csr and responsiveness

8/2/2019 CSR and Responsiveness

1/14

Exploring the Nature of the Relationship

Between CSR and Competitiveness

Marc VilanovaJosep Maria Lozano

Daniel Arenas

ABSTRACT. This paper explores the nature of the

relationship between corporate social responsibility

(CSR) and competitiveness. We start with the commonly

held view that firm competitiveness is defined by the

market. That is, the question of what are the critical

competitiveness factors is answered by looking at how

companies and financial analysts describe and evaluate a

firm. To analyze this, we review the current state of the

art on the relationship between CSR and competitive-

ness. Second, CSR criteria used by financial analysts isidentified and compared with company valuation meth-

ods. Third, the results of a multi-stakeholder dialogue on

CSR and competitiveness of the European financial sec-

tor are presented. As a conclusion, we argue that CSR

and competitiveness relate through a learning and inno-

vation cycle, where corporate values, policies and prac-

tices are permanently defined and re-defined. Thus, we

propose that learning takes place as CSR is embedded in

business processes, and that once it has been integrated, in

turn, it generates innovative practices, and finally, com-

petitiveness. At the end of the paper, we propose that

CSR in practice consists of managing inherent paradoxes

generated by the tension between CSR and businesspolicies.

KEY WORDS: competitiveness, responsible competi-

tiveness, corporate reputation, corporate social responsi-

bility, organizational strategy, paradox

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (hereinafter CSR) has

become one of the central issues on the agenda oforganizations today, but is still a long way from

being a centre stage on corporate strategy (Smith,

2003; Stewart, 2006). One of the key problems is the

lack of understanding about the impact CSR has on

competitiveness (Porter and Kramer, 2006). There

are many studies trying to analyze the relationship

between CSR and financial performance (Chand

and Fraser, 2006; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001),

proposing a business case for CSR (Cramer et al.,

2006; Smith, 2003) or providing case studies on

Marc Vilanova is currently researcher at the Institute for Social

Innovation, ESADE Business School (URL), responsible for

the Ethos CSR and Competitiveness project. He specializes

in the issues of responsible competitiveness, responsible strat-

egy, corporate social responsibility, organizational sustain-

ability and accountability. He is also lecturer at the Social

Sciences Department, teaching courses on responsible com-

petitiveness at undergraduate, MBA and executive programs,

as well as a consultant for public, private and third sector

organizations.

Josep M. Lozano is currently Professor and Senior Researcher inCSR at the Institute for Social Innovation, ESADE Busi-

ness School (URL). Co-founder of Etica, Economa y

Direccion (Spanish branch of EBEN), member of the inter-

national Editorial Board of Ethical Perspectives and Society

and Business Review and member of the Business Ethics

inter-faculty group of the Community of European Man-

agement Schools (CEMS). He has been a highly-commended

runner-up in the European division of the Beyond Grey

Pinstripes Faculty Pioneer Award (2003). Author of Ethics

and Organizations. Understanding Business Ethics as a

Learning Process (Kluwer, 2000) and co-author of Gov-

ernments and Corporate Social Responsibility (2007).Daniel Arenas is Associate Professor at ESADE Business

School-Universitat Ramon Llull, where he teaches Business

Ethics, CSR and sociology. He is the Head of Research of

the Institute for Social Innovation at ESADE and a member

of the management committee of the European Academy of

Business in Society (EABIS). He has recently co-authored

the article Do employees care about CSR Programs? A

typology of employees according to their attitudes (Journal of

Business Ethics) and the book Tras la RSE: La respons-

abilidad social de la empresa en Espana vista por sus actores

(Barcelona: Granica, 2007).

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 87:5769 Springer 2008

DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9812-2
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/14

CSR practices (Gueterbok, 2004; Robertson and

Nicholson, 1996). However, financial performance

or smart practices dont automatically imply long-

term competitiveness (Porter and Kramer, 2006;

Porter and Van der Linde, 1995; Smith, 2003). Thebottom line is that there seems to be a connection

between CSR and competitiveness, but the nature

of the relationship is unclear (Mackey et al., 2007;

Van De Ven and Jeurissen, 2005).

This paper aims to shed some light on the nature

of the relationship between CSR and competitive-

ness. To that end, we start with the commonly held

view that firm competitiveness is defined by the

market. That is, the question of what are the critical

competitiveness factors is answered by looking at

how companies and financial analysts describe andevaluate a firm. To analyze this, we review the

current state of the art on the relationship between

CSR and competitiveness. Second, CSR criteria

used by financial analysts is identified and compared

with company valuation methods. Third, the results

of a multi-stakeholder dialogue on CSR and com-

petitiveness of the European financial sector are

presented. As a conclusion, we argue that CSR and

competitiveness relate through a learning and

innovation cycle, where corporate values, policies

and practices are permanently defined and re-

defined. Thus, we propose that learning takes placeas CSR is embedded in business processes, and that

once it has been integrated, in turn, it generates

innovative CSR practices, and finally, competitive-

ness. At the end of the paper, we propose that this

learning process consists of managing inherent par-

adoxes generated by the tensions between CSR and

business policies.

Defining corporate social responsibility

CSR is one of the frames of reference that tries to shed

light on the role business should play in society

(Carroll, 1999; Goodpaster, 1983; Sethi, 1975). In

research and theory building, CSR is approached

fromdifferent perspectives, such as social performance

(Carroll, 1979; Swanson, 1995), business ethics (Sol-

omon, 1993), corporate governance (Freeman and

Evans, 1990), social contract (Donaldson and Dunfee,

2002), stakeholder management (Donaldson and

Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Lozano, 2002),

corporate citizenship (Waddock, 2000; Zadek, 2001),

accountability (Elkington, 1998; Valor, 2005) or

bottom of the pyramid (Prahalad and Hammond,

2002).

Although current CSR frameworks are diverse,fragmented and not always congruent (Carroll, 1999;

Jones, 1980; Windsor, 2001), CSR can be defined as

the voluntary integration of social and environmental

concerns in to business operations and in to their

interaction with stakeholders (European Commis-

sion, 2002). The problem with that definition is that

no widely accepted integrated framework exists

(Jones, 1980, 1995) to clarify which are the social and

environmental concerns, how can a company inte-

grate them in its operations and relationship with its

stakeholders and most importantly, how can this becarried out from a strategic perspective (Porter and

Kramer, 2006).

CSR initiatives use different nomenclatures, clas-

sifications and definitions, but as shown in Figure 1,

we propose that CSR issues can be grouped in five

dimensions: (1) Vision, including CSR conceptual

development within the organization, governance,

ethical codes, values and reputation (Carter et al.,

2003; Freeman, 1999; Humble et al., 1994; Joyner

and Payne, 2002; Pruzan, 2001; Sison, 2000); (2)

Community relations, including collaborations and

partnerships with different stakeholders, corporatephilanthropy and community action (Freeman, 1999;

Frooman, 1999; Grey, 1996; Hess et al., 2002; Jones,

1995; Jones and Wicks, 1999); (3) Workplace,

including labour practices and human rights issues

(European Commission, 2002; United Nations

Global Compact, 2000; OECD, 2000; International

CSR

Com

munityrelations

Workplace

Vision

Accountability

Mar

ketplace

Com

munityrelations

Wo

Figure 1. The five dimensions of CSR. Source: Marc

Vilanova 2007.

58 Marc Vilanova et al.
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/14

Labor Organization, 2007; Sum and Ngai, 2005); (4)

Accountability, including corporate transparency,

reporting and communication (Elkington, 1998;

Global Reporting Initiative, 2002) and (5) Market-

place, including CSR practices directly related tocore business activities such as research and devel-

opment, pricing, fair competition, marketing or

investment (Consumers International, 2003; Fan,

2005; Schnietz and Epstein, 2005; Whetten et al.,

2001).

CSR proponents argue that firms should interpret

and apply issues included in our five dimensions of

CSR within their respective organizational contexts

(Jones and Wicks, 1999). However, some authors

argue that in many cases CSR has not been more

than a cosmetic effort on the part of companies torespond to societal demands (Porter and Kramer,

2006). That is, one of the key issues in the current

CSR agenda is the debate between cosmetic and

strategic approaches to CSR, where many compa-

nies seem to approach CSR solely from a reputation

perspective, while CSR is presented in theory as a

central business issue that has profound and wide-

spread impact on most business operations (Ayuso

et al., 2006; Carlisle and Faulkner, 2005; Porter and

Kramer, 2006; Whetten et al., 2001).

One of the key management questions in that

debate is whether implementing CSR affects firmcompetitiveness (Chand and Fraser, 2006; Draper,

2006; Haigh and Jones, 2006; Handy, 2002; Porter

and Kramer, 2006). Many authors have suggested

that competitiveness is indeed one of the key drivers

for adopting a CSR approach (Bansal and Roth,

2000; Haigh and Jones, 2006; Hess et al., 2002;

Juholin, 2004; Porter and Van Der Linde, 1995), but

the nature of the relationship between CSR and

competitiveness is still unclear (Porter and Kramer,

2006; Harrison and Freeman, 1999; Smith, 2003;

McWilliams and Siegel, 2001).

Defining competitiveness

Competitiveness is a multidimensional concept that

can be used at country, industry and firm levels

(Ambastha and Momaya, 2004). At a country level,

there are some commonly accepted indicators that

quantify and qualify competitiveness by different

dimensions (Budd and Hirmis, 2004; Porter, 1998;

Zadek, 2006), producing several benchmarks such as

the Global Competitiveness Report (World Eco-

nomic Forum, 2007) or the World Competitiveness

Yearbook (IMD, 2006). The same is not true at a

sector or organizational level, for which there are noagreed frameworks or measurements for competi-

tiveness (Draper, 2006).

In general terms, competitiveness is described as

the strength of an organization in comparison with

its competitors (Murths and Lenway, 1998). Tradi-

tionally, many authors have considered productivity

as a good indicator of competitiveness at a firm level

(Porter, 1985). However, as a recent report from

McKinsey suggests, this perspective of using systems

based on tangible performance measurement is

inadequate as it does not take into account keycompetitiveness generating resources in the form of

intangible capital such as knowledge, relationships,

reputation or talent (Lowell, 2007).

Already in 1993, John Kay described firm com-

petitiveness in terms of four factors: (a) the capacity

to innovate, (b) key internal and external relation-

ships, (c) reputation and (d) strategic assets (Kay,

1993). In that context, the competitiveness frame-

work has broadened to account for the key tangible

and intangible resources that provide a competitive

advantage to the firm (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989).

That is, competitiveness must account for moredynamic firm capabilities such as flexibility, adapt-

ability, quality or marketing (Barney, 1991),

understanding competitiveness not solely as pro-

ductivity, but as the ability of a company to design,

produce and/or market products superior to those

offered by competitors, considering the price and

non-price qualities (DCruz and Rugman, 1992).

In sum, there are many competitiveness defini-

tions, frameworks and proposals (Ambastha and

Monaya, 2004), but as shown in Figure 2, we pro-

pose that they can be grouped on five key dimen-sions: (1) Performance, including standard financial

measures such as earnings, growth or profitability

(Hamel and Prahalad, 1989); (2) Quality, not only of

products and services, but also the capacity to satisfy

customer expectations (Barney, 1991); (3) Produc-

tivity, in terms of higher production and lower use

of resources (Porter, 1985); (4) Innovation, includ-

ing products and services as well as management

processes (Mintzberg, 1993) and (5) Image, includ-

ing corporate branding in terms of building trust and

Exploring the Nature of the Relationship Between CSR and Competitiveness 59
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/14

reputation in the relationship with stakeholders(Kay, 1993).

CSR, competitiveness and strategy

Literature on CSR and competitiveness is rare,

although it has grown exponentially in the past few

years. Most studies on the relationship between

competitiveness and CSR have centred on trying to

prove that there is a positive association between

CSR and financial performance (Griffin and Mahon,

1997; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001), althoughresults are inconclusive (Chand and Fraser, 2006).

Other authors have proposed alternative approaches,

such as generating a competitive advantage for the

firm through creating stakeholder value (Freeman,

1984), evaluating CSR as a risk on key competi-

tiveness variables such as reputation and image

(Carlisle and Faulkner, 2005; Schnietz and Epstein,

2005) or producing case studies, which conclude

that embracing CSR contributes to both short-term

profits and long-term competitiveness (Gueterbok,

2004; Juholin, 2004). The bottom line is that thereseems to be a connection between CSR and com-

petitiveness, but the nature of the relationship is

unclear, as financial performance or firm value may

not automatically imply long-term competitiveness

(McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Porter and Kramer,

2006; Van De Ven and Jeurissen, 2005).

Porter (1980, 1985, 1998) argued that competi-

tiveness at a firm level is defined or limited by five

forces of competition, namely (1) threat of new

entrants, (2) bargaining power of suppliers, (3)

bargaining power of costumers, (4) threat of sub-

stitute products and services and (5) strength of the

firm against current competitors. In other words,

according to Porter, a firm that has a large market

share and strong power over its suppliers and cos-tumers, works in a sector with large barriers to entry

and with no strong substitute products embodies the

definition of a competitive firm. However, although

these five factors are certainly important, there seem

to be a growing number of other aspects considered

just as determinant to competitiveness as these five.

There are many rankings, for instance, that evaluate

companies according to different issues, such as

capacity to innovate (Business Week, 2007), brand

equity (Business Week, 2007), accountability (Fortune,

2007), reputation (Reputation Institute, 2007), work-place relations (Great Place to Work Institute, 2007) or

human rights (Business and Human Rights Resource

Centre, 2007). Although, as we can see in Table I,

companies ranked at the top in each of these indexes

differ, and do not necessarily correspond to more

traditional measures of competitiveness such as sales

or market growth, most companies ranked at the top

claim substantial and comprehensive CSR strategies

and policies.

What is relevant is that many of these issues are

intangibles not measured or accounted traditionally,

and certainly not explicitly included among Portersfive forces of the competitiveness model (Porter,

1985). Thus, some of the key determinants to firm

competitiveness centre on issues such as brand

equity, reputation or innovation, to name a few, and

that these issues are strongly influenced by CSR. For

instance, upon analyzing the websites of the top 25

most innovative companies in the world according

to Business Week (2007), we realized that most of

them claim to have a strong commitment to CSR

and/or corporate citizenship, through sustainability

reports, codes of conduct, governance issues andenvironmental policies. On the other hand, the few

that do not have specific CSR strategies, such as

Google, argue that CSR, human rights and sus-

tainability values are deeply embedded in the core

identity of the organization and are therefore inte-

grated in most business processes.

The issue then is what sort of strategies or policies

can companies pursue to develop CSR that effec-

tively strengthens or reinforces such competitiveness

factors. Porter (1980, 1985, 1998) argued that a firm

Competi

tiveness

QualityProductivity

P

erform

ance

Innovation

Image

Competi

tiveness

QualityProductivity

P

erform

ance

Innovation

Image

Competi

tiveness

QualityProductivity

P

erform

ance

Innovation

Image

Figure 2. The five dimensions of competitiveness.

Source: Marc Vilanova 2007.

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/14

could develop its competitiveness by adopting three

possible strategies: (a) cost leadership, where the firm

would reduce costs to be price competitive; (b)

differentiation, where the firm would focus on dif-

ferentiating from competitors on product and/orservices and (c) focus strategies, where the company

would focus on specific products and/or services in

which it enjoys a competitive advantage. Mintzberg

(1987, 1993), on the other hand, proposed that firms

should adopt strategies focussed on establishing solid

long-term corporate visions, but leaving flexibility

for the specifics of daily operations to adapt.

Mintzberg argued that it is almost impossible to

properly anticipate future events, and thus, to plan

resource allocation and actions for long-term strat-

egies. Instead, Mintzberg suggested companiesshould aim at building institutional capacities and

competencies, so that they have the resources to

understand, confront and respond to unexpected

changes in the market and the context.

Most current proposals for CSR seem to align

with Mintbergs concept of emergent strategies

(Mintzberg, 1987), as they propose vision-centred

approaches instrumented through developing insti-

tutional capacities (Pruzan, 2001; Robin and

Reidenbach, 1988). In that regard, integrating CSR

in the strategic management process can contribute to

implement a successful strategy in the firm insofar as itcan help to develop simple and consistent long-term

goals, improving the understanding of the complexity

of a competitive environment. Also, assisting in the

development of capacities and resources to learn and

change as an organization contributes to implement a

successful strategy in the firm (Grant, 2000). That is,

the success of the company is highly dependent on the

relationship with its key stakeholders and its reputa-

tion (Donaldson and Lee, 1995; Fan, 2005; Freeman,

1984; Harrison and Freeman, 1999; Kay, 1993), the

understanding of the competitive environment, andthe image and reputation of the company which is

built on transparency, information, communication

and reporting practices (Elkington, 1998).

Valuating companies

Company valuation is how the market currently tries

to measure and define the competitiveness of a given

company, regardless of whether the valuation is

TABLEI

Sampleofworldcompanyrankings

Mostinnovative

companies

(BusinessWeek,2007)

Highestbrandequity

(BusinessWeek,2007)

Mostaccountable

companies

(Fortune,2007)

Reputation

corporateranking

(ReputationInstitute,2005)

Sales(Forbes,2007)

Marketvalue

(Forbes,2007)

Apple

Coca-Cola

BP

Johnson&Johnson

WalMart

ExxonMobil

Google

Microsoft

Barclays

Coca-Cola

ExxonMobil

GeneralElectric

Toyota

IBM

ENI

Google

Shell

Microsoft

GeneralElectric

GeneralElectric

HSBC

UPS

BP

Citigroup

Microsoft

Nokia

Vodafone

3M

GeneralMotors

AT&

T

Procter&Gamble

To

yota

Shell

Sony

DaimlesChrisler

BankofAmerica

3M

Intel

Peugeot

Microsoft

Chevron

Toyota

WaltDisney

McDonalds

HBOS

GeneralMills

Toyota

Gazprom

IBM

Disney

Chevron

Fedex

Total

Petrochina

Sony

Mercedes-Benz

DaimlerChrysler

Intel

ConecoPhilips

Shell

Source:Vilanova(2007).

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/14

carried out for buying or selling operations, aimed at

anticipating stock market behaviour of listed com-

panies or for strategic reflection and planning (Co-

peland et al., 2000). The most widely used valuation

methods can be grouped in: (a) balance sheet-basedmethods, which seek to determine the companys

value by estimating the value of its assets; (b) income

statement-based methods, which seek to determine

the value of the company through the size of its

earnings, sales or other similar indicators; (c) mixed

or goodwill-based methods, which seek to deter-

mine the value of the company, including its

intangible assets through trying to quantify future

earnings and (d) cash flow discounting-based meth-

ods, which seek to determine the companys value

by estimating the cash flows it will generate in thefuture and then discounting them at a discount rate

taking into account risks (Fernandez, 2002). Cur-

rently, the most widely used valuation method seems

to be the cash flow discounting-based methods and

the goodwill-based methods (Brealey and Myers,

2000; Copeland et al., 2000; Fernandez, 2002).

Thus, the literature recommends valuation methods

that focus on anticipating future earnings or future

behaviour. Nevertheless, none of these methods

include explicit or direct measures of CSR.

We compared this with valuation methods used

by financial analysts at several firms such as ABNAmro, Banco Espirito Santo and Cowen & Co. As a

first conclusion, we found that most financial ana-

lysts dont use a single method, but take ratios and

measures from different ones. In fact, in all cases, we

found some measures pertaining to all four valuation

methods. Furthermore, aside from standard financial,

performance and stock ratios, all valuations included

an in-depth qualitative analysis of intangibles. These

measurements or valuations of intangibles indirectly

accounted for some CSR issues, through aspects such

as management adaptability, governance, risks, fore-casts, core competencies, potential for partnerships,

strategy or government actions among others. That

is, the work of these analysts took into account some

issues related to the five dimensions of competitive-

ness presented in Figure 2 (i.e. performance, quality,

productivity, innovation and image/reputation).

Furthermore, although they did not take explicitly

into account any of the five CSR dimensions pre-

sented in Figure 1, they accounted or touched upon

many of them indirectly.

In that regard, surprisingly a significant portion of

valuations and recommendations seems to be based

on the opinion and expertise of the analyst per-

forming the valuation, rather than on objective ratios

and measurements. Thus, if we accept that firmvaluation is an indicator of firm competitiveness, our

analysis of valuation methods used by different

financial analysts shows that there is a certain rela-

tionship between CSR and competitiveness, but that

it is not made explicit, standardized or quantified.

That is, CSR is not considered a specific topic of

evaluation by financial analysts, nor does it have

accepted indicators across different analysts, but it is

nevertheless very much considered as a transversal

issue, specifically in terms of non-tangible issues such

as corporate reputation, brand equity and internaland external relationships.

Analysis, case study, framework

and paradoxes

The financial sector seems to be the most critical actor

in shaping markets, both from its role as an investor as

well as an analyst, demanding and defining how a firm

should be valued, and thus determining what are the

key competitiveness issues for corporations. For this

reason, in September 2006, we invited 35 seniorofficers representing most relevant stakeholder groups

of the European financial sector to a full-day research

focus group centred on the relationship between

CSR and competitiveness. Participants were senior

managers in their respective organizations, which

included banks, equity funds, labour unions, insur-

ance companies, regulatory agencies, industry asso-

ciations, public organisms, think tanks, NGOs and

academics. Some participants had some responsibili-

ties in terms of CSR (or sustainability) strategies,

policies or advocacy. The objective of the focusgroup was to analyze four key issues: (1) what does

CSR mean for the financial sector?; (2) what are the

difficulties in implementing CSR strategies?; (3) what

is the relationship between CSR and firm competi-

tiveness? and (4) how can the financial sector con-

tribute to further the CSR agenda?

The first conclusion from the focus group with

practitioners from the European financial sector was

that there is a clear connection between CSR and

competitiveness, and that this connection usually



7/14

begins with issues of image and reputation. That is,

CSR managers from companies seem to use cor-

porate reputation as the key driver to sell and embed

CSR internally in the organizations, and labour

unions, NGOs and other civil society organizationsalso seem to focus on corporate image and reputa-

tion as leverage to force corporate change towards

implementing CSR. The second conclusion pre-

sented by corporate managers was that once CSR

was accepted internally by companies, regardless of

how CSR policies originated, it can provoke some

unexpected transformations in terms of business

values and processes, such as changing the corporate

mission, identifying risks, or generating new prod-

ucts and services. A third important conclusion was

that although CSR is considered very critical forcompanies as a license to operate, as one of the

participants expressed it, it is rarely measured or

evaluated because there is a lack of a common

framework for both CSR and competitiveness. In

that regard, many companies seem to treat the

relationship between CSR and competitiveness as a

starting assumption. Furthermore, most companies

seem to adopt CSR approaches as a reactive, rather

than proactive strategy, at least initially, usually after

a specific reputation or image scandal or conflict. In

that regard, practitioners from the European finan-

cial sector propose that CSR impacts firm compet-itiveness mainly through the strategic reflection

process, stakeholder engagement and management,

and reputation, branding and accountability.

Another important finding was that CSR appar-

ently lacks organizational leadership to guide the

process, as NGOs do not have the resources, public

organizations do not want the responsibility and

business do not have the legitimacy. To that end,

participants agreed that the financial sector had al-

ready begun assuming its role as a key actor in

shaping markets, and therefore, in determining firmcompetitiveness, by developing some international

frameworks that provide guidelines for investment in

terms of social and environmental issues, such as the

Equator Principles (International Finance Corpora-

tion, 2003) or the Principles for Responsible

Investment (UNEPFI, 2005) whose signatories

currently manage in excess of US$ 10 trillion. In that

regard, the participants from the European financial

sector concluded that the future drivers for CSR will

focus on stakeholder demand, transparency, regula-

tion, education, incentives and company innovation.

Finally, participants agreed that one of the main

barriers for managing and developing CSR in the

future seems to be the difficulty in aligning current

business processes with CSR and sustainabilityobjectives, such as establishing CSR performance

indicators.

Framework connecting CSR and competitiveness

Results from our analysis of valuation methods used

by financial analysts and the focus group by practi-

tioners/stakeholders from the European financial

sector apparently propose a connection, although

indirect, between CSR and competitiveness in termsof core business practices. Furthermore, results show

that image and reputation are part of the framework

linking CSR and competitiveness, acting as a funda-

mental driver to initiate, develop and embed a CSR

strategy in an organization (Haigh and Jones, 2006).

As shown in Figure 3, we propose that image and

reputation make the connection between CSR and

competitiveness through three management pro-

cesses: (a) strategy, (b) stakeholder management and

(3) accountability. That is, adopting a CSR strategy

has an impact on identity and branding, which has a

direct impact on competitiveness as it forces sustain-able development in corporate vision through cor-

porate strategy (Mintzberg, 1987, 1993), improves

the understanding of the complexity of the compet-

itive environment and strengthens relationships with

key stakeholders through stakeholder management

(Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984;

Kay, 1993), and improves the transparency of the

Image Reputation

Branding Identity

Innovation

Learning

Strategy

Stakeholder

Accountability

CSR Competitiveness

Image Reputation

Branding Identity

Innovation

Learning

Strategy

Stakeholder

Accountability

CSR Competitiveness

Figure 3. CSR and competitiveness framework. Source:

Marc Vilanova 2007.



8/14

organization through accountability management

processes (Elkington, 1998; Pruzan, 2001; Valor,

2005).

Finally, reputation acts as a fundamental driver to

implement CSR as it is currently an accepted andvalued intangible asset (Schnietz and Epstein, 2005)

as well as one of the key issues in risk management

(Van De Ven and Jeurissen, 2005). Moreover, rep-

utation and image generate opportunities for inno-

vation within organizations in terms of corporate

branding, which in turn, build corporate reputation,

image and identity (Fan, 2005). Thus, reputation

becomes a driver not only to initiate CSR

approaches in firms, but also to drive the process

inside the company.

The objective from a company perspective whenadopting a CSR strategy is to establish a normative

framework, thus allowing managers to create CSR

sound approaches to business and make them work

(Jones and Wicks, 1999; Joyner and Payne, 2002;

McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). However, defining

the role of companies in society from a CSR

standpoint involves putting vision, understanding

and processes at the core of corporate practices

(Cramer et al., 2006; Pruzan, 2001; Solomon, 1993).

Thus, the issue is not how to adopt a determined

management strategy but rather how to integrate

CSR in the vision of the company, so that a cor-porate identity based on clear objectives and values is

established, while the companys strategies and

practices constantly adapt to a changing world

(Collins and Porras, 1996; Epstein, 1987; Mintzberg,

1993; Pruzan and Thyseen, 1990).

In other words, the type of change necessary for

CSR requires reinventing the organization, which is

not so much about modifying current policies and

processes as it is about creating new ones (Epstein,

1987; Goss et al., 1993; Mintzberg, 1993, Pettigrew,

1990). Therefore, to effect change in an organiza-tion, all its members must start to think, feel or do

things differently, so change management becomes

an issue if one want to manage a learning and

innovation dynamic (Pettigrew 1985, 1990). In that

context, creating a normative framework and legal

framework for action in CSR concerns the devel-

opment of social responsibility in organizations as a

learning and innovation process: exploring, docu-

menting, and determining success factors; under-

standing competencies and awareness and grasping

the policy framework and additional factors involved

in learning how to become socially responsible and

being able to entertain new business policies, pro-

cesses and practices (Goss et al., 1993; Mintzberg,

1993).

Inherent CSR paradoxes

One of the main reasons CSR frameworks seem to

be ineffective in practice is that they dont take into

account the paradoxes of CSR (Goodpaster, 1991;

Gray and Clarke, 2005; Handy, 1994). For many

years, literature has identified paradoxes as a key is-

sue in embedding CSR into an organization, but

there has been virtually no empirical research onhow such paradoxes are identified and managed in

organizations (Calton and Payne, 2003; Goodpaster,

1983; Handy, 1994; Korhonen, 2006; Pava and

Krausz, 1996; Stansbury and Barry, 2007; Turcotte

and Pasquero, 2001). CSR paradoxes take two

forms: (1) organizational paradoxes that arise from

opposing CSR and business goals, values and pro-

cesses (Handy, 2002; Joyner and Payne, 2002;

Pruzan and Thyssen, 1990) and (2) paradoxes

inherent to CSR that are generated by opposing or

conflicting goals, values and processes within CSR

frameworks (Elkington, 1998; Freeman, 1984;Goodpaster, 1991; Handy, 1994; Pruzan, 2001).

That is, effectively implementing CSR in a corpo-

rate context involves managing organizational and

inherent CSR paradoxes (Calton and Payne, 2003;

Clegg et al., 2002; Lewis, 2000; Poole and Van de

Ven, 1989).

The concept of paradox is emerging as a subject

of empirical study in the management field (Ospina

and Saz-Carranza, 2005). Within organizational

studies, Lewis (2000) defines paradox as something

that denotes contradictory yet interwoven elementsthat seem logical in isolation but absurd and irra-

tional when appearing simultaneously. That is,

paradoxes represent tensions between well-founded

and supported alternative explanations of the same

phenomenon that present a puzzle (Pool and

Van de Ven, 1989). The bottom line is that a

paradox represents the choice-dilemma between

two poles, each of which is arguably favourable,

since choosing one pole means not choosing the

other (Saz-Carranza, 2007).

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/14

There are some studies that suggest that paradoxes

are particularly relevant in the field of business in

society (Handy, 1994), as the market structure and

business systems naturally constrain the forms and

extent of CSR approaches (Sum and Ngai, 2005). Inthat regard, one of the key issues in implementing

CSR seems to be the tensions involved in integrat-

ing and embedding CSR in the vision and activities

at the core of corporate practices (Porter and

Kramer, 2006; Pruzan, 2001). That is, adopting

CSR may generate goals, values, processes and

practices contradictory to company mission and

existing business activities (Goodpaster, 1991). We

propose that there are four paradoxes particularly

relevant to the topic of how CSR is implemented

and managed: (a) the strategy paradox; (b) thestakeholder paradox; (c) the accountability paradox

and (d) the competitiveness paradox. Furthermore,

we propose that the first three are inherent para-

doxes to CSR, as they illustrate tensions between

opposing approaches in CSR. The competitiveness

paradox, on the other hand, is an organizational

paradox in that it illustrates the tension between

CSR and existing business practices in organizations

that are driven by competitiveness (Ambastha and

Momaya, 2004).

The strategy paradox represents the convergence/

divergence of business mission, vision and objectiveswhen embracing CSR in an organization (Cameron,

1986; Clarke and Gray, 2005; Goodpaster, 1991;

Korhonen, 2006). The convergence/divergence

paradox lies in the notion that both processes are not

compatible, at least simultaneously, so that thebroader

corporate objectives and missions are, the easier and

simpler it is to include concepts such as CSR and how

they affect long-term firm competitiveness, but also

the more difficult and impractical become to measure

and manage (Cameron, 1986; Clarke and Gray, 2005;

Goodpaster, 1991; Korhonen, 2006).The stakeholder paradox represents the unity/

diversity of goals and objectives among different

stakeholders (Aram, 1989; Calton and Payne, 2003;

Stansbury and Barry, 2007; Turcotte and Pasquero,

2001). The stakeholder paradox lies in the concept

that increasing the diversity of stakeholder effectively

decreases the capacity to control and manage the

stakeholder process, including focussing on company

objectives (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman

and Evan, 1990; Frooman, 1999; Goodpaster, 1991;

Gray and Clarke, 2005; Jones, 1995; Turcotte and

Pasquero, 2001).

The accountability paradox represents the dispersion/centrality of accountability processes (Elkington,

1998; Korhonen, 2006; Zadeck 2001). The account-ability paradox lies in the notion that the more the

company aims to be transparent and dialogue through

different communication channels with its stake-

holders, the more it looses the capacity to transmit a

coherent and central message about the company and

its vision (Carlisle and Faulkner, 2005; Stansbury and

Barry, 2007).

The competitiveness paradox represents the business/

responsibility of corporate practices (Handy, 2002;

Joyner and Payne, 2002). The paradox lies in the

notion that embracing key CSR policies effectivelyreduces certain competitive advantages, although it

strengthens other competitive factors. This paradox

illustrates the tension between responsible and

business decisions, particularly when facing invest-

ment.

Conclusions

Many practitioners argue that CSR will become a

truly strategic business issue when the financial sec-

tor in general and financial analysts in particularbroadly use CSR criteria to evaluate firms. We

propose that the fact that the financial sector and

financial analysts define, judge and determine what

variables are critical to firm competitiveness reflects

one of the problems with the current management

field. Current management practices, particularly in

the field of CSR, are based on outputs rather than

processes, which creates difficulties for understand-

ing and managing the relationship between CSR

and competitiveness, as is based on processes of

strategic reflection and implementation, stakeholdermanagement and accountability. Furthermore, we

propose that reputation is a key driver in framing and

embedding CSR in corporate strategy, so that the

debate should not be about reputation or competi-

tiveness, but rather on how to best use reputation as

a driver to embed CSR in core business processes

that have a direct impact on competitiveness.

Thus, we argue that to explain the nature of the

relationship between CSR and competitiveness, we

should centre on framing and interpreting how

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/14

companies manage their paradoxes, rather than the

results, impacts or outputs generated from CSR

policies. Furthermore, we conclude that clear con-

ceptual definitions do not avoid generating para-

doxes in practice. In that regard, we propose that theframeworks identified in this paper establishing a

link between CSR and competitiveness, as well as

the analytical framework to identify paradoxes

associated to management processes, can be of use

for both practitioners as well as scholars, in framing

and interpreting the relationship between CSR and

competitiveness in practice.

References

Ambastha, A. and K. Momaya: 2004, Competitiveness of

Firms: Review of Theory, Frameworks and Models,

Singapore Management Review26(1), 4561.

Aram, J.: 1989, The Paradox of Interdependence Rela-

tions in the Field of Social Issues in Management,

Academy of Management Review14(2), 266283.

Ayuso, S., M. A. Rodriguez and J. E. Ricart: 2006,

Responsible Competitiveness at the Micro Level of

the Firm Using Stakeholder Dialogue as a Source for

New Ideas: a Dynamic Capability Underlying Sustain-

able Innovation, Corporate Governance6(4), 475490.

Bansal, P. and K. Roth: 2000, Why Companies GoGreen: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness,

Academy of Management Journal43(4), 717736.

Barney, J.: 1991, Firm Resources and Sustained

Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management 17(1),

99120.

Brealey, R. A. and S. C. Myers: 2000, Principles of Cor-

porate Finance, 6th Edition (McGraw-Hill, New York).

Budd, L. and A. K. Hirmis: 2004, Conceptual Frame-

work for Regional Competitiveness, Regional Studies

38(9), 10151028.

Business Week: 2007, Special Report, The 100 Top

Brands, August 6. Businessweek.com. http://www.

businessweek.com/pdfs/2007/0732_globalbrands.pdf.

Business Week: 2007, Special Report, The Worlds Most

Innovative Companies, May 4, 2007. Business-

week.com. http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/

content/may2007/id20070504_051674.htm.

Business and Human Rights Resource Centre: 2007,

Business and Human Rights: Mapping International

Standards of Responsibility and Accountability for

Corporate Acts. www.business-humanrights.org.

Calton, J. and S. Payen: 2003, Coping with Paradox,

Business in Society 42(1), 742.

Cameron, K. S.: 1986, Effectiveness as Paradox: Con-

sensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational

Effectiveness, Management Science32(5), 539553.

Carlisle, Y. M. and D. O. Faulkner: 2005, The Strategy

of Reputation, Strategic Change14(8), 413422.Carroll, A. B.: 1979, A Three-Dimensional Conceptual

Model of Corporate Performance, Academy of Man-

agement Review4(4), 497505.

Carroll, A. B.: 1999, Corporate Social Responsibility,

Business and Society 38(3), 268295.

Carter, A., B. Simkins and W. Simpson: 2003, Corporate

Governance, Board Diversity, and Firm Value, The

Financial Review38, 3353.

Chand, M. andS. Fraser: 2006, The RelationshipBetween

Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial

Performance: Industry Type as a Boundary Condition,

The Business Review, Cambridge5(1), 240245.

Clegg, S., J. Vieira da Cunha and M. Pina: 2002,

Management Paradoxes: A Relational View, Human

Relations 55(5), 483503.

Collins, C. J. and I. J. Porras: 1996, Building Your Com-

panys Vision, Harvard Business Review74(5), 6577.

Copeland, T. E., T. Koller and J. Murrin: 2000, Valua-

tion: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies, 3rd

Edition (Wiley, New York).

Cramer, J., A. Van Der Hiejden and J. Jonker: 2006,

Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Sense

Through Thinking and Acting, Business Ethics 15(4),

380389.

DCruz, J. and A. Rugman: 1992, New Concepts forCanadian Competitiveness (Kodak, Canada).

Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 2002, Ties that Bind

in Business Ethics: Social Contracts and Why they

Matter, Journal of Banking & Finance26(9), 18531865.

Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, The Stakeholder

Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and

Implications,Academy of Management Review20, 6591.

Draper, S.: 2006, Corporate Responsibility and Com-

petitiveness at the Meso Level: Key Models for

Delivering Sector-Level Corporate Responsibility,

Corporate Governance6(4), 409419.

Elkington, J.: 1998, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom

Line of 21st Century Business (New Society Publishers).

Epstein, E. M.: 1987, The Corporate Social Responsi-

bility Process: Beyond Business Ethics, Corporate

Social Reponsibility, and Corporate Social Respon-

siveness, California Management Review29(3), 99114.

European Commission (EC): 2002, Green Book: Promoting

a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-

dial/csr/greenpaper.htm.

Fan, Y.: 2005, Ethical Branding and Corporate Repu-

tation, Corporate Communications 10(4), 341350.

http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2007/0732_globalbrands.pdfhttp://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2007/0732_globalbrands.pdfhttp://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2007/id20070504_051674.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2007/id20070504_051674.htmhttp://www.business-humanrights.org/http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/greenpaper.htmhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/greenpaper.htmhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/greenpaper.htmhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/greenpaper.htmhttp://www.business-humanrights.org/http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2007/id20070504_051674.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2007/id20070504_051674.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2007/0732_globalbrands.pdfhttp://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2007/0732_globalbrands.pdf


11/14

Fernandez, P.: 2002, Company Valuation Methods: The

Most Common Errors in Valuations. Working Paper

No 449. IESE.

Forbes: 2007, Special Report, The Global 2000, March

29. Forbes.com. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/18/biz_07forbes2000_The-Global-2000_Rank.html.

Fortune: 2007, November 12. Fortune.com. http://

money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/

accountability/full_list.html.

Freeman, R. E.: 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder

Approach (Pitman Publishing, Boston).

Freeman, R. E.: 1999, Divergent Stakeholder Theory,


Freeman, R. E. and W. M. Evan: 1990, Corporate

Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation, Journal of

Behavioural Economics 19(4), 337359.

Frooman, J.: 1999, Stakeholder Influence Strategies,


Goodpaster, K. E.: 1983, The Concept of Corporate

Social Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics 2, 122.

Goodpaster, K. E.: 1991, Business Ethics and Stakeholder

Analysis, Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1), 5372.

Goss, T., R. Pascale, and A. Athos: 1993, The Invention

Roller Coaster: Risking the Present for a Powerful

Future, Harvard Business Review76(6), 97108.

Grant, R. M.: 2000, Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 3rd

Edition (Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts).

Gray, D. and P. Clarke: 2005, Meeting Goodpasters

Challenge: A Smithian Approach to Goodpasters Para-

dox, Business Ethics: A European Review(14), 119126.Great Place to Work. www.greatplacetowork.com.

Grey, B.: 1996, Cross-Sectoral Partners: Collaborative Alli-

ances Among Business, Government and Communities.

Huxham, Chris. Creating Collaborative Advantage (Sage

Publications, London).

GRI.: 2002, Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability

Reporting Guidelines. www.globalreporting.org/GRI

Guidelines/2002draft.htm .

Griffin, J. and J. Mahon: 1997, The Corporate Social

Performance and Corporate Financial Performance

Debate: Twenty Five Years of Incomparable

Research, Journal of Business and Society 36(1), 531.

Gueterbok, R.: 2004, Greenpeace Campaign Case Study

StopEsso,Journal of Consumer Behaviour3(3), 265271.

Haigh, M. and M. T. Jones: 2006, The Divers of Cor-

porate Social Responsibility: A Critical Review, The

Business Review, Cambridge 5(2), 245251.

Hamel, G. and C. K. Prahalad: 1989, Strategic Intent,

Harvard Business Review3, 6376.

Handy, C.: 1994, The Age of Paradox (Harvard Business

School Press).

Handy, C.: 2002, Whats a Business for, Harvard Business

Review80(12), 4960.

Harrison, J. S. and R. E. Freeman: 1999, Stakeholders,

Social Responsibility and Performance: Empirical

Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives, Academy of

Management Journal 42(9), 479.

Hess, D., N. Rogovsky and T. W. Dunfee: 2002, TheNext Wave of Corporate Community Involvement:

Corporate Social Initiatives, California Management

Review44(2), 110125.

Humble, J., D. Jackson and A. Thomson: 1994, The

Strategic Power of Corporate Values, Long Range

Planning27(6), 2843.

IMD: 2006, World Competitiveness Yearbook. http://www.

imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/world_competitiveness_

yearbook.cfm?bhcp=1.

International Finance Corporation: 2003. www.ifc.org/

equatorprinciples.

International Labor Organization. Fundamental Principles

andRights to Work. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/

DECLARATIONWEB.INDEXPAGE.

Jones, T. M.: 1980, Corporate Social Responsibility

Revisited, Redefined, California Management Review

22(3), 5967.

Jones, T. M.: 1995, Instrumental Stakeholder The-

ory, The Academy of Management Review 20(2),

404437.

Jones, T. M. and A. C. Wicks: 1999, Convergent

Stakeholder Theory, The Academy of Management Re-

view24(2), 206221.

Joyner, B. E. and D. Payne: 2002, Evolution and

Implementation: A Study of Values, Business Ethicsand Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics 41, 297311.

Juholin, E.: 2004, For Business or the Good of All? A

Finnish Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility,

Corporate Governance4(3), 2031.

Kay, J.: 1993, Foundations of Corporate Success (Oxford,

Oxford University Press).

Korhonen, J.: 2006, On the Paradox of Corporate Social

Responsibility: How Can We Use Social Science and

Natural Science for a New Vision? Business Ethics,

A European Review15(2), 200214.

Lewis, M. W.: 2000, Exploring Paradox: Toward a More

Comprehensive Guide, Academy of Management Review

25(4), 760775.

Lowell, B. L.: 2007, The New Metrics of Corporate

Performance: Profit Per Employee, The McKinsey

Quarterly 1, 5665. www.mckinseyquarterly.com.

Lozano, J. M.: 2002, Towards the Relational Corpora-

tion: From Managing Stakeholder Relations to

Building Stakeholder Relationships (Waiting for

Copernicus), Corporate Governance 5(2), 6077.

Mackey, A., T. B. Mackey and J. B. Barney: 2007, Cor-

porate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/18/biz_07forbes2000_The-Global-2000_Rank.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/18/biz_07forbes2000_The-Global-2000_Rank.htmlhttp://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/accountability/full_list.htmlhttp://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/accountability/full_list.htmlhttp://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/accountability/full_list.htmlhttp://www.greatplacetowork.com/http://www.globalreporting.org/GRIGuidelines/2002draft.htmhttp://www.globalreporting.org/GRIGuidelines/2002draft.htmhttp://www.imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/world_competitiveness_yearbook.cfm?bhcp=1http://www.imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/world_competitiveness_yearbook.cfm?bhcp=1http://www.imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/world_competitiveness_yearbook.cfm?bhcp=1http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.INDEXPAGEhttp://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.INDEXPAGEhttp://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.INDEXPAGEhttp://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.INDEXPAGEhttp://www.imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/world_competitiveness_yearbook.cfm?bhcp=1http://www.imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/world_competitiveness_yearbook.cfm?bhcp=1http://www.imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/world_competitiveness_yearbook.cfm?bhcp=1http://www.globalreporting.org/GRIGuidelines/2002draft.htmhttp://www.globalreporting.org/GRIGuidelines/2002draft.htmhttp://www.greatplacetowork.com/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/accountability/full_list.htmlhttp://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/accountability/full_list.htmlhttp://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/accountability/full_list.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/18/biz_07forbes2000_The-Global-2000_Rank.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/18/biz_07forbes2000_The-Global-2000_Rank.html


12/14

Investor Preferences and Corporate Strategies,Academy

of Management Review32(3), 817835.

McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel: 2001, Corporate Social

Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective,

Academy of Management Review26(1), 117128.Mintzberg, H.: 1987, Crafting Strategy, Harvard Business

Review65(4), 6675.

Mintzber, H.: 1993, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning

(Free Press, New York).

Murths, T. P. and S. A. Lenway: 1998, Country Capa-

bilities and the Strategic State: How National Political

Institutions Affect MNC Strategies, Strategic Manage-

ment Journal 15(5), 113119.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-

ment (OECD): (2000), Revised OECD Guidelines

for Multinational Enterprises. www.oecd.org/EN/

document/0,,EN-document-93-nodirectorate-no-6-

18925-28,00.html.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-

ment (OECD): (2001), Corporate Social Responsibility,

Partners for Progress.

Orlitzky, M.: 2001, Does Firm Size Confound the

Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance

and Business Performance?, Journal of Business Ethics

33(2), 167180.

Ospina, S. and A. Saz-Carranza: 2005, Paradox and

Collaboration in Coalition Work, Academy of Man-

agement Annual Meeting.

Pava, M. and J. Krausz: 1996, The Association Between

Corporate Social-Responsibility and Financial Per-formance: The Paradox of Social Cost, Journal of

Business Ethics 15(3), 321357.

Pettigrew, A. M.: 1985, Contextualist Research: A

Natural Way to Link Theory and Practice, in E. E.

Lawler (ed.), Doing Research that is Useful in Theory and

Practice (Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA).

Pettigrew, A.:1990, Contextualist Research andthe Study

of Organizational Change Processes, in E. Hirschheim,

R. Fitzgerald, G. Wood-Harper andT. Mumford (eds.),

Research Methods in Information Systems (Elsevier Science

Publishers, North Holland).

Poole, M. S. and A. H. Van De Ven: 1989, Using a

Paradox to Build Management and Organization

Theories, The Academy of Management Review 14(4),

562578.

Porter, M. E.: 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for

Analyzing Industries and Competitors (Free Press, New

York).

Porter, M. E.: 1985, Competitive Advantage: Creating and

Sustaining Superior Performance (Free Press, New York).

Porter, M. E.: 1998, Clusters and the New Economics of

Competition, Harvard Business Review 76(6), 7790.

Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2006, Strategy and

Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage

and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business

Review84(12), 7892.

Porter, M. E. and C. Van Der Linde: 1995, Green andCompetitive: Ending the Stalemate, Harvard Business

Review73(5), 120134.

Prahalad, C. K. and A. Hammond: 2002, Serving the

Worlds Poor, Profitably, Harvard Business Review

80(9), 4857.

Principles for Responsible Investment. www.unpri.org.

Pruzan, P.: 2001, The Question of Organizational

Consciousness: Can Organizations have Values, Vir-

tues and Visions?, Journal of Business Ethics 29(3), 271

284.

Pruzan, P. and O. Thyssen: 1990, Conflict and Con-

sensus: Ethics as a Shared Value Horizon for Strategic

Planning, Human Systems Management 9, 135151.

Reputation Institute: 2005, Corporate Ranking. http://

www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=422.

Robertson, D. C. and N. Nicholson: 1996, Expressions

of Corporate Social Responsibility in U.K. Firms,

Journal of Business Ethics 15(10), 10951106.

Robin, D. P. and R. E. Reidenbach: 1988, Integrating

Social Responsibility and Ethics into the Strategic

Planning Process, Business and Professional Ethics Journal

7(34), 2946.

Saz-Carranza, A.: 2007, Managing Interorganizational

Networks: Leadership, Paradox, and Power. Doctoral

Thesis Dissertation, ESADE Business School, Barcelona.Schnietz, K. E. and M. J. Epstein: 2005, Exploring the

Financial Value of Reputation for Corporate

Responsibility During a Crisis, Corporate Reputation

Review7(4), 327345.

Sethi, S. P.: 1975, Dimensions of Corporate Social

Responsibility, California Management Review 17(3),

5864.

Sison, A. J. G.: 2000, The Cultural Dimension of Codes

of Corporate Governance: A Focus on the Olivencia

Report, Journal of Business Ethics 27, 181192.

Smith, N. C.: 2003, Corporate Social Responsibility:

Whether or How?, California Management Review

45(4), 5276.

Solomon, R. C.: 1993, Ethics and Excellence. Cooperation

and Integrity in Business (Oxford University Press,

Oxford).

Stansbury, J. and B. Barry: 2007, Ethics Programs and the

Paradox of Control, Business Ethics Quarterly 17(2),

239261.

Stewart, T. A.: 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility:

Getting the Logic Right, Harvard Business Review

84(12), 1414.

http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-93-nodirectorate-no-6-18925-28,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-93-nodirectorate-no-6-18925-28,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-93-nodirectorate-no-6-18925-28,00.htmlhttp://www.unpri.org/http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=422http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=422http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=422http://www.causemarketingforum.com/page.asp?ID=422http://www.unpri.org/http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-93-nodirectorate-no-6-18925-28,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-93-nodirectorate-no-6-18925-28,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-93-nodirectorate-no-6-18925-28,00.html


13/14

Sum, N. and P. Ngai: 2005, Globalization and Paradoxes

of Ethical Transnational Production: Code of Conduct

in Chinese Workplace, Competition & Change 9(2),

181200.

Swanson, D. L.: 1995, Addressing a Theoretical Problemby Reorienting the Corporate Social Performance

Model, Academy of Management Review20, 4364.

Turcotte, M. and J. Pasquero: 2001, The Paradox of

Multistakeholder Collaborative Roundtables, The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science37(4), 447464.

United Nations: 2000, Global Compact. http://www.

unglobalcompact.org.

United Nations Environmental Protection Agency

Finance Initiative (UNEPFI): 2005, http://www.

unepfi.org/work_streams/investment/principles/.

Valor, C.: 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility and

Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Account-

ability, Business and Society Review110(2), 191213.

Van de Ven, B. and R. Jeurissen: 2005, Competing

Responsibly, Business Ethics Quarterly 15(2), 299317.

Waddock, S.: 2000, The Multiple Bottom Lines of

Corporate Citizenship: Social Investing, Reputation,

and Responsibility Audits, Business & Society Review

105(3), 323346.

Whetten, D. A., G. Rands and P. Godfrey: 2001, What

are the Responsibilities of Business in Society? in

A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas and R. Whittington (eds.),

Handbook of Strategy and Management (Sage, London).

Windsor, D.: 2001, The Future of Corporate SocialResponsibility, The International Journal of Organiza-

tional Analysis 9(3), 225256.

World Economic Forum: 2007, Global Competitiveness

Report, http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/

Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm.

Zadek, S.: 2001, The Civil Corporation: the New Economy of

Corporate Citizenship (Earthscan, London).

Zadek, S.: 2006, Responsible Competitiveness:

Reshaping Global Markets Through Responsible

Business, Corporate Governance: The International Journal

of Effective Board Performance 6(4), 334348.

Institute for Social Innovation, ESADE Business School,

Av. de Pedralbes, 60-62, 08034 Barcelona, Spain

E-mail: [email protected]



http://www.unglobalcompact.org/http://www.unglobalcompact.org/http://www.unepfi.org/work_streams/investment/principles/http://www.unepfi.org/work_streams/investment/principles/http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htmhttp://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htmhttp://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htmhttp://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htmhttp://www.unepfi.org/work_streams/investment/principles/http://www.unepfi.org/work_streams/investment/principles/http://www.unglobalcompact.org/http://www.unglobalcompact.org/


14/14

csr and responsiveness

Documents