performance
CSR*FOR -0.004
0.917
CSR*DEC 0.006
(0.806)
CSR*CBELBOU 0.038
(0.308)
CSR*CDIAINT 0.044
(0.120)
CSR*INT 0.045
(0.118)
Note:
*** significant at 1%
** significant at 5%
Table 1. Summary of Regression Results

BEV= Composite score of uncertainty
business environment
STG= Composite score of companies’
strategic orientation
FOR= Total score of formalization di-
mension of organization structure
DEC=Total score of decentralization
dimension of organization structure
CBELBOU=Total score of combination
belief and boundary system
CDIAINT =Total score of combination
diagnostic and interactive control system
INT= Total score of interactive system
control system
CFP*BEV= Composite score of corpo-
rate financial performance* Composite
score of uncertainty business environ-
ment
CFP*STG= Composite score of corpo-
rate financial performance* Composite
score of companies’ strategic orientation
CFP*FOR= Composite score of corpo-
rate financial performance* Total score
of formalization dimension of organiza-
tion structure
CFP*DEC= Composite score of corpo-
of decentralization dimension of organi-
zation structure
CFP*CBELBOU= Composite score of
corporate financial performance* Total
score of combination of belief and
boundary system
CFP*CDIAINT= Composite score of
corporate financial performance* Total
score of combination of diagnostic and
interactive control system
CFP*INT= Composite score of corpo-
of interactive control system
SIZE= Company size measured by com-
pany’s total asset
TYPE= Dummy variable indicating 1for
state owned-companies and 0 for private
-owned companies
e= Error term
Model 2:
CFP = α + β1 CSR + β2 BEV + β3 STG
+ β4 FOR + β5DEC + β6
BEL_BOU + β7 DIA_INT + β8
INT + β9 CSR*BEV + β10
CSR*STG + β11 CFP*FOR + β12
CSR*DEC + β13 CFP*CBELBOU
+ β14 CSR*CDIAINT + β15
CSR*INT + β16 SIZE + β17
TYPE+ e
Where
CFP= Composite score of corporate fi-
nancial performance
CSR= Composite score of corporate so-
cial responsibility
BEV= Composite score of business en-
vironment
STG= Composite score of companies’
strategic orientation
FOR= Total score of formalization di-
mension of organization structure
DEC=Total score of decentralization
dimension of organization structure
CBELBOU=Total score of combination
belief and boundary system
CDIAINT =Total score of combination
of diagnostic and interactive control sys-
tem
INT= Total score of interactive system
control system
CSR*BEV= Composite score of corpo-
rate social responsibility * Composite
score of uncertainty business environ-
ment
CSR*STG= Composite score of corpo-
rate social responsibility * Composite
score of companies’ strategic orientation
CSR*FOR= Composite score of corpo-
rate social responsibility *Total score of
formalization dimension of organization
structure
CSR*DEC= Composite score of corpo-
rate social responsibility * Total score of
decentralization dimension of organiza-

tion structure
CSR*CBELBOU= Composite score of
corporate social responsibility * Total
score of combination of belief and
boundary system
CSR*CDIAINT= Composite score of
corporate social responsibility * Total
score of combination diagnostic and in-
teractive control system
CSR*INT= Composite score of corpo-
rate social responsibility *Total score of
interactive control system
e= Error term
According to the result of Model 1, the
CFP-CSR link depends upon two as-
pects: (1) decentralization (H4a2), and (2)
diagnostic and interactive control system
(H5a2).
Decentralization refers to the degree of
autonomy to make decision in units in
organization. The objective of decen-
tralization is to improve the effective-
ness in an organization (Govindarajan,
1986). According to Elkington’s (1994)
the concept of TBL (triple bottom line),
the effectiveness of an organization can
be defined by three aspects: (1) finan-
cial, (2) social, and (3) environment.
Thus, the degree of decentralization as
depicted by Govindarajan (1986) can
influence the relationship between CFP
and CSR. In the recent trend, the in-
creasing number of departments in or-
ganization handling the CSR can also
support the relationship. This finding is
consistent with the proposition of Centre
for Business Ethics (1986).
The combination of diagnostic & inter-
active control system is a part of concept
of levers of control introduced by
Simons (1994 and 2000). In response to
the problem of effectiveness of organi-
zation resulting from the pace of busi-
ness growth, he proposed the concept of
four levers of control including: (1) be-
lief system, (2) boundary system, (3)
diagnostic control system, and (4) inter-
active control system. However, based
on the finding of factor analysis, the
components of the levers of control have
undergone a modification as indicated
by Simons (1994 and 2000) for the pos-
sibility of combination among the levers
in the implementation stage. The modifi-
cations based on this study include: (1)
combination of belief system & bound-
ary system, (2) combination of diagnos-
tic & interactive control system, and (3)
interactive control system. The combina-
tion actually had been predicted by
Simons (2000) when explaining the use
of diagnostic and interactive control sys-
tem in practice. Abernethy and Brownell
(1999) also use the combination of diag-
nostic and interactive control system in a
study on the role of budget in strategic
situation. When explaining the first two
components of levers of control, Simons
(2000) implicitly said that belief and
boundary system should be combined.
The function of belief system is to in-
spire people in organization to always
search for alternatives for better effec-
tiveness (performance) by improving
innovativeness. However, the continuing
innovativeness can make an organization
apprehensive; thus, the breaker tool is
needed. The breaker tool is the function
of the boundary system. Therefore,
based on logic, the belief and boundary
should be combined. In addition, the
interactive control system alone is
needed especially for handling the char-
acteristic of strategy that is uncertainty.
According to Simons (2000), strategy set
in strategic planning become invalid if
the following factors emerge: (1) new
technology, (2) change in customer de-
sires, (3) changes in legislation, and (4)

entry/exit competitors. To meet that pur-
pose, interactive control system is effec-
tive tools to create new strategy
(emerging strategy).
The finding of this study that diagnostic
& interactive control system can influ-
ence the CFP-CSR link may be ex-
plained as follows. Some important con-
trol tools in diagnostic control system
are performance measurement and re-
ward system. The use of TBL for the
performance measurement including the
three dimensions: (1) financial, (2) so-
cial, and (3) environment, along with the
proper reward system, will improve
CSR. At the same time, companies are
always facing risks and competition,
especially the ones who are low depend-
ence on technology, should focus on
customers and their needs, which, in the
perspective of interactive control tool,
can emerge new strategy to handle the
risk. This kind of action resulting from
the interactive control system can im-
prove CFP and, in turn, affect the CSR.
The CSR-CFP link under good manage-
ment theory (Model 2) is also positively
significant. This study finds that only
contextual variable of business environ-
ment (H1b) can influence the CSR-CFP
link.
According to Jaworski and Kohli (1993),
business environment facing companies
include the following: (1) market turbu-
lence, (2) competitive intensity, and (3)
technological turbulence. Market turbu-
lence is the rate of change in the compo-
sition of customers and preferences. It
can be a predictor of business perform-
ance (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). An
organization operating under market
turbulence will tend to modify its prod-
uct or services continually in order to
satisfy its customers. Adversely, if the
market is stable, indicated by no change
in customers’ preference, the organiza-
tion is not likely to change its product or
service. Therefore, the market turbu-
lence is expected to relate positively to
organization performance. Competitive
intensity is referred to market condition
in which a company has to compete
with. In the absence of competition, a
company can perform well with no sig-
nificant effort as the customers have no
choice or alternative to satisfy their
needs. However, when the competition
is high, a company has to devote its best
effort to satisfy the customers. There-
fore, the competitive intensity is ex-
pected to relate positively to organiza-
tion performance. The last aspect of
business environment is technological
turbulence defined as the rate of techno-
logical change. For a company that is
sensitive to technological change, inno-
vation resulting from the technological
change can be an alternative to increase
the company’s competitive advantage
without having to focus more on the
market orientation. In contrast, for a
company with no innovation in technol-
ogy, it should strive to focus more on
market orientation. Therefore, the
change in technology relates negatively
to organization performance.
The finding of this study is consistent
with Lenz (1980), Gupta and Govindara-
jan (1984), Govindarajan and Gupta
(1985), Govindarajan (1988), Tan and
Lischert (1994) and Langsfield-Smit
(1997). This study also confirms the
proposition of Higgin and Currie (2004).
They had identified a number of vari-
ables that affect CSR in a corporation.
The factors include business climate,
human nature, societal climate, the com-
petitiveness of the global business envi-

ronment, and the nature of competitive
organization performance. Thus, argu-
ments for business climate or environ-
ment discussed above, especially for the
concept of business environment derived
from the larger concept similar to stake-
holder concept can moderate the CSR-
CFP link.
From the analysis of all the models
above it is clear that contextual variables
(business environment, , business strat-
egy, organization structure, and control
system) can resolve the conflicting result
of the relationship between CFP and
CSR (under slack resource theory) and
CSR and CFP (under the good manage-
ment theory). The studies on the rela-
tionship between CSR and CFP have
never considered the contextual vari-
ables as predictors of CSR. Therefore,
the body of knowledge of CSR contrib-
uted by this study explained that (1)
CSR concept is an extended corporate
performance, then becoming sustainable
corporate performance including finan-
cial, social, and environmental perform-
ance, (2) the contextual variables also
determine the variability of CSR, and (3)
the causality of the relationship of CSR
and CFP is also significantly determined
by the contextual variables.
Based on the implication, there is a need
to do an in-depth study on the impact of
contextual variables of corporate per-
formance on CSR as a basis to develop
TBL-based CSR reporting in Indonesia.
This suggestion for future research is
vital for several reasons. First, stake-
holder theory used in this study and
other studies may undergo modifications
given the continuous study on impact of
contextual variables of corporate on
CSR. Second, as suggested in manage-
rial decision implication, CSR needs to
be redefined in Indonesian context. Fi-
nally, there is a possibility to make man-
datory CSR reporting as a consequence
of the CSR implementation in accor-
dance with article 74 of the Law No.
40/2007.
Conclusion
This study addresses research problems
using contextual variables to explain the
relationship of CSR and CFP. More ex-
plicitly, it describes how variables such
as business environment, business strat-
egy, organizational structure, and control
system can affect the relationship be-
tween CSR and CFP.
This study also addresses methodologi-
cal problems, which become the sources
of the conflicting result of CSR-CFP
link. The problems include (1) mis-
matching measurement, (2) sampling
error, and (3) measurement error
Under slack resource theory, only decen-
tralization and diagnostic & interactive
variables moderate the relationship be-
tween CSR and CFP. Under good man-
agement theory, only business environ-
ment variable moderates the relationship
between CSR and CFP.
Based on the finding of the study, there
is a need for further study on the impact
of contextual variables of corporate per-
formance on CSR as a base to develop
TBL-based CSR reporting in Indonesia.
This suggestion for future research is
important for the following reasons: (1)
stakeholder theory used in this study and
others may undergo some modification
given the deep study on impact of con-
textual variables of corporate on CSR,
(2) as suggested in managerial decision

implication, the CSR need to be rede-
fined in Indonesian and (3) there is the
possibility of making mandatory CSR
reporting as a consequence of imple-
mentation of Law No. 40/2007 (Article
74).
It should be pointed out that this study
has several limitations. This may be es-
pecially important for researchers who
are less familiar with Indonesia culture,
business environment, and differing cul-
ture.
The first limitation of the study is the
timing of the survey. For the last two
years, compulsory implementation of
CSR in Indonesia based on the Law No.
40/2007 has been in the process and
most Indonesian companies objected to
the compulsory implementation of the
law.
The second limitation is related to the
questionnaire procedure. The length of
the questionnaires exceeds eleven pages.
Such length, according to Dilman
(1978), may reduce the expected re-
sponse rate. In addition, non random and
non probability methods were used in
selecting the sample. These techniques
may influence the finding of the study
and its application to businesses other
than manufacturing.
The third limitation is that the popula-
tion of the study for non BUMN was
manufacturing companies listed on ISE
(Indonesian Stock Exchange). Thus,
other big manufacturing companies in-
cluding mining companies such as Free-
port are not included in the sample as
they are not listed on the Exchange.
Such companies may have importantly
contributed to the environment.
The fourth limitation is that no study has
examined the constructs of this research
(integrating contextual variables affect-
ing corporate performance into CSR as
an extended corporate performance),
either in Indonesia or outside Indone-
sian. Therefore, the researcher has to
proceed without the advantage of having
an established model to refer to and re-
search findings as comparisons.
References
Abernethy, M.A. & Brownell, P. (1999).
“The role of budgets in Organi-
zations facing strategic change:
an exploratory study”. Account-
ing, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 24, pp.189-204.
Argyris, C. (1977) “Organizational
learning and management infor-
mation systems”, Accounting,
Organizations, and Society,
Vol.2, No.2, pp.113-123.
Brammer, S.J., & Pavelin, S. (2006).”
Corporate Reputation and Social
Performance: The Importance of
Fit” Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 43, No.3
Center for Business Ethics.1986. “Are
Corporations Institutionalizing
Business Ethics”? Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol.5, pp. 85-
91
Chen, MJ. (1996).”Competitor Analysis
and Interfirm Rivalry: Toward A
Theoretical
Integration”. Academy of Man-
agement Review, Vol.21, No.1,
pp.100-134
Chong, V.R., & Chong, K.M.(2002).
“Budget Goal Commitment and
Informational Effect of Budget
Participation Performance: A
Structural Equation Modeling

Approach”. Behavioral Research
in Accounting, Vol.14, pp.65-86.
Dill, W.(1958).”Environment as an in-
fluence on Managerial Auton-
omy” Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol.2, pp.409-443
Donaldson, T. & Preston L.E. (1995).
“The Stakeholder Theory of the
Corporation: Concept, Evidence,
and Implications”. The Academy
of Management Review, Vol.20,
No.1, pp.65-91.
Duncan, R.B.(1972).”Characteristics of
Organizational Environments,
and Perceived Environment Un-
certainty”. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, Vol.17, pp.313-
327.
Elkington, John. (1994) “Towards the
sustainable corporation: Win-
win-win business strategies for
Sustainable Corporation:Win-
Win-Win Business Strategies
for Sustainable Development”
California Management Review,
Vol.36, No.2, pp.90-100.
Fauzi, H. (2004). “Identifying and Ana-
lyzing the Level of Practices pf
Company’sSocial Responsibility
in Improving Financial Perform-
ance”. Journal of Business and
Management, Vol.4, No.2,
pp.109–124.
________ (2009). Redefining CSR Con-
cept in Indonesia” Jakarta Post,
(August 5)
________, Mahoney, L., Rahman, A.A.
(2007) ”The Link Between Cor-
porate SocialPerformance and
Financial Performance: Evi-
dence from Indonesian Compa-
nies” Issues in Social and Envi-
ronmental Accounting, Vol.1,
No.1, pp.149-159
_________, Rahman,A.A., Hussain, M.,
Adnan, M., (2009) “Corporate
Social Performance in Indone-
sian State-Owned Companies
and Private-Owned Companies”
in Sigh (ed), Handbook of Cor-
porate Performance in Emerg-
ing Market. Singapore
Fisher, Joseph. (1995). “Contingency-
based research on management
control systems: Categorization
by Level of Complexity”. Jour-
nal of Accounting Litera-
ture, Vol.14, pp.24-53.
Fisher, J., and Govindarajan, V.
(1993).”Incentive Compensation
Design, Strategic Business Unit
Mission, and Competitive Strat-
egy”. Journal of Management
Accounting Research, Vol.5,
pp.129-144 .
Frooman, J. (1997). Socially Irresponsi-
ble and Illegal Behavior and
Shareholder Wealth. Business
& Society, Vol. 3, pp.221-249.
Gatignon, H., and Xeureb, JM.
(1997).”Strategic Orientation of
the Firm New Product Perform-
ance”. Journal of Marketing
Research,Vol. 34, No.1, pp.77-
90.
Govindarajan, V.(1988).”A Contingency
Approach to a Strategy Imple-
mentation at the Business-Unit
Level: Integrating A Adminis-
trative Mechanism with Strat-
egy” Academy of Management
Journal, Vol.31, No.4, pp.838-
853.
___________, & Gupta, A. K. (1985).
“Linking Control Systems to
Business Unit Strategy: Impact
on Performance” in Emmanuel,
C.R., Otley, D.T, and Merchant,
K.A. (Eds.) Accounting for
Management Control, Interna-
tional Thompson Business
Press.

_____________ & Fisher, J.(1988)
“Congruence Between Controls
and Business Unit Strategy: Im-
plication for Business Unit Per-
formance and Managerial Job
Satisfaction” Academy of Man-
agement Proceedings, p17-p21.
_______________ & Fisher, J.(1990)
“Strategy, Control System, and
Resource Sharing: Effect on
Business-Unit Performance”.
Academy of Management Jour-
nal, Vol.33, No.2, pp. 259-285.
__________ (1986) “Decentralization,
Strategy, and Effectiveness of
StrategicBusiness Units in Multi
-Business Organizations", Acad-
emy of Management Review,
Vol.11, No.4, pp. 844-856.
Griffin, J.J. & Mahon, J.F. (1997). “The
Corporate Social Performance
and Corporate Financial Per-
formance Debate: Twenty-Five
Years of Incomparable
Research”. Business and Soci-
ety, Vol.36, No.1, pp.5-31.
Gupta, A.K. & Govindarajan, V.
(1982).An Empirical Examina-
tion of Linkage Between Strat-
egy, Managerial Characteristics
and Performance”, Academy of
Management Proceedings, p31-
35
Hedesström, T.M. & Biel, A.(2008).
“Evaluating companies’ social
and environmental perform-
ance: Current practice and some
recommendations”, Goteborgs
Universitet: Gotoborg Psycolo-
gial Report, Vol.30, No.1.
Higgins, J.M. & Currie, D.M. (2004).
"It’s Time to Rebalance the
Scorecard". Business and Soci-
ety Review,Vol.109, No.3,
pp.297-309
Hilman, A.J. & Keim, G.D.(2001)
“Shareholder Value, Stake-
holder Management, Social Is-
sues: What’s the Bottom Line”.
Strategic Management Journal,
Vol.22, pp.125-139.
Husted, B.W., (2000) “Contingency the-
ory of corporate social perform-
ance”. Business and Society,
Vol.39, No.1, pp.24-48.
Jauch, L.R, Osborn, R.N., Glueck, W.F.
(1980) “Short Term Financial
Success In Large Business Or-
ganization: The Environment-
Strategy Connection”. Strategic
Management Journal, Vol.1,
pp.49-63.
Jaworsky, B.J, & Kohli, A.K.(1993) “
Market Orientation: Antecedents
and Consequences”. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, No.3, pp.53
-70.
Klein, H.J, & Kim,J.S.(1998).”Field
Study of the Influence of Situ-
ational Constrain, Leader-
Member Exchange, and Goal
Commitment on Performance”.
nal, Vol.41, No.1, pp.88-95.
Langfield-Smith, k.(1997)."Management
Control Systems and Strategy: A
Critical Review". Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol.
22, No.2, pp.207-232.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J.W.(1967).
“Differentiation and Integration
in Complex Organization”. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly,
Vol.12, pp.1-47
Lenz, R.T.(1980).”Environmental Strat-
egy, Organization Structure and
Performance: Patternin One In-
dustry”. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol.1, No.3,pp.209-22.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., & Erez, M.
(1988) “The Determinants of
Goal Commitment”. Academy of

Management Review, Vol.13,
No.1, pp.13-39.
Mahoney, L.S. & Roberts, R.W. (2007)
“Corporate Social Performance,
Financial Performance and Insti-
tutional Ownership in Canadian
Firms”. Accounting Forum,
Vol.31, No.3, pp. 233-253.
Marginson, David E. (2002)
“Management Control System
and Their Effect on Strategy
Formation at Middle-
Management Level: Evidence
from A UK. Organization”.,
Vol.23, No.11, pp.1019-1031.
Margolis. J.D. & Walsh. J.P. (2003).
"Misery Loves Companies: Re-
thinking Social Initiatives by
Business". Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly,Vol.48, No.2,
pp.268-305.
McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A., & Schnee-
weis, T.(1988) “Corporate So-
cial Responsiblity And Firm
Financial Performance”, Acad-
emy of Management Journal,
Vol.3, No.4, pp.854-872.
________, Scheneeweiss, T., and
Branch, B.(1990). “Perception
of Fiem Quality: A Cause or
Result of Firm Performance”.
Journal of Management, Vol.16,
No.1, pp.167-180.
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2000).
“Corporate Social Responsibil-
ity and Financial Performance:
Correlation or Misspecifica-
tion?”, Strategic Management
609.
___________ & Siegel, D. (2001)
“Corporate Social Responsibil-
ity: A Theory of Firm Perspec-
tive”. Academy of Management
Review, Vol.26, No.1, pp.117-
127.
Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C.(1992)
”Causes of Failure in Network
Organization”, California Man-
agement Review, Vol.34, No.4,
pp.53-72
Miller, D., & Friesen, P.H.(1982)
”Innovation in Coservative and
Entrepreneurial Firms: Two
Models of Strategic Momen-
tum”. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol.3,No.1, pp.1-25.
Mintzberg, H. (1973) “Strategy Making
in Three Modes”. California
No.2,pp.44-53.
__________ (1987) “Strategy Concept I:
Five Ps for Strategy”. California
No.1, pp.11-24.
Moore, G. (2001) “Corporate Social and
Financial Performance: An In-
vestigation in the UK Supermar-
ket Industry”. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, Vol.34, No.3/4,
p.299-315.
Murphy, E.( 2002) “Best Corporate
Citizens Have Better Financial
Performance”. Strategic Fi-
nance, Vol.83, No.7, pp.20-21.
Neville,B.A., Bell, S.J., & Menguc, B.
(2005)”Corporate Stakeholder
and the Social Performance-
Financial Performance Relation-
ship” European Journal of Mar-
keting, Vol.39, No.9/10,
pp.1184-1198.
Olson, E.M., Slater, F.F., & Hult, T.M.
(2005) ”The Performance Impli-
cation of FitAmong Business
Strategy, Marketing Organiza-
tion Structure, and Strategic Be-
havior”. Journal of Marketing,
Vol.69, (Jul),pp.49-65.

Olson, E.M., Walker, O.C., & Ruekert,
R.W.(1995) ”Organizing for
Effective New Product Develop-
ment: The Moderating Role of
Product Innovativeness”. Jour-
nal of Marketing, Vol.59 (Jan),
pp.48-62.
Orlitzky, M. (2001) “Does Firm Size
Confound the Relationship Be-
tween Corporate Social Per-
formance and Firm Financial
Performance?”. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, Vol.33, No.2,
pp.167-180.
Orlitzky, M. & Benjamin, J.D. (2001)
“Corporate Social Performance
and Firm Risk: A Meta-Analytic
Review”. Business and Society,
Vol.40, No.4, pp.369-396.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes,
S.L. 2003. “Corporate Social
and Financial Performance: A
Meta Analysis”. Organization
Studies, Vol.24,No.3, pp.:403-
441.
Ouchi, W.G. (1977), “The Relationship
Between Organizational Struc-
ture and Organizational Con-
trol,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol.20, No.1, pp.95–
113.
Post, J.E., Preston, L.E., & Sach, S.
(2002) “Managing the Extended
Enterprises: The New Stake-
holder View”. Smith Research
Network: Smith Paper Online,
Vol.5, No.15.
Republic of Indonesia.(1997) The Law
No.23, 1997 on Environment
Management and its Explana-
tions. www.ri.go.id
No.17, 2000 on Income Tax and
its Explanations. www.ri.go.id
No.19, 2003 on State-Owned
Companies and its Explana-
tions. www.ri.go.id
No.25, 2007 on Capital Invet-
ment its Explanations.
www.ri.go.id
No.40, 2007 on Indonesian Cor-
poration and its Explanations.
www.ri.go.id
Robbins, Stephen P. (2002), Organiza-
tional Behavior, 10th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Roman, R.M., Hayibor, S., and Agle,
B.R. (1999) ”The Relationship
Between Social and Financial
Performance: Repainting a Por-
trait”. Business and Society,
Vol.38, No.1, pp.109-125.
Rowley, T. & Berman, S.(2000) ”A
Brand New Brand of Corporate
Social erformance”, Business
and Society, Vol. 39, No. 4.
pp.397-418.
Ruekert, R.W., Walker, O.C., and Roer-
ing, K.J.(1985) ”The Organiza-
tion of Marketing Activities: A
Contingency Theory of Struc-
ture and Performance”. Journal
of Marketing, Vol.49 (Winter),
pp.13-26.
Russo, Michael V & Fouts, Paul A.
(1997) “A Resource-Based Per-
spective on Corporate Environ-
mental Performance and Profit-
ability”, The Academy of Man-
agement Journal, Vol. 40, No.
3, pp. 534-559.
Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown,
R.M., Janney, J.J., & Paul, K.
2001. “An Empirical Investiga-
tion of the Relationship Between
Change in Corporate Social Per-
formance and Financial Per-
formance: A Stakeholder The-
ory Perspective”. Journal of

Business Ethics, 32(2): 143-156.
Simons, R. (1987) "Accounting Control
Systems and Business Strategy:
An Empirical Analysis." Ac-
counting, Organizations and
Society, Vol.12, No.4), pp.357-
374.
__________ (1994) "How New Top
Managers Use Control Systems
as Levers of Strategic Renewal."
Vol.15 (March), pp.169-189
__________ (1995a) "Control in an
Age of Empowerment." Har-
vard Business Review, Vol.73,
No.2, pp.8-88
__________ (1995b) Levers of Con-
trol: How Managers Use Inno-
vative Control Systems to Drive
Strategic Renewal. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press
__________ (2000) Performance Meas-
urement and Control System for
Implementing Strategy: text and
Cases. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall
Simpson, W.G. & Kohers, T. (2002)
“The Link Between Corporate
Social and Financial Perform-
ance: Evidence from the Bank-
ing Industry”. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, Vol.35, No.2, pp.97
-109.
Snell, S. (1992), “Control Theory in
Strategic Human Resource Man-
agement: The Mediating Effect
of Administrative Information,”
nal, Vol.35, No.2, pp.292–327.
Tan, J.J., & Listcchert, R.J.(1994)
”Environment-Strategy Rela-
tionship and its Performance
Implications: An Empirical
Study of the Chinese Electronic
Industry”, Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, Vol.15, No.1, pp1
-20.
Ullman, A.A. (1985) ”Data in Search of
Theory:A Critical of Examina-
tion of the Relationship Among
Social Performance, Social Dis-
closure, and Economics Per-
formance of U.S. Firms”, Acad-
emy of Management Review,
Vol.10, No.3,pp.640-557.
Venkatraman, N. (1989) ”Strategic Ori-
entation of Business Enterprise:
The Construct, Dimensionality,
and Measurement”. Manage-
ment Science, Vol.35, No.8, pp.
942-962.
Vorhies, D.W., & Morgan, N.A.(2003)
”A Configuration Theory As-
sessment of Marketing Organi-
zation Fit with Business Strat-
egy and its Relationship with
Marketing Performance”. Jour-
nal of Marketing,Vol.67, (Jan),
pp.100-115.
Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.M. 1997.
“The Corporate Social Perform-
ance-Financial Performance
Link”. Strategic Management
319.
Wagner, M. ( 2001) “A Review of Em-
pirical Studies Concerning the
Relationship Between Environ-
mental and Economic Perform-
ance”, Liineburg: Center for
Sustainability Management, Au-
gust.
Walker, O.C., & Ruekert, R.(1987)
”Marketing’s Role in the Imple-
mentation of Business Strategies:
A Critical Review and Concep-
tual Framework”. Journal of
Marketing, (Jul), 51(3):15-33.
Widener, S.K. (2006) “An Empirical
Analysis of the Levers of Con-
trol Framework”, Paper pre-
sented in AAA’s International

Conference.
__________ (2007) ”An Empirical
Analysis of Levers of Control
Framework” Accounting, Organi-
zation, and Society, 32:757-788.
Wood, D.J and Jones, R.E.(1995)
“Stakeholder Mismatching:
Theoretical Problems in Empiri-
cal Research on Corporate So-
cial Performance”, Interna-
tional Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol,3, No,3.
Worrell, D.L., Davidson III, W.N., and
Sharma, V.M. (1997) “Lay off
Announcements and Stock-
holder Wealth”. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol.34,
No.3, pp.662-678.
Wright, P. and Ferris, S.P. (1997)
“Agency Conflict and Corporate
Strategy: The Effect of Di-
vestment on Corporate Value”.
Vol.18, No.1, pp.77-83.

International Journals Call for Paper
The IISTE, a U.S. publisher, is currently hosting the academic journals listed below. The peer review process of the following journals
usually takes LESS THAN 14 business days and IISTE usually publishes a qualified article within 30 days. Authors should
send their full paper to the following email address. More information can be found in the IISTE website : www.iiste.org
Business, Economics, Finance and Management PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
European Journal of Business and Management EJBM@iiste.org
Research Journal of Finance and Accounting RJFA@iiste.org
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development JESD@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management IKM@iiste.org
Developing Country Studies DCS@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters IEL@iiste.org
Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Chemistry PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Natural Sciences Research JNSR@iiste.org
Chemistry and Materials Research CMR@iiste.org
Mathematical Theory and Modeling MTM@iiste.org
Advances in Physics Theories and Applications APTA@iiste.org
Chemical and Process Engineering Research CPER@iiste.org
Engineering, Technology and Systems PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Computer Engineering and Intelligent Systems CEIS@iiste.org
Innovative Systems Design and Engineering ISDE@iiste.org
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy JETP@iiste.org
Information and Knowledge Management IKM@iiste.org
Control Theory and Informatics CTI@iiste.org
Journal of Information Engineering and Applications JIEA@iiste.org
Industrial Engineering Letters IEL@iiste.org
Network and Complex Systems NCS@iiste.org
Environment, Civil, Materials Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Environment and Earth Science JEES@iiste.org
Civil and Environmental Research CER@iiste.org
Civil and Environmental Research CER@iiste.org
Life Science, Food and Medical Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare JBAH@iiste.org
Food Science and Quality Management FSQM@iiste.org
Chemistry and Materials Research CMR@iiste.org
Education, and other Social Sciences PAPER SUBMISSION EMAIL
Journal of Education and Practice JEP@iiste.org
Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization JLPG@iiste.org
New Media and Mass Communication NMMC@iiste.org
Journal of Energy Technologies and Policy JETP@iiste.org
Historical Research Letter HRL@iiste.org
Public Policy and Administration Research PPAR@iiste.org
International Affairs and Global Strategy IAGS@iiste.org
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences RHSS@iiste.org
Developing Country Studies DCS@iiste.org
Arts and Design Studies ADS@iiste.org
Global knowledge sharing:
EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's
Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP
Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld
Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate,
OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library ,
NewJour, Google Scholar.
IISTE is member of CrossRef. All journals
have high IC Impact Factor Values (ICV).

11.isea vol 0004www.iiste.org call for paper no 1 pp. 40-64

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to 11.isea vol 0004www.iiste.org call for paper no 1 pp. 40-64 (20)

More from Alexander Decker (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

11.isea vol 0004www.iiste.org call for paper no 1 pp. 40-64