ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies

Figures & data

Figure 1. Estimated number of empirical studies on the ESG–CFP relation over time.

Table 1. Overview of studies on the ESG–CFP relation (vote-count studies sample).

			Share of findings
Study	Focus	Number of studies (N)	Positive	Neutral	Negative	Mixed
Arlow and Gannon (1982)	S	7	42.9%	42.9%	14.3%
Cochran and Wood (1984)	S, E	13	69.2%	23.1%	7.7%
Aupperle, Carroll, and Hatfield (1985)	S, E	9	55.6%	22.2%	11.1%	11.1%
Ullmann (1985)	S, E	24	54.2%	20.8%	12.5%	12.5%
Capon, Farley, and Hoenig (1990)	S, E	14	75.9%		19.5%	4.6%
Wood and Jones (1995)	S, E	51	49.0%	21.6%	13.7%	15.7%
Pava and Krausz (1996)	S, E	21	57.1%	38.1%	4.8%
Griffin and Mahon (1997)	S, E	50	44.0%	12.0%	22.0%	22.0%
Roman, Hayibor, and Agle (1999)	S, E	45	60.0%	24.4%	4.4%	11.1%
Richardson, Welker, and Hutchinson (1999)	E, S	22	50.0%	45.5%	4.5%
Margolis and Walsh (2003)	S, E	126	42.9%	22.2%	5.6%	29.4%
Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers, and Steger (2005)	S, E	12	50.0%	25.0%	25.0%
McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright (2006)	S, E	12	33.3%	25.0%	16.7%	25.0%
Gillan and Starks (2007)	G	39	35.9%	43.6%	5.1%	15.4%
Ambec and Lanoie (2007)	E	41	68.3%	22.0%	4.9%	4.9%
van Beurden and Gössling (2008)	E, S	34	67.6%	26.5%	5.9%
Peloza (2009)	S, E	130	63.0%	22.0%	15.0%
Blanco, Rey-Maquieira, and Lozano (2009)	E	32	71.9%	21.9%	6.3%
Molina-Azorín et al. (2009)	E	32	62.5%	12.5%	12.5%	12.5%
Horváthová (2010)	E	44	54.7%	29.7%	15.6%	0%
Westlund and Adam (2010)	S	21	85.7%			14.3%
Love (2010)	G	45	77.8%	0%	22.2%
Derwall, Koedijk, and Horst (2011)	Funds	18	16.7%	33.3%	22.2%	27.8%
Günther, Hoppe, and Endrikat (2011)	E	274	44.5%		11.8%	43.7%
Sjöström (2011)	E, S	21	23.8%	33.3%	14.3%	28.6%
Boaventura, Santos da Silva, and Bandeira-de-Mello (2012)	S, E	58	55.2%	27.6%	10.3%	6.9%
Rathner (2013)	Funds	25	13.2%	72.0%	14.9%	0%
Schultze and Trommer (2012)	E	36	50.0%	19.4%	5.6%	25.0%
Viviers and Eccles (2012)	Funds	59	23.4%	56.2%	20.3%
Fifka (2013)	Reporting	45	53.3%	42.2%	4.4%
Kleine, Krautbauer, and Weller (2013)	E, S, G	182	30.8%	31.9%	7.7%	29.7%
Revelli and Viviani (2013)	Funds	75	24.0%	48.0%	14.7%	13.3%
Capelle-Blancard and Monjon (2014)	Funds	61	3.3%	47.5%	16.4%	32.8%
Clark, Feiner, and Viehs (2015)	E, S, G	110	85.5%	5.1%	0.9%	8.5%
Schröder (2014)	E, S	28	57.1%	7.1%	10.7%	25.0%
Total/n-weighted average		1.816	48.2%	23.0%	10.7%	18.0%

This table displays all considered vote-count studies for the analysis. Meta-analytical studies with nontransferable or nontransparent effect sizes that nonetheless allow a vote-count analysis were included in the vote-count studies sample as well. Focus “S” and “E” denote a Social (S) or Environmental (E) focus. For studies with combined E and S focus, the order of S and E indicates the relative weight of S vs. E. The labeling “E, S, G” indicates no relative weight within groups. The number of primary studies in each vote-count analysis is denoted N. For vote-count studies with transparent vote-count on primary study, the share of findings is calculated based on this primary information. For all other cases, the reported summary results of the vote-count reviewers are used.

Table 2. Overview of studies on the ESG–CFP relation (meta-analyses sample).

Authors	Focus	Number of studies (N)	Number of observations (N)	Average correlation r (uncorrected)
Frooman (1997)	E, S	22	2.161	0.312(b)
Orlitzky and Benjamin (2001)	S, E	18	6.186	0.149
Orlitzky (2001)	S, E	20	6.889	0.061
Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes (2003)	S, E	62	33.878	0.184
Allouche and Laroche (2005)	S, E	79	57.409	0.143
Combs et al. (2006)	S	90	19.319	0.150
Wu (2006)	S, E	120	21.933	0.166
Rosenbusch, Bausch, and Galander (2007)	E	62	21.742	0.190
Darnall and Sides (2008)	E	9	30.000	0.077
Pavie and Filho (2008)	S, E	112	170.737	0.083
van Wijk, Jansen, and Lyles (2008)	S	28	4.627	0.190
Margolis, Elfenbein, and Walsh (2009)	S, E	214	38.483	0.133
Vishwanathan (2010)	E, S	189	n.a.	0.070
Crook et al. (2011)	S	66	12.163	0.170
Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, and Bausch (2011)	S	46	21.270	0.133
Unger et al. (2011)	S	70	24.733	0.076
Rubera and Kirca (2012)	S	153	33.544	0.146
Albertini (2013)	E	52	62.943	0.090
del Mar Miras-Rodríguez et al. (2015)	E, S	91	31.878	0.067
Dixon-Fowler et al. (2013)	E	39	22.869	0.062
Golicic and Smith (2013)	E	31	15.160	0.305
Mayer-Haug et al. (2013)	S	58	50.045	0.044(b)
Endrikat, Guenther, and Hoppe (2014)	E	148	201.511	0.082(b)
Stam, Arzlanian, and Elfring (2014)	S	43	13.263	0.157
Revelli and Viviani (2015)	Funds	80	89.496	–0.003(a)
Total/n-weighted average		1.902	992.239	0.118

This table displays all considered meta-analyses for the analysis and includes the number of primary studies in each meta-analysis and the corresponding number of observations. Amplifications on the original reported number of included primary studies have been made, if not the entire sample was used. For four meta-analyses not all originally reported number of studies could be verified through data in the provided appendix and for three studies a condensed study set was used. The gross number of studies therefore decreases from 2091 to 1902 studies. Focus “S” and “E” denote a Social (S) or Environmental (E) focus. For studies with integrated S and E focus, the order of S and E indicates the relative weight of S vs. E studies. The indices (a) and (b) for the uncorrected effect size r indicate the source of the effect size in case, it was modified from the originally stated results: (a) transformed from d/g in r and (b) derived from stated corrected study results with either a meta-analysis provided individual attenuation factor or a calculated artifact attenuation factor of 0.72.

Figure 2. Overall summary results.

Figure 3. ESG–CFP relation in vote-count studies.

Table 3. Distribution results in dependency of correlation intervals.

			Percentage of studies classified
Share in	Interval type	Correlation interval (r)	Positive	Negative	Neutral
n = 25 meta-analyses	adj. 95% CI, attenuated	±0.0147	95.8	0	4.2
	adj. 95% CrI, attenuated	±0.0733	74.9	0	25.1
	adj. 95% CI, disattenuated	±0.0185	95.8	0	4.2
	adj. 95% CrI, disattenuated	±0.0924	90.7	0	9.3
n = 551 primary studies	adj. 95% CI, attenuated	±0.0147	80.9	14.2	4.9
	adj. 95% CrI, attenuated	±0.0733	62.6	8.0	29.4
	adj. 95% CI, disattenuated	±0.0185	80.9	14.5	4.5
	adj. 95% CrI, disattenuated	±0.0924	63.9	8.5	27.6

This table outlines the results of the distribution analysis of positive, negative, and neutral results in meta-analyses and in dependency of different correlation intervals. Whereas CI indicates the confidence interval and CrI the credibility interval.

Table 4. Effect size in dependence of aggregation approach and sample.

Number of review analyses	N	Effect size	Effect size value	power^α  ^= ^0.05		CIL	CIU	CrIL	CrIU	Fail-Safe N
35	1.816		0.146***	0.999
25	1.902		0.118***	0.999
–	551		0.119***	0.804
–	551		0.169***	0.991
25	1.902		0.108***	0.997	0.0014	0.094	0.123	0.035	0.182	717
25	1.902		0.150***	0.999	0.0022	0.132	0.169	0.058	0.242	987

This table depicts first-order and second-order meta-analytical results. Attenuated correlations are marked as r and disattenuated correlations as p. The number of lines above letters indicates the first- or second-level nature of the effect size. The additional circumflex accent indicates psychometric meta-analytically effect sizes. Correlations not marked with a circumflex are meta-analytical averages but not determined with psychometric meta-analysis. is the sample-size weighted second-level effect size in vote-count analyses and the sample-size weighted second-level average effect size in meta-analyses. and are the attenuated and disattenuated first-level effects sizes in transparent primary studies, and and are the second-order meta-analytical attenuated and disattenuated averages. The deviation of all effect sizes from zero is tested for significance. is the estimated true variance for and . Power 0.05 is Cohen's power with α = 0.05 and for the corresponding sample and effect size. For the second-order meta-analytical correlation means and CI_L/CI_U symbolize the 95% CI and CrI_L/CrI_U the 95% CrI. L indicates the lower and U the upper bound of the interval. Fail-Safe N is Rosenthal's (1979, 1991) statistic to detect potential publication bias in meta-analyses. Fail-Safe N states the number of (future) studies with null results, until the effect size loses its significance level. A level above 5*n + 10 for Fail-Safe N is considered unlikely to assume publication bias within studies. This can be ruled out. The significance thresholds for p-values are ***p < .01.

Figure 4. ESG–CFP relation in vote-count studies in dependence of portfolio- and nonportfolio sample.

Table 5. Effect size in dependence of portfolio and nonportfolio samples.

Number of review analyses	N	Effect size	Effect size value	power^α  ^= ^0.05	Non-p and p difference
30	1.578		0.177***	0.999	.238***
5	238		–0.061*	0.154
–	471		0.131***	0.815	.076**
–	80		0.055**	0.078
–	471		0.183***	0.981	.089**
–	80		0.094***	0.132

This table deconstructs the results in Table 4 for , , and in nonportfolio studies effect sizes (non-p) and portfolio studies effect sizes (p). Power0.05 is Cohen's power with α = 0.05 and for the corresponding sample and effect size. The difference of portfolio and nonportfolios studies in effect sizes is tested for significance. The significance thresholds for p-values are *p < .10, **p < .05, and ***p < .01.

Figure 5. ESG–CFP relation in main asset classes (vote-count studies sample), n = 334 net studies.

Figure 6. E, S, and G categories and their relation to CFP (vote-count studies sample), n = 644 net studies.

Figure 7. ESG–CFP relation in various regions (vote-count studies sample), n = 402 net studies.

Figure 8. ESG–CFP correlation factors in primary studies in dependency of study publishing dates (meta-analyses sample), n = 551 net studies.

Arlow, Peter, and Martin J. Gannon. 1982. “Social Responsiveness, Corporate Structure, and Economic Performance.” Academy of Management Review 7 (2): 235–241. doi:10.5465/AMR.1982.4285580.

 Google Scholar

Cochran, Philip L., and Robert A. Wood. 1984. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 27 (1): 42–56. doi:10.2307/255956.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aupperle, Kenneth E., Archie B. Carroll, and John D. Hatfield. 1985. “An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability.” Academy of Management Journal 28 (2): 446–463. doi:10.2307/256210.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ullmann, Arieh A. 1985. “Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms.” The Academy of Management Review 10 (3): 540–557. doi:10.2307/258135.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Capon, Noel, John U. Farley, and Scott Hoenig. 1990. “Determinants of Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Management Science 36 (10): 1143–1159. doi: jstor.org/stable/2632657.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wood, Donna J., and Raymond E. Jones. 1995. “Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance.” The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3 (3): 229–267. doi:10.1108/eb028831.

 Google Scholar

Pava, Moses L., and Joshua Krausz. 1996. “The Association Between Corporate Social-Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost.” Journal of Business Ethics 15 (3): 321–357. doi:10.1007/BF00382958.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Griffin, Jennifer J., and John F. Mahon. 1997. “The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate: Twenty-Five Years of Incomparable Research.” Business & Society 36 (1): 5–31. doi:10.1177/000765039703600102.

 Google Scholar

Roman, Ronald M., Sefa Hayibor, and Bradley R. Agle. 1999. “The Relationship Between Social and Financial Performance: Repainting a Portrait.” Business & Society 38 (1): 109–125. doi:10.1177/000765039903800105.

 Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan J., Michael Welker, and Ian R. Hutchinson. 1999. “Managing Capital Market Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility.” International Journal of Management Reviews 1 (1): 17–43. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00003.

 Google Scholar

Margolis, Joshua D., and James P. Walsh. 2003. “Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business.” Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2): 268–305. doi:10.2307/3556659.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Salzmann, Oliver, Aileen Ionescu-Somers, and Ulrich Steger. 2005. “The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability: Literature Review and Research Options.” European Management Journal 23 (1): 27–36. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.007.

 Google Scholar

McWilliams, Abagail, Donald S. Siegel, and Patrick M. Wright. 2006. “Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications.” Journal of Management Studies 43 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gillan, Stuart L., and Laura T. Starks. 2007. “The Evolution of Shareholder Activism in the United States.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 19 (1): 55–73. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6622.2007.00125.x.

 Google Scholar

Ambec, Stefan, and Paul Lanoie. 2007. “When and Why Does It Pay To Be Green?” 20. Série Scientifique Scientific Series Montréal.

 Google Scholar

van Beurden, Pieter, and Tobias Gössling. 2008. “The Worth of Values – a Literature Review on the Relation Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance.” Journal of Business Ethics 82 (2): 407–424. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9894-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peloza, John. 2009. “The Challenge of Measuring Financial Impacts from Investments in Corporate Social Performance.” Journal of Management 35 (6): 1518–1541. doi:10.1177/0149206309335188.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Blanco, Esther, Javier Rey-Maquieira, and Javier Lozano. 2009. “The Economic Impacts of Voluntary Environmental Performance of Firms: A Critical Review.” Journal of Economic Surveys 23 (3): 462–502. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6419.2008.00569.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Molina-Azorín, José F., Enrique Claver-Cortés, Maria D. López-Gamero, and Juan J. Tarí. 2009. “Green Management and Financial Performance: A Literature Review.” Management Decision 47 (7): 1080–1100. doi:10.1108/00251740910978313.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Horváthová, Eva. 2010. “Does Environmental Performance Affect Financial Performance? A Meta-Analysis.” Ecological Economics 70 (1): 52–59. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Westlund, Hans, and Frane Adam. 2010. “Social Capital and Economic Performance: A Meta-Analysis of 65 Studies.” European Planning Studies 18 (6): 893–919. doi:10.1080/09654311003701431.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Love, Inessa. 2010. “Corporate Governance and Performance Around the World: What We Know and What We Don't.” The World Bank Research Observer 26 (1): 42–70. doi:10.1093/wbro/lkp030.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Derwall, Jeroen, Kees Koedijk, and Jenke Ter Horst. 2011. “A Tale of Values-Driven and Profit-Seeking Social Investors.” Journal of Banking & Finance 35 (8): 2137–2147. doi:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.01.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Günther, Edeltraud, Holger Hoppe, and Jan Endrikat. 2011. “Corporate Financial Performance and Corporate Environmental Performance: A Perfect Match?” Zeitschrift Für Umweltpolitik Und Umweltrecht 34 (3): 279–296.

 Google Scholar

Sjöström, Emma. 2011. “The Performance of Socially Responsible Investment – A Review of Scholarly Studies Published 2008–2010.” SSRN Electronic Journal: 1–19. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1948169.

 Google Scholar

Boaventura, João Maurício Gama, Ralph Santos da Silva, and Rodrigo Bandeira-de-Mello. 2012. “Corporate Financial Performance and Corporate Social Performance: Methodological Development and the Theoretical Contribution of Empirical Studies.” Revista Contabilidade & Finanças 23 (60): 232–245. doi:10.1590/S1519-70772012000300008.

 Google Scholar

Rathner, Sebastian. 2013. “The Influence of Primary Study Characteristics on the Performance Differential Between Socially Responsible and Conventional Investment Funds: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Business Ethics 118 (2): 349–363. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1584-z.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schultze, Wolfgang, and Ramona Trommer. 2012. “The Concept of Environmental Performance and Its Measurement in Empirical Studies.” Journal of Management Control 22 (4): 375–412. doi:10.1007/s00187-011-0146-3.

 Google Scholar

Viviers, S., and N. S. Eccles. 2012. “35 Years of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Research – General Trends over Time.” South African Journal of Business Management 43 (4): 1–16. doi:http://hdl.handle.net/10500/12853.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fifka, Matthias S. 2013. “Corporate Responsibility Reporting and Its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta-Analysis.” Business Strategy and the Environment 22 (1): 1–35. doi:10.1002/bse.729.

 Google Scholar

Kleine, Jens, Matthias Krautbauer, and Tim Weller. 2013. Nachhaltige Investments Aus Dem Blick Der Wissenschaft: Leistungsversprechen Und Realität. Research Center for Financial Services Steinbeis-Hochschule Berlin.

 Google Scholar

Revelli, Christophe, and Jean-Laurent Viviani. 2013. “The Link Between SRI and Financial Performance: Effects and Moderators.” Management International 17 (2): 105–122. doi:10.7202/1015403ar.

 Google Scholar

Capelle-Blancard, Gunther, and Stéphanie Monjon. 2014. “The Performance of Socially Responsible Funds: Does the Screening Process Matter?” European Financial Management 20 (3): 494–520. doi:10.1111/j.1468-036X.2012.00643.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clark, Gordon L., Andreas Feiner, and Michael Viehs. 2015. “From the Stockholder to the Stakeholder: How Sustainability Can Drive Financial Outperformance.” doi:10.2139/ssrn.2508281.

 Google Scholar

Schröder, Michael. 2014. “Financial Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Literature Review.” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 4 (4): 337–350. doi:10.1080/20430795.2014.971096.

 Google Scholar

Frooman, Jeff. 1997. “Socially Irresponsible and Illegal Behavior and Shareholder Wealth: A Meta-Analysis of Event Studies.” Business & Society 36 (3): 221–249. doi:10.1177/000765039703600302.

 Google Scholar

Orlitzky, Marc, and John D. Benjamin. 2001. “Corporate Social Performance and Firm Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Business & Society 40 (4): 369–396. doi:10.1177/000765030104000402.

 Google Scholar

Orlitzky, Marc. 2001. “Does Firm Size Confound the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance?” Journal of Business Ethics 33 (2): 167–180. doi:10.1023/A:1017516826427.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Orlitzky, Marc, Frank L. Schmidt, and Sarah L. Rynes. 2003. “Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Organization Studies 24 (3): 403–441. doi:10.1177/0170840603024003910.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Allouche, José, and Patrice Laroche. 2005. “A Meta-Analytical Investigation of the Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance.” Revue de Gestion Des Ressources Humaines 57: 1–18.

 Google Scholar

Combs, James, Yongmei Liu, Angela Hall, and David Ketchen. 2006. “How Much Do High-Performance Work Practices Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Organizational Performance.” Personnel Psychology 59 (3): 501–528. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wu, Meng-Ling. 2006. “Corporate Social Performance, Corporate Financial Performance, and Firm Size: A Meta-Analysis.” The Journal of American Academy of Business 8 (1): 163–171.

 Google Scholar

Rosenbusch, Nina, Andreas Bausch, and Anne Galander. 2007. “The Impact of Environmental Characteristics on Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings: 1–6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2007.26530718.

 Google Scholar

Darnall, Nicole, and Stephen Sides. 2008. “Assessing the Performance of Voluntary Environmental Programs: Does Certification Matter?” The Policy Studies Journal 36 (1): 95–117. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00255.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pavie, Juliana Junqueira Esmeraldo, and Luiz Alberto Nascimento Campos Filho. 2008. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Paper presented at the 34th EIBA annual conference paper, Tallinn, December 11–13. http://eiba2008.ttu.ee/public/Papers/67.pdf.

 Google Scholar

van Wijk, Raymond, Justin J. P. Jansen, and Marjorie A. Lyles. 2008. “Inter- and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Consequences.” Journal of Management Studies 45 (4): 830–853. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Margolis, Joshua D., Hillary A. Elfenbein, and James P. Walsh. 2009. “Does It Pay to Be Good … and Does It Matter? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance.” SSRN Electronic Journal: 1–68. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1866371.

 Google Scholar

Vishwanathan, Pushpika. 2010. “The Elusive Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance: Meta-Analyzing Four Decades of Misguided Evidence.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2010 (1): 1–7. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2010.54493634.

 Google Scholar

Crook, T. Russell, Samuel Y. Todd, James G. Combs, David J. Woehr, and David J. Ketchen. 2011. “Does Human Capital Matter? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Human Capital and Firm Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (3): 443–456. doi:10.1037/a0022147.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rosenbusch, Nina, Jan Brinckmann, and Andreas Bausch. 2011. “Is Innovation Always Beneficial? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Innovation and Performance in SMEs.” Journal of Business Venturing 26 (4): 441–457. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.12.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Unger, Jens M., Andreas Rauch, Michael Frese, and Nina Rosenbusch. 2011. “Human Capital and Entrepreneurial Success: A Meta-Analytical Review.” Journal of Business Venturing 26 (3): 341–358. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rubera, Gaia, and Ahmet H. Kirca. 2012. “Firm Innovativeness and Its Performance Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration.” Journal of Marketing 76: 130–147. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0494.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Albertini, Elisabeth. 2013. “Does Environmental Management Improve Financial Performance? A Meta-Analytical Review.” Organization & Environment 26 (4): 431–457. doi:10.1177/1086026613510301.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

del Mar Miras-Rodríguez, María, Amalia Carrasco-Gallego, and Bernabé Escobar-Pérez. 2015. “Are Socially Responsible Behaviors Paid Off Equally? A Cross-Cultural Analysis.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22 (4): 237–256. doi:10.1002/csr.1344.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dixon-Fowler, Heather R., Daniel J. Slater, Jonathan L. Johnson, Alan E. Ellstrand, and Andrea M. Romi. 2013. “Beyond ‘Does It Pay to Be Green?’ A Meta-Analysis of Moderators of the CEP–CFP Relationship.” Journal of Business Ethics 112 (2): 353–366. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1268-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Golicic, Susan L., and Carlo D. Smith. 2013. “A Meta-Analysis of Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices and Firm Performance.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 49 (2): 78–95. doi:10.1111/jscm.12006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mayer-Haug, Katrin, Stuart Read, Jan Brinckmann, Nicholas Dew, and Dietmar Grichnik. 2013. “Entrepreneurial Talent and Venture Performance: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of SMEs.” Research Policy 42 (6–7): 1251–1273. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Endrikat, Jan, Edeltraud Guenther, and Holger Hoppe. 2014. “Making Sense of Conflicting Empirical Findings: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship Between Corporate Environmental and Financial Performance.” European Management Journal 32 (5): 735–751. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stam, Wouter, Souren Arzlanian, and Tom Elfring. 2014. “Social Capital of Entrepreneurs and Small Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Contextual and Methodological Moderators.” Journal of Business Venturing 29 (1): 152–173. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Revelli, Christophe, and Jean-Laurent Viviani. 2015. “Financial Performance of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI): What Have We Learned? A Meta-Analysis.” Business Ethics: A European Review 24 (2): 158–185. doi:10.1111/beer.12076.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rosenthal, Robert. 1979. “The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results.” Psychological Bulletin 86 (3): 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rosenthal, Robert. 1991. Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage.

 Google Scholar