Abstract
Research into corporate social performance (CSP) recently shifted to studying its political economic dimensions. In this paper, we test the influence of price and technological competition and two institutional factors, mandatory reporting and monitoring by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and media, on CSP. Combining survey data with CSP ratings from Sustainalytics, we find that technological competition, monitoring by NGOs and media and mandatory CSP reporting foster CSP. However, price competition is not found to significantly influence CSP. This indicates that there is no support for the existence of a trade-off between anti-trust policy and CSP. Furthermore, our findings imply that governments can stimulate CSP by making CSP reporting mandatory.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Scott (2001) distinguishes three types of institutions: regulatory, normative and cognitive. Regulative elements include rules, sanctions and regulations which tend to codify socially accepted corporate behavior. Normative elements are the values and social norms that define the ‘rules of the game’. Cognitive elements include cultural values, ideology and identity.
Detailed reports on these statistical analyses are available upon request with the authors.
A list of all general and sector specific indicators is available upon request with the authors.
Several studies show that self-reported behavior and actual behavior are strongly correlated (see, Beaver and Prince 2004).
To further control for possible selection bias, we also used the Heckman two-stage estimation procedure (Heckman 1979; Lee 1983). In the first step, a selection equation was estimated explaining the response by type of country, sector, company size, financial return and long term debt-equity ratio on a sample of 968 observations, assuming that more profitable companies have more resources to free manpower to fill in surveys. From the regression results, the inverse Mills ratio was calculated. In all regressions it appeared to be highly insignificant (standardized coefficient \(=\) 0.009; p value \(=\) 0.58), indicating no selection bias in the estimation results. Since there is no indication of selection bias and since the number of observations declines from 205 to 166 if we include the inverse Mills ratio (which is due to missing values for financial return and long term debt-equity ratio for 37 companies), we dropped the inverse Mills ratio in the final analysis.
S&P Capital IQ is a multinational financial information provider headquartered in New York City, and a division of Standard & Poor’s. It covers about 88,000 companies globally with over 5000 unique financial data items and 2500 industry-specific items.
We also experimented with six cultural dimensions as developed by Hofstede (2015) (power distance, masculinity, individualism, long-term orientation, uncertainty avoidance, indulgence) to control for cultural differences (e.g. the cognitive dimension of institutions). We found, however, that none of them is significant if country dummies are also included in the regression analysis. If we drop all country dummies, only two dimensions of the Hofstede index become significant. From this we conclude that country dummies more effectively control for national differences than the Hofstede indices. Apparently there are other country-specific influences that affect CSP, besides cultural dimensions.
For price competition squared, we used centering (i.e., subtracting their means before creating the powers or the products), which is a usual method to diminish multicorrelation with price competition.
References
Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28, 447–465.
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 281–304.
Barth, M. E., McNichols, M. F., & Wilson, G. P. (1997). Factors influencing firms’ disclosure about environmental liabilities. Review of Accounting Studies, 2, 35–64.
Bartley, T., & Child, C. (2011). Movements, markets and fields: The effects of anti-sweatshop campaigns on U.S. firms, 1993–2000. Social Forces, 90, 425–451.
Beaver, G., & Prince, C. (2004). Management, strategy and policy in the UK small business sector: A critical review. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 34–49.
Bengtsson, M. (1998). Climates of competition. London: Routledge.
Berthelot, S., Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental disclosure research: Review and synthesis. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 1–44.
Bovenberg, A. L. (2002). Norms, values and technological change. De Economist, 150, 521–553.
Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 3–28.
Campbell, J. L. (2007). ‘Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility’. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946–967.
Cañón-de-Francia, J., & Garcés-Ayerbe, C. (2009). ISO 14001 Environmental certification: A sign valued by the market? Environmental Resource Economics, 44, 245–262.
Cottrill, M. T. (1990). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Marketplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 723–729.
Crouch, C. (2006). Modelling the firm in its market and organizational environment: Methodologies for studying corporate social responsibility. Organization Studies, 27(10), 1533–1551.
Curlo, E. (1999). ‘Marketing strategy, product safety, and ethical factors in consumer choice’. Journal of Business Ethics, 21, 37–48.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 47–73.
Donsimoni, M. P., Geroski, P., & Jacquemin, A. (1984). Concentration indices and market power. Journal of Industrial Economics, 32(4), 419–434.
Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. The Journal of Marketing, 60, 71–87.
Dubbink, G. W., Graafland, J. J., & van Liedekerke, L. (2008). CSR: Transparency and the role of intermediate organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 391–406.
Dubbink, W., & van Putten, F. P. (2008). Is competition law an impediment to CSR? Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 381–395.
European Commission. (2001). A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European Union strategy for sustainable development. COM 264 final, Brussels.
Filbeck, G., & Gorman, R. F. (2004). The relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environmental and Resource Economics, 29, 137–157.
Fung, A., Fagotto, E., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2006). The effectiveness of regulatory disclosure. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 155–181.
Gereffi, G., Garcia-Johnson, R., & Sasser, E. (2001). The NGO-industrial complex. Foreign Policy, 125(Juli/August), 56–65.
Gjølberg, M. (2009). The origin of corporate social responsibility: Global forces or national legacies. Socio-Economic Review, 7, 605–637.
Glazer, A., Kanniainen, V., & Poutvaara, P. (2010). Firms’ ethics, consumer boycotts, and signaling. European Journal of Political Economy, 26, 340–350.
Greer, D. F. (1992). Industrial organization and public policy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analyses. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the company. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.
Hendry, J. (2006). Taking aim at business: What factors lead environmental non-governmental organizations to target particular firm? Business & Society, 45, 47–86.
Hess, D. (2007). Social reporting and new governance regulation: The prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 453–476.
Hofstede, G. (2015). ‘Dimensions of national cultures,’ Retrieved from Geert Hofstede: http://geerthofstede.nl/dimensions-of-national-cultures.
Hull, C., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781–789.
Iannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014), ‘The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting: Evidence from four countries,’ Havard Business School, working paper 11-100.
Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute? Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 371–394.
Kinderman, D. (2012). ‘Free us up so we can be responsible!’ The co-evolution of corporate social responsibility and neo-liberalism in the UK, 1977–2010. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 29–57.
King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 395–421.
KPMG. (2011). Carrots and sticks. Promoting transparency and sustainability. An update on trends in voluntary and mandatory approaches to sustainability reporting, https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Carrots-And-Sticks-Promoting-Transparency-And-Sustainbability.pdf. Accessed on 9 January 2013.
Laverty, K. J. (1996). Economic “short-termism”: The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 21, 825–860.
Lee, L. (1983). Generalized econometric models with selectivity. Econometrica, 51, 507–513.
Lepoutre, J., & Heene, H. (2006). Investigating the impact of firms size on small business social responsibility: A critical review. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 257–273.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the US: Insights from businesses’ self-representations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497–514.
Margolis, J.D., Elfenbein, H.A., & Walsh, J. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Working paper, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “‘Implicit” and ”explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404–424.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603–609.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2011). Creating and capturing value. Journal of Management, 37, 1480–1495.
Miller, R. A. (1969). Market structure and industrial performance: Relation to profit rates to concentration, advertising intensity and diversity. Journal of Industrial Economics, 17(2), 104–118.
Moon, J., & Vogel, D. (2008). Corporate responsibility, government and civil society. In A. Crane, et al. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muthuri, J. N., & Gilbert, V. (2011). An institutional analysis of corporate social responsibility in Kenya. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 467–483.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NMa. (2010). Annual Report 2009. The Hague.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.
Orr, D. (1974). An index of entry barriers and its application to the market structure performance relationship. Journal of Industrial Economics, 23(1), 39–49.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Renneboog, L., ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2008). The price of ethics and stakeholder governance: The performance of socially responsibility mutual funds. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14, 203–228.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1976). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (5th ed.). London/Boston: George Allen & Unwin.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Segelod, E. (2000). A comparison of managers’ perceptions of short-termism in Sweden and the US. International Journal of Production Economics, 63, 243–254.
Smith, T. (2005). Institutional and social investors find common ground. The Journal of Investing, 14, 57–65.
Spence, L. J. (1999). Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8, 163–167.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 463–490.
Telle, K. (2006). It pays to be green—A premature conclusion? Environmental and Resource Economics, 35, 195–220.
Van de Ven, B. W., & Jeurissen, R. M. J. (2005). Competing responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 299–318.
Vickers, J. (1995). Concepts of competition. Oxford Economic Papers, 47, 1–23.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.
Wagner, M. (2007). On the relationship between environmental management, environmental innovation and patenting: Evidence from German manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 36, 1587–1602.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.
Wirl, F., Feichtinger, G., & Kort, P. M. (2013). Individual firm and market dynamics of CSR activities. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 86, 169–182.
Wright, B. G. (2000). Environmental NGOs and the dolphin-tuna case. Environmental Politics, 9, 82–103.
Ziegler, A., & Nogareda, J. S. (2009). Environmental management systems and technological environmental innovations: Exploring the causal relationship. Research Policy, 38, 885–893.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the European Union under the seventh framework program theme SSH-2009-2.1.3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Graafland, J., Smid, H. Competition and Institutional Drivers of Corporate Social Performance. De Economist 163, 303–322 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-015-9255-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-015-9255-y