Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Social Performance and Innovation with High Social Benefits: A Quantitative Analysis

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyses the link between innovation with high social benefits and corporate social performance (CSP) and the role that family firms play in this. This theme is particularly relevant given the large number of firms that are family-owned. Also the implicit potential of innovation to reconcile corporate sustainability aspects with profitability justifies an extended analysis of this link. Governments often support socially beneficial innovation with various policy instruments, with the intention of increasing international competitiveness and simultaneously supporting sustainable development. In parallel, firms pursue corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental management activities partly in the hope that this will foster such innovation in their organisation (alongside their main aim of improving CSP). Hence, the main research question of this article is about the association of CSP with innovation with high social benefits and the determinants of the potential moderation of this association. Based on panel data, the article analyses the link between CSP and innovation, and the effect of being a family firm using panel estimation techniques. The results point to a moderating role of family firms on the link between innovation with high social benefits and CSP. The article concludes by assessing the policy implications of this insight.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amato, L. H. and C. H. Amato: 2007, ‘The Effects of Firm Size and Industry on Corporate Giving’, Journal of Business Ethics 72, 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. and D. R. Reeb: 2003, ‘Founding family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500’, The Journal of Finance 58(3), 1301-1328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anon.: 2003, ‘Defining Family’, BusinessWeek, November 10, 111–114.

  • Berrone, P. and L. R. Gomez-Mejia: 2009, ‘Environmental Performance and Executive Compensation: An Integrated Agency-Institutional Perspective’, Academy of Management Journal 52(1), 103-126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi, V., F. Iraldo and S. Meredith: 2002, ‘Achieving sustainability through environmental innovation: the role of SMEs’, International Journal of Technology Management 24(5-6), 612-626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branco, M. C. and L. L. Rodriguez: 2006, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives’, Journal of Business Ethics 69(2), 111-132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunnermeier, S. B. and M. A. Cohen: 2003, ‘Determinants of environmental innovations in US manufacturing industries’, Journal of Environmental Economics & Management 45, 278-293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P.: 2000, ‘Effects of ‘‘Best Practices’’ on environmental management’, Academy of Management Journal 3(4), 663-680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. and C. Dibrell: 2006, ‘The Natural Environment, Innovation and Firm Performance: A Comparative Study’, Family Business Review XIX(4), 275–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. and K. Moores: 2006, ‘A 10-year longitudinal investigation of strategy, systems, and environment on innovation in family firms’ Family Business Review 19(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., F. D. Schoorman and L. Donaldson: 1997, ‘Toward a stewardship theory of management’, Academy of Management Review 22(1), 20-47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G. and D. A. Whetten: 2006, ‘Family firms and social responsibility: preliminary evidence from the S&P 500’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30(6), 785-802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C. and M. Lenox: 2006, ‘Firm Responses to Secondary Stakeholder Action’, Strategic Management Journal 27(8), 765-782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M. and L. H. P. Lang: 2002, ‘The Ultimate Ownership of Western European Corporations’, Journal of Financial Economics 65, 365-395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, S.: 2006, ‘Innovativ für Wirtschaft und Umwelt – Leitmärkte der Zukunft ökologisch erobern (translated from German)’, Keynote Speech at the Ministry of Environment Innovation Conference, Berlin, dbb Forum, 30 October.

  • Garcia-Castro, R., M. A. Arino and M. A. Canela: 2009, ‘Does Social Performance Really Lead to Financial Performance? Accounting for Endogeneity’, Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0143-8.

  • Gerde, V. and J. Logsdon: 2001, ‘Measuring environmental performance: use of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and other environmental databases’, Business Strategy and the Environment 10(5), 269-285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graafland, J., B. van de Ven and N. Stoffele: 2003, ‘Strategies and Instruments for Organising CSR by Small and Large Businesses in the Netherlands’, Journal of Business Ethics 47(1), 45-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, D.: 2008, ‘Press Release of Lifeworth’, Geneva/Cranfield School of Management, 14 February.

  • Grayson, D. and A. Hodges: 2004, ‘Corporate Social Opportunity! Seven Steps to Make Corporate Social Responsibility Work for your Business’ (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G., M. L. Williams and I. C. MacMillan: 2003, ‘A unified systems perspective of family firm performance’, Journal of Business Venturing 18(4), 451–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G. S. and C. W. L. Hill: 1991, ‘Are institutional investors myopic? A time-series study of four technology-driven industries’, Strategic Management Journal 12: 1-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmelskamp, J.: 1999, ‘Umweltpolitik und technischer Fortschritt. Eine theoretische und empirische Untersuchung der Determinanten von Umweltinnovationen’, (Physica, Heidelberg).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. J. Hillman and G. D. Keim: 2001, ‘Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, And Social Issues: What’s The Bottom Line?’, Strategic Management Journal 22, 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horbach, J: 2007, ‘Determinants of environmental innovation: New evidence from German panel data sources’, Research Policy 37, 163-173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, C. E. and S. Rothenberg: 2008, ‘Firm Performance: The Interactions of Corporate Social Performance with Innovation and Industry Differentiation’, Strategic Management Journal 29, 781-789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilinitch, A. and S. Schaltegger: 1995, ‘Developing a Green Business Portfolio’, Long Range Planning 28(2), 29-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. and K. Palmer: 1997, ‘Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study’, Review of Economics and Statistics 79(4), 610-619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H.: 2006, ‘Small Business Champions for Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 67(3), 241-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A., M. Lenox and A. Terlaak. 2005, ‘The Strategic Use of Decentralized Institutions: Exploring Certification with ISO 14001 Management Standard’, Academy of Management Journal 48(6), 1091-1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhoff, S.: 2000, ‘Green Business and Blue Angels: A Model of Voluntary Overcompliance with Asymmetric Information’, Environmental and Resource Economics 15, 403-420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., F. Lopez-De-Silanes and A. Shleifer: 1999, ‘Corporate Ownership around the World’, Journal of Finance 54, 471-517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P. M. and H. M. O’Neill: 2003, ‘Ownership structures and R&D investments of U.S. and Japanese firms: agency and stewardship perspectives’, Academy of Management Journal 46, 212-225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenox, M.: 2006, ‘The Role of Private, Decentralized Institutions in Sustaining Industry Self-Regulation’, Organization Science 17(6), 670-690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and W. J. Johnston: 2009, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: An Empirical Investigation of U.S. Organizations’, Journal of Business Ethics 85, 303-323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litz, R. A. and R. F. Kleysen: 2001, ‘Your Old Men Shall Dream Dreams, Your Young Men Shall See Visions: Toward a Theory of Family Firm Innovation with Help from the Brubeck Family’, Family Business Review XIV(4), 335–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D. and J. P. Walsh: 2003, ‘Misery loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’, Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matias, J. C. and D. A. Coelho: 2002, ‘The integration of the standards systems of quality management, environmental management and occupational health and safety management’, International Journal of Production Research 40(15), 3857-3866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. B., A. Sundgren and T. Schneeweis: 1988, ‘Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal 31(4), 854-872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2000, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: Correlation and Misspecification?’, Strategic Management Journal 21, 603-609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. P., Munilla, L. S. and J. G. Covin: 2004, ‘Innovation, ethics, and entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Ethics 54(1), 97-101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. and I. Le Breton-Miller: 2005, ‘Managing for the Long Run’ (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, J., S. Bonini, D. Bielak, T. Kehm and P. Lacy: 2007, ‘Shaping the New Rules of Competition’, www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/summit2007/mckinsey_embargoed_until020707.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2007.

  • Orlitzky, M.: 2001, ‘Does Firm Size Confound the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance’, Journal of Business Ethics 33(2), 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., F. L. Schmidt and S. L. Rynes: 2003, ‘Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis’, Organization Studies 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özsomer, A., R. J. Calantone and A. Di Benedetto: 1997, ‘What makes firms more innovative? A look at organizational and environmental factors’, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 12(6), 400–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pava, M. L. and J. Krausz: 1996, ‘The Association Between Corporate Social-Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost’, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 321-357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.: 1991, ‘America’s Green Strategy’, Scientific American 264(4), 96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. and C. van der Linde: 1995, ‘Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4), 97-118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E.: 1993, ‘The greening of the Boston Park Plaza Hotel’, Family Business Review 6(2), 131-148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeld, K. M., Rennings, K. and A. Ziegler: 2007, ‘Integrated Product Policy and Environmental Product Innovations: An Empirical Analysis’, Ecological Economics 61, 91-100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennings, K.: 2000, ‘Redefining Innovation - Eco-Innovation Research and the Contribution from Ecological Economics’, Ecological Economics 32, 319-332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennings, K., Ziegler, A., Ankele, K. and E. Hoffmann: 2006, ‘The Influence of Different Characteristics of the EU Environmental Management and Auditing Scheme on Technical Environmental Innovations and Economic Performance’, Ecological Economics, 57, 45-59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S&P: 2007, ‘List of firms included in the S&P 500 on 31 July 2003’, http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en/us/page.topic/indices_500/2,3,2,2,00,6,31,2003,0,2,3,0,0,0,0,0.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2007.

  • Schaltegger, S. and M. Wagner: 2006, ‘Managing the Business Case for Sustainability’ (Greenleaf, Sheffield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C.: 1983, ‘Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 98(4), 659-679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, Mark 1996 ‘A concurrent validity study of the KLD social performance ratings data’. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., J. Chrisman and J. Chua: 1997, ‘Strategic Management of the Family Business: Past Research and Future Challenges’, Family Business Review 10(1), 1-35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A. and R. Vishny: 1986, ‘Large Shareholders and Corporate Control’, Journal of Political Economy 94, 461-488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simerly, R. L.: 1995, ‘Institutional Ownership, Corporate Social Performance and Firms’ Financial Performance’, Psychological Reports 77, 515-525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotorrio, L. L. and J. L. F. Sanchez: 2008, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility of the Most Highly Reputed European and North American Firms’, Journal of Business Ethics 82, 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, B. H.: 1978, ‘Investors, Corporate Social Performance and Information Disclosure: An Empirical Study’, The Accounting Review 53(1), 94-111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M. and G. Rands: 1995, ‘Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations’, Academy of Management Review 20(4), 908-935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B. and D. W. Greening: 1997, ‘Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees’, Academy of Management Journal 40(3), 658–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlaner, L. M., H. J. M. Goor-Balk and E. Masurel: 2004, Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 11(2): 186-194.

    Article  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 U.S. firms’, Academy of Management Review 10(3), 540-557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vyakarnam, S., Bailey, A., Myers, A. and D. Burnett: 1997, ‘Towards an Understanding of Ethical Behaviour in Small firms’, Journal of Business Ethics 16, 1625-1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves: 1997, ‘The Corporate Social Performance - Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management Journal 18, 303-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M.: 2007, ‘Integration of Environmental Management with other Managerial Functions of the Firm: Empirical Effects on Drivers of Economic Performance’, Long Range Planning 40(5), 611-628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. and J. Farr: 1989, ‘Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives’, Social Behavior 4, 15-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, D., G. Lynch-Wood, and J. Ramsay: 2006, ‘Drivers of Environmental Behaviour in Manufacturing SME and the Implications for CSR’, Journal of Business Ethics 67(3), 317-330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J.: 1991, ‘Corporate social performance revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16: 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): 1987, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford)

  • Zimmer, M. and M. Egerer: 2006, ‘Does global change matter? The case of industries in the Upper Danube catchment area’, Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 98, 75-88.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Julius-Maximilians-University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany

    Marcus Wagner

  2. Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée, Strasbourg, France

    Marcus Wagner

Authors
  1. Marcus Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus Wagner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wagner, M. Corporate Social Performance and Innovation with High Social Benefits: A Quantitative Analysis. J Bus Ethics 94, 581–594 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0339-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0339-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation