One study is for example the one by Oekom Research, which indicates that of the 602 companies examined, the 186 companies with the highest sustainability rating also performed better financially than the 416 remaining companies, outperforming them by 23.4%. Critics like Vogel are however not impressed by such numbers (Stavins, 2006). The much wider studies cited and compared in his book appear to indicate that results like those mentioned by Fraser are both biased and too narrow to provide a true indication of the performance/responsibility ratio.

This is a debate that will probably last for a very long time. Nevertheless, other factors should also be taken into account, especially in terms of shareholders. Shareholders as entities are changing together with the environment in which they function. An increasing number of shareholders is also becoming more socially and environmentally conscious, hence preferring to invest in companies with such values. This trend will certainly drive the tendency...

Long-term sustainability does after all mean long-term wealth and ultimately long-term survival of the human race and the businesses that serve them. Although short-term results may indicate otherwise, I therefore believe that it is in the long-term interest of both companies, shareholders and stakeholders to honor corporate social responsibility.
Sources

Fraser, Bruce W. (2005, Feb). Corporate social responsibility Internal Auditor. Database: FindArticles.com

Stavins, Robert N. (2006, April). The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility (book review). Environment. Database: FindArticles.com.

Teach, Edward. (2005, Dec). Two views of virtue: the corporate social responsibility movement is picking up steam. Should you worry about it? CFO: Magazine for Senior Financial Executives. Database: FindArticels.com