Doing well by doing good
There is much empirical support for the notion that companies are penalized if they are perceived to conduct business in ways that conflict with social values. This is particularly true when inconsistencies arise between the pursuit of corporate profits and social goals--such as environmental protection, public health, and human rights, among others. In cases where the inconsistencies are large and there is sufficient public awareness, it is advantageous for companies to anticipate the social pressure and to take a proactive stance toward lessoning the potential for conflict.
Tellingly, when the problem is perceptions of poor corporate governance--overpaid CEOs, for example, or lack of political accountability--the study finds that acts of corporate social responsibility increase, but not in the category of governance. Instead, companies choose to engage in projects related to the environment, community relations, or human rights. Thus the banker bakers.
Of course, the definitions of good and harm here are slippery. For more on that, check out : Milton Friedman vs. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey vs. Cypress Semiconductors founder T.J. Rodgers on corporate social responsibility.