Strategic Outcomes in Voluntary CSR: Reporting Economic and Reputational Benefits in Principles-Based Initiatives
Although existing research evaluates the growth and motivations behind global corporate social responsibility (CSR) activity, there is little understanding whether these growing commitments generate strategic benefits to their adherents. In this article, we analyze the organizational attributes that underlie the firm’s ability to generate competitive advantage from the adoption of a global CSR framework. We develop hypotheses on economic and reputational benefits and test whether firm performance, organizational resources, and access to business and CSR networks determine these benefits in CSR frameworks. Results from a survey of 213 Spanish global compact business participants strongly support our arguments.
KeywordsGlobal CSR frameworks Economic theory of strategic CSR Resource-based view Corporate social performance Corporate financial performance Competitive advantage UN Global Compact
- Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 771–792.Google Scholar
- Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.Google Scholar
- Davis, G. F., Whitman, M. V. N., & Zald, M. N. 2008. The responsibility paradox. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter: 31–37.Google Scholar
- Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.Google Scholar
- Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (2002). Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Hamann, R. (2007). Is corporate citizenship making a difference? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 28(15), 29.Google Scholar
- Hedley, R. A. (1999). Transnational corporations and their regulation: Issues and strategies. International Journal of Comparative Study, 40, 215–230.Google Scholar
- Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. P. 2007. Does it pay to be good. A meta-analysis and redirection of research on corporate social and financial performance.Google Scholar
- McKinsey (2004). Assessing the global compact’s impact. New York: McKinsey and Company.Google Scholar
- McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Peters, R., & Mullen, M. R. (2009). Some evidence of the cumulative effects of corporate social responsibility on financial performance. Journal of Global Business Issues, 3(1), 1.Google Scholar
- Preston, L. E., Sapienza, H. J., & Miller, R. D. (1991). Stakeholders, shareholders, managers: Who gains what from corporate performance? In A. Etzioni & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), S. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
- Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.Google Scholar
- Ruggie, J. G. (2001). Global_governance.net: The global compact as learning network. Global Governance, 7, 371–378.Google Scholar
- Ruggie, J. G. (2003). Taking embedded liberalism global: The corporate connection. In D. Held & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Taming globalization: Frontiers of governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Sagafi-Nejad, T. 2008. The UN and transnational corporations: From code of conduct to global compact. In collaboration with John H. Dunning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Shanahan, S., & Khagram, S. (2006). Dynamics of corporate responsibility. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization: World society and organizational change (pp. 196–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.Google Scholar
- Spicer, B. H. (1978). Investors, corporate social performance and information disclosure: An empirical study. Accounting Review, LIII, 1, 94–111.Google Scholar
- Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540–557.Google Scholar
- UNGC. 2007. UN Global compact annual review 2007. United Nations, New York. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/NewsAndEvents/news_archives/2007_04_08.html. Accessed October 2014.
- UNGC. (2010). UN global compact annual review (Anniversary ed.). New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
- UNGC. (2011). UN Global Compact—Progress and Disclosure, Communicating Progress. United Nations, New York, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/COP/communicating_progress.html.
- UNGC. (2012). UN Global Compact—About Us/Integrity Measures. United Nations, New York. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Participants/index.html. Accessed January 2015.
- UNGC. (2013a). Global Compact Local Networks in Asia convene regional meeting. http://unglobalcompact.org/news/180-11-21-2011. Accessed January 2015.
- UNGC. (2013b). Local Network meetings and events: Annual Local Network Forum. http://unglobalcompact.org/NetworksAroundTheWorld/Meetings_and_Events.html. Accessed January 2015.