Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 18, 285–293 (2011)
Published online 6 October 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/csr.251
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility:
A ‘Dynamic Capabilities’ Perspective
Insitute for Financial Management and Research, Chennai, India
In this paper, strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR) is deﬁned on the basis of Porter’s theory of competitive advantage. Two kinds of dynamic capabilities are proposed as the precursors to strategic CSR success and operationalized in terms of two sets of associated processes. The effectiveness of these processes is postulated to be dependent on their attributes and the human and social capital employed in them. Implications for practitioners and researchers are outlined. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 14 March 2010; revised 22 August 2010; accepted 31 August 2010 Keywords: strategic CSR; dynamic capabilities; environment management capability; impact assessment processes
USINESS ORGANIZATIONS ARE UNDER INCREASING PRESSURE TO PARTICIPATE IN SOLVING SOCIAL PROBLEMS. The range of problems that they are expected to engage in is quite wide; indeed, according to one author, ‘virtually nothing that society at large would like to achieve is beyond the scope of business ethics’ (Wilcke, 2004, p.197). Given this pressure and the fact that corporate social responsibility (CSR) entails costs, business organizations are faced with the contradictory situation of having to engage in social problems on the one hand and maintaining proﬁts on the other. Finding ways in which social goals can be pursued in ways that would not adversely affect proﬁts is therefore an issue of concern to managers and management researchers. Against this backdrop, a growing stream of practitioner-oriented literature describes a variety of CSR – termed strategic philanthropy or strategic CSR – that could not only confer economic returns on a ﬁrm and thus off-set the cost of CSR, but also lead to competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer, 2002; 2006; Falck and Heblich, 2007; Sasse and Trehan, 2007; Heslin and Ochoa, 2008). As far as the academic literature is concerned, there have been a few contributions that have sought to model strategic CSR. There is, however, scope for a more theoretically rigorous deﬁnition of the ‘strategic CSR’ construct and an identiﬁcation of ﬁrm-speciﬁc precursors to ‘strategic CSR’ success. This paper aims to contribute in this direction. In the succeeding section, we elaborate on a behavioral deﬁnition of strategic CSR that is rooted in the positioning school of thought in strategy – more speciﬁcally in Porter’s (1980; 1985) theory of competitive advantage. In the next section, we turn to the precursors of strategic CSR success. We draw from the literature on the resource-based view of the ﬁrm and dynamic capabilities to identify two kinds of dynamic capabilities as the necessary precursors to successful strategic CSR. We also point to how these capabilities can be operationalized in
*Correspondence to: Venugopal Ramachandran, Institute for Financial Management and Research, 24 Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nada, India 600034. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
terms of two sets of associated processes. We conclude with a discussion of the research and managerial implications.
What is Strategic CSR?
The academic literature on CSR has highlighted the lack of consensus and the prevailing confusion in deﬁning CSR (Baron, 2007; Margolis and Walsh, 2003; McWilliams et al., 2006; Mackay et al., 2007). Elsewhere in the literature it has also been pointed out that the lack of a single, universally accepted deﬁnition of CSR may not be very problematic, since, despite...
References: Amit R, Schoemaker PJH. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal 14(1): 33–46.
Annamalai K, Rao S. 2003. ITC’s e-choupal and proﬁtable rural transformation. What works case study. World Resources Institute. Washington
Barney JB. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.
Baron DP. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 16(4): 539–545.
Baron DP. 2001. Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 10(1): 7–45.
Blyler M, Coff RW. 2003. Dynamic capabilities, social capital and rent appropriation: Ties that split pies. Strategic Management Journal 24:
Clarkson M. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20:
Coleman JS. 1988, Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology. 94: S95–S120.
Collis DJ, Montgomery CA. 1998. Corporate strategy – A resource-based approach. Irwin-McGraw Hill: New York.
Dahlsrud A. 2008. How corporate social responsibility is deﬁned. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15(1): 1–13.
D’Aveni RA. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. Free Press: New York, NY.
Day G. 1994. The capabilities of market driven organizations. Journal of Marketing 58: 37–52.
Dougherty D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large ﬁrms. Organization Science 3: 179–202.
Eisenhardt KM, Tabrizi BN. 1995. Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science
Quarterly 40(1): 84–110.
Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal 21: 1105–1121.
Falck O, Heblich S. 2007. Doing well by doing good. Business Horizons 50: 247–254.
Grant RM. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 3:
Grant RM. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science
Hamel G, Prahalad CK. 1993. Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Review 68(2): 75–84.
Hart S. 1995. A natural resource-based view of the ﬁrm. Academy of Management Review 20: 986–1014.
Helfat CE, Raubitschek RS. 2000. Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal
Henderson R, Cockburn I. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring ﬁrm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal
Heslin PA, Ochoa JD. 2008. Understanding and developing strategic corporate social responsibility, Organizational Dynamics 37(2): 125–144.
Hillman AJ, Keim GD. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management
Journal 22(2): 125–139.
Husted BW, Salazar JJ. 2006. Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing proﬁts and social performance. Journal of Management Studies 43: 75 –91.
Kogut B, Zander U. 1992. Knowledge of the ﬁrm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3): 383–397.
Kohli AK, Jaworski B. 1990. Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing 54:
Leal GG, Fa MC, Pascola JV. 2003. Using environmental management systems to increase ﬁrms’ competitiveness. Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 10(2): 101–110.
Margolis JD, Walsh JP. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 655–689.
Mackey A, Mackey TB, Barney JB. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and ﬁrm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies.
Mario J, Maximiano B. 2007. A strategic integral approach (SIA) to institutionalizing CSR. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 14(4): 231–242.
McGrath RG. MacMillan IC, Venkataraman S. 1995. Deﬁning and developing competence: A strategic process paradigm. Strategic Management
Journal 16(4): 251–175.
McWilliams A, Siegel DS. 2001. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review 26(1):
McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright P. 2006. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies 43(1): 1–17.
Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Theoret A. 1976. The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 246–275.
Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. 1998. Social capital intellectual capital and the organizational advantage, Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242–266.
Peteraf MA. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 179–191.
Porter ME, Kramer MR. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review 80(12): 57–68.
Porter ME, Kramer MR. 2006. Strategy & society. Harvard Business Review 84(12): 78–92.
Porter ME. 1985. Competitive Advantage. Free Press: New York, NY.
Portes A. 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.
Russo M, Fouts P. 1997. A resource–based perspective on corporate environmental performance and proﬁtability. Academy of Management
Journal 40: 534–59.
Sasse CM, Trahan RT. 2007. Rethinking the new corporate philanthropy. Business Horizons 50: 29–38.
Schaefer A. 2004. Corporate sustainability – integrating environmental and social concerns? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 11(4): 179–187.
Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7): 509–533.
Upton DM, Fuller VA. 2004. The ITC eChoupal initiative. Case study No 0–404–16. Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, MA.
Weick KE. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sense making. Organization Science 16(4): 409–421.
Wernerfelt B. 1984. A resource-based view of the ﬁrm. Strategic Management Journal 5(2): 171–180.
Wilcke RW. 2004. An appropriate ethical model for business and a critique of Milton Friedman’s thesis. Independent Review 9(2): 187–200.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document