Advertisement

Evaluating Corporate Social Responsibility/Sustainability Strategic Maturity: Some Methodological Options

Chapter
  • 428 Downloads
Part of the Management and Industrial Engineering book series (MINEN)

Abstract

In this chapter, we share our methodological perspectives on research into the strategic maturity of corporate responsibility. The original research aimed to explore the concept of strategic maturity in the context of corporate responsibility of the companies in the PSI-20 index of the Lisbon Stock Exchange, as well as the contribution of these companies to the creation of sustainable value in Portugal. The study contributed theoretically to the knowledge about strategic corporate responsibility and its critical success factors. Methodologically, it opened new perspectives thanks to the combination of research techniques. From a practical point of view, it contributed to the development of new diagnostic tools. In this chapter, we clarify the entire research framework (questions, objectives and contributions), introduce the research design and the reasons for choosing a mixed methods research strategy using a sequential explanatory model. We conclude by presenting our approach to data collection and analysis, participant selection, and we reflect on the validity and usefulness of this research model and strategy.

References

  1. Abreu, M., & Mendes, V. (2011). Information, overconfidence and trading: Do the sources of information matter? (Working paper CMVM 01/2011). Lisboa: Comissão do Mercado de Valores Mobiliários.Google Scholar
  2. Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Ates, A., & Nudurupati, S. (2014). Value of maturity models in performance measurement. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3062–3085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryman, A. (2004). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: Prospects and limits. Methods Briefing 11. CCSR. University of Leicester. Available at www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/ [Access: November 17, 2014].
  4. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  6. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Daalsgard, P. (2014). Pragmatism and design thinking. International Journal of Design, 8(1), 143–155.Google Scholar
  10. Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Figge, F., Barkemeyer, F., Hahn, T., & Liesen, A., (2006). Sustainable value of European industry a value-based analysis of the environmental performance of European manufacturing companies. FULL VERSION. [online]. Available at_ www.advance-Project.org/downloads/theadvanceguidetosustainablevaluecalculations.pdf/ [Access: September 27, 2013].
  13. Figge F., & Hahn T. (2002). Sustainable value added—Measuring corporate sustainable performance beyond eco-efficiency (2nd rev. ed.). Lüneburg: Center for Sustainability Management.Google Scholar
  14. Figge F., & Hahn T. (2004a). Sustainable value added—Measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecological Economics, 48, 173–187.Google Scholar
  15. Figge F., & Hahn T. (2004b). Value-oriented impact assessment: The economics of a new approach to impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(6), 921–941.Google Scholar
  16. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.Google Scholar
  18. Gerring, J. (2016). Case study research: Principles and practices (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghauri, P., & Grønhaug, K. (2002). Research methods in business studies: A practical guide. Harlow, UK: Financial Times and Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Greene, J. (2015). Preserving distinctions within the MMR merger. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. Johnson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multiple and mixed methods research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hookway, C. (2012). The pragmatic maxim: Essays on Peirce and pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, R., & Christensen, L. (2016). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, R., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method: A technical note. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 232–240.Google Scholar
  28. Kohlegger, M., Maier, R., & Thalmann, S. (2009, September 2–4). Understanding maturity models: Results of a structured content analysis. In Proceedings of the I-KNOW ’09 and ISEMANTICS ’09 (pp. 51–60). Graz, Austria.Google Scholar
  29. Leech, N., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557–584.Google Scholar
  30. Marques-Mendes, A. (2019). Responsabilidade social (RSE): Integração e maturidade da RSE estratégica em empresas do PSI-20. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Lisboa: ISEG, University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  31. Marques-Mendes, A., & Santos, M. J., (2015). Strategic corporate social responsibility. In C. Machado & J. Paulo Davim (Eds.), Management for sustainable development. Denmark: RIVER Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Marques-Mendes, A., & Santos, M. J. (2016). Strategic CSR: An integrative model for analysis. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 363–381.Google Scholar
  33. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Collins, K. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281–316.Google Scholar
  35. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Combs, J. (2011). Data analysis in mixed research: A primer. International Journal of Education, 3(1). 1–25.Google Scholar
  36. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387.Google Scholar
  37. Ormazabal, M., Rich, E., Sarriegui, J., & Viles, E. (2017). Environmental management evolution framework: Maturity stages and causal loops. Organization & Environment, 30(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Putnam, H. (1994). Pragmatism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research? Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  42. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308.Google Scholar
  43. Stake, R. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  44. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining the qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology for research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in Schools, 13(1), 12–28.Google Scholar
  48. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.Google Scholar
  50. Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  51. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISEG—Lisbon School of Economics and Management, University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations