Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 69, Issue 2, pp 111–132

Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives

Article
  • 7.3k Downloads

Abstract

Firms engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) because they consider that some kind of competitive advantage accrues to them. We contend that resource-based perspectives (RBP) are useful to understand why firms engage in CSR activities and disclosure. From a resource-based perspective CSR is seen as providing internal or external benefits, or both. Investments in socially responsible activities may have internal benefits by helping a firm to develop new resources and capabilities which are related namely to know-how and corporate culture. In effect, investing in social responsibility activities and disclosure has important consequences on the creation or depletion of fundamental intangible resources, namely those associated with employees. The external benefits of CSR are related to its effect on corporate reputation. Corporate reputation can be understood as a fundamental intangible resource which can be created or depleted as a consequence of the decisions to engage or not in social responsibility activities and disclosure. Firms with good social responsibility reputation may improve relations with external actors. They may also attract better employees or increase current employees’ motivation, morale, commitment and loyalty to the firm. This article contributes to the understanding of why CSR may be seen as having strategic value for firms and how RBP can be used in such endeavour.

Keywords

capabilities corporate reputation corporate social responsibility financial performance resources resource-based perspectives 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albinger H. S., Freeman S. J. (2000). Corporate Social Performance and Attractiveness as an Employer to Different Job Seeking Populations. Journal of Business Ethics 28:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aupperle K. E., Carroll A. B., Hatfield J. D. (1985). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal 28(2):446–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backhaus K. B., Stone B. A., Heiner K. (2002). Exploring the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Employer Attractiveness. Business and Society 41(3):292–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballou B., Godwin N. H., Shortridge R. T. (2003). Firm Value and Employee Attitudes on Workplace Quality. Accounting Horizons 17(4):329–341Google Scholar
  5. Bansal P. (2005). Evolving Sustainability: A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Sustainable Development. Strategic Management Journal 26:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bansal P., Clelland I. (2004). Talking Trash: Legitimacy, Impression Management, and Unsystematic Risk in the Context of the Natural Environment. Academy of Management Journal 47(1):93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney J. B. (2001). Resource-Based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten-Year Perspective on the Resource-Based View. Journal of Management 27:643–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barney, J. B.: 1999, ‘How a Firm’s Capabilities Affect Boundary Decisions’, Sloan Management Review 40, 137–145.Google Scholar
  9. Barney J., Wright M., Ketchen D. (2001). The Resource-Based View of the Firm: Ten Years After 1991. Journal of Management 27(6):625–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhattacharya C. B., Sen S. (2004). Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review 47(1):9–24Google Scholar
  11. Bowman C., Ambrosini V. (2003). How the Resource-based and the Dynamic Capability Views of the Firm Inform Corporate-level Strategy. British Journal of Management 14:289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brammer S., Pavelin S. (2004). Building a Good Reputation. European Management Journal 22(6):704–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell D., Craven B., Shrives P. (2003). Voluntary Social Reporting in Three FTSE Sectors: A Comment on Perception and Legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 16(4):558–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll A. B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Business and Society 38(3):268–295Google Scholar
  15. Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders’, Business Horizons July–August, 39–48.Google Scholar
  16. Carroll A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 4(4):497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Connor K., Prahalad C. K. (1996). A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism. Organization Science 7:477–501Google Scholar
  18. Deephouse D. L., Carter S. M. (2005). An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation. Journal of Management Studies 42(2):329–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dyllick T., Hockerts K. (2002). Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 11:130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenhardt K. M., Martin J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What are They? Strategic Management Journal 21(10/11):1105–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ethiraj S. K., Kale P., Krishnan M. S., Singh J. V. (2005). Where do Capabilities Come From and How do They matter? A Study From the Software Services Industry. Strategic Management Journal 26:25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission (EC): 2002, Corporate Social Responsibility – A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg).Google Scholar
  23. Fombrun C., Shanley M. (1990). What’s in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33:233–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fombrun C., Gardberg N., Barnett M. (2000). Opportunity Platforms and Safety Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputational Risk. Business and Society Review 105(1):85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fulmer I., Gerhart B., Scott K. (2003). Are the 100 Best better? An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Being a ‘Great Place to Work’ and Firm Performance. Personnel Psychology 56:965–993Google Scholar
  26. Galbreath J. (2005). Which Resources Matter the Most to Firm Success? An Exploratory Study of Resource-Based Theory. Technovation 25:979–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldstein D. (2002). Theoretical Perspectives on Strategic Environmental Management. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12:495–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greening D. W., Turban D. B. (2000). Corporate Social Performance as a Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce. Business and Society 39(3):254–280Google Scholar
  29. Hart S. (1995). A Natural Resource-based View of Strategy. Academy of Management Review 20:986–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hasseldine J., Salama A. I., Toms J. S. (2005). Quantity Versus Quality: The Impact of Environmental Disclosures on the Reputations of UK Plcs. The British Accounting Review 37:231–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Helfat C. E., Peteraf M. A. (2003). The Dynamic Resource-based View: Capability Lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal 24:997–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hess D., Rogovsky N., Dunfee T. W. (2002). The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement: Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review 44(2):110–125Google Scholar
  33. Hillman A. J., Keim G. D. (2001). Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line? Strategic Management Journal 22:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hodgson G. M. (1998). Evolutionary and Competence-Based Theories of the Firm. Journal of Economic Studies 25:25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holme, R. and P. Watts: 2000, Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva).Google Scholar
  36. Hoogiemstra R. (2000). Corporate Communication and Impression Management–New Perspectives Why Companies Engage in Corporate Social Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics 27(1/2):55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howard-Grenville J. A., Hoffman A. J. (2003). The Importance of Cultural Framing to the Success of Social Initiatives in Business. Academy of Management Executive 17(2):70–84Google Scholar
  38. Husted B. W. (2000). A Contingency Theory of Corporate Social Performance. Business and Society 39(1):24–48Google Scholar
  39. King A., Lenox M. J. (2002). Exploring the Locus of Profitable Pollution Reduction. Management Science 48:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klassen R. D., McLaughlin C. P. (1996). The Impact of Environmental Management on Firm Performance. Management Science 42(8):1199–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klassen R. D., Whybark D. C. (1999). The Impact of Environmental Technologies on Manufacturing Performance. Academy of Management Journal 42:599–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Konar S., Cohen M. A. (2001). Does the Market Value Environmental Performance? The Review of Economics and Statistics 83(2):281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lantos G. P. (2001). The Boundaries of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(7):595–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Makadok R. (2001). Toward a Synthesis of the Resource-based and Dynamic Capability Views of Rent Creation. Strategic Management Journal 22:387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Margolis J. D., Walsh J. P. (2003). Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48:268–305Google Scholar
  46. Mathews J. A. (2002). A Resource-based View of Schumpeterian Economic Dynamics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12:29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mathews J. A. (2003). Competitive Dynamics and Economic Learning: An Extended Resource-Based View. Industrial and Corporate Change 12(1):115–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matten D., Crane A., Chapple W. (2003). Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics 45(1):109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McWilliams A., Siegel D. (2000). Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation or Misspecification. Strategic Management Journal 21(5):603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McWilliams A., Siegel D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review 26(1):117–127Google Scholar
  51. McWilliams A., Siegel D., Wright P. M. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications. Journal of Management Studies 43(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moldaschl M. (2004). Editorial: Near or Far Beyond. Management Revue 15(1):5–7Google Scholar
  53. Moldaschl M., Fischer D. (2004). Beyond the Management View: A Resource-Centered Socio-Economic Perspective. Management Revue 15(1):122–151Google Scholar
  54. Nahapiet J., Ghoshal S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2):242–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Dwyer B., Owen D. L. (2005). Assurance Statement Practice in Environmental, Social and Sustainability Reporting: A Critical Evaluation. The British Accounting Review 37:205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Oliver C. (1997). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review 16(1):145–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Orlitzky, M.: 2005, ‘Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Trade-off or Virtuous Circle?’, University of Auckland Business Review 7, 37–43.Google Scholar
  58. Orlitzky M., Schmidt F. L., Rynes S. L. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies 24(3):403–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pava M. L., Krausz J. (1995). The Association Between Corporate Social-Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost. Journal of Business Ethics 15:321–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Peterson D. K. (2004). The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational Commitment. Business and Society 43(3):296–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2002, ‘The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review December, 56–68.Google Scholar
  62. Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 1999, ‘Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating Value’, Harvard Business Review November-December, 121–130.Google Scholar
  63. Porter M. E., Van der Linde C. (1995). Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4):97–118Google Scholar
  64. Post F. R. (2003). A Response to The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique. Mid-American Journal of Business 18(1):25–35Google Scholar
  65. Post J. E., Preston L. E., Sachs S. (2002). Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View. California Management Review 45(1):6–28Google Scholar
  66. Ray G., Barney J. B., Muhanna W. A. (2004). Capabilities, Business Processes, and Competitive Advantage: Choosing the Dependent Variable in Empirical Tests of the Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal 25:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Riordan C. M., Gatewood R. D., Bill J. B. (1997). Corporate Image: Employee Reactions and Implications for Managing Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 16:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roberts P. W., Dowling G. R. (2002). Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance. Strategic Management Journal 23:1077–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rugman A. M., Verbeke A. (2002). Edith Penrose’s Contribution to the Resource-Based View of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 23:769–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Russo M. V., Fouts P. A. (1997). A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal 40(3):534–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sharma S., Vredenburg H. (1998). Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategy and the Development of Competitively Valuable Organizational Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 19(8):729–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith N. C. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How? California Management Review 45(4):52–76Google Scholar
  73. Smith, N. C.: 1994, ‘The New Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review May–June, 105–116.Google Scholar
  74. Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 18:509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thorpe J., Prakash-Mani K. (2003). Developing Value: The Business Case for Sustainability in Emerging Markets. Greener Management International 44:17–32Google Scholar
  76. Toms J. S. (2002). Firm Resources, Quality Signals and the Determinants of Corporate Environmental Reputation: Some UK Evidence. British Accounting Review 34:257–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Turban D. B., Greening D. W. (1997). Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness. Academy of Management Journal 40:658–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ullman A. E. (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. Academy of Management Review 10(3):540–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Valor C. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review 110(2):191–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Van Marrewijk M. (2003). Conceptions and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion. Journal of Business Ethics 44:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Waddock S. A., Graves S. B. (1997). The Corporate Social Performance-Financial Performance Link. Strategic Management Journal 18(4):303–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wagner M., Schaltegger S. (2003). How Does Sustainability Performance Relate to Business Competitiveness. Greener Management International 44:5–16Google Scholar
  83. Williams R. J., Barret J. D. (2000). Corporate Philanthropy, Criminal Activity, and Firm Reputation: Is There a Link? Journal of Business Ethics 26:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wood D. J., Jones R. E. (1995). Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3(3):229–267Google Scholar
  85. Wright P. M., Dunford B. B., Snell S. A. (2001). Human Resources and the Resource Based View of the Firm. Journal of Management 27:701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Castelo Branco
    • 1
  • Lúcia Lima Rodrigues
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations