Detection the benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility strategies that would serve as a motivation for managers and shareholders in the context of a classical firm, which possesses monetary preferences. Theoretical framework and hypothesis development.
Аннотация к работе
Building relationships with stakeholders, who generally possess social preference, a classical firm may reach a “win, win” condition, which implies maximization of profits, while meeting demand for various social interactions. Basing on the stakeholder theory and a “win, win” scenario, a two-step model was developed, where the first step was devoted to identifying factors that influence levels of CSR subgroups, each of which represent a channel to address main stakeholders groups, and the second step was devoted to showing that these channels indeed influence sustainability of a firm. Following this research method, 3 panel data models were constructed with results, showing that companies’ size, age, profitability positively affect all three subgroups of CSR, while other factors such as industry type, country status and media accident revealed different relationships with three CSR dimensions, for example, companies that operate in a heavy equipment type of industry, tend not to invest in the Consumer CSR and Labor CSR, while Environment CSR is positively affected by the industry type.
Вывод
Theoretical literature written in the field of CSR is aimed at the identifying various channels and strategies through which implementation of CSR activities may enhance market positions of the firm and improve its financial performance. These theories agree upon the importance of identifying and addressing appropriate stakeholder groups. Building relationships with stakeholders, who generally possess social preference, a classical firm may reach a “win, win” condition, which implies maximization of profits, while meeting demand for various social interactions. However, such theoretical framework, when testing in order to reveal relationships between CSR strategies and financial performance of the firm, generally do not provide the evidence for such relationship, meaning that CSR does not show to increase profits of the firm.
Taking all that into account, this paper was developed in order to reveal what motivation may stand behind CSR activities. Basing on the stakeholder theory and a “win, win” scenario, a two-step model was developed, where the first step was devoted to identifying factors that influence levels of CSR subgroups, each of which represent a channel to address main stakeholders groups, and the second step was devoted to showing that these channels indeed influence sustainability of a firm.
Following this research method, 3 panel data models were constructed with results, showing that companies’ size, age, profitability positively affect all three subgroups of CSR, while other factors such as industry type, country status and media accident revealed different relationships with three CSR dimensions, for example, companies that operate in a heavy equipment type of industry, tend not to invest in the Consumer CSR and Labor CSR, while Environment CSR is positively affected by the industry type. Country membership in OECD organization negatively affects the level of Environment CSR, while Media exposure of a company in case of a negative even, such as accident that affects labor or environmental conditions, have a positive effect on the level of Environmental CSR. The results of the second step fixed-effect model revealed that actually all three subgroups that constitute total CSR level have a positive effect on the firms’ sustainability, showing the motivations to involve in CSR strategies.
Speaking about policy implications, apart from proposing a way to managers to enhance sustainability, an important policy implication lies in a fact that it highly recommended for governmental authorities to relax the increasing implementation of different environmental regulations and let the companies to implement voluntary socially responsible activities towards environment in the ways that benefit stakeholders and society at large, enjoying a “win, win” scenario. corporate social responsibility manager
Список литературы
Academic sources: K. Mattew Gilley, Dan L. Worrell, Wallace N. Davidson, Abuzar Et-Jelly, 2000, “Corporate Environmental Initiatives and Anticipated Firm Performance: The Differential Effects of Process-Driven Versus Product-Driven Greening Initiatives”, Journal of Management, 26, pp. 1199-1216.
Don Grant, Andrew W. Jones, Mary Nell Trautner, 2004, “Do facilities with Distant Headquarters Pollute More? How Civic Engagement Conditions the Environmental Performance of Absentee Managed Plants”, Social Forces, 83, pp. 189-214.
Wilma Rose, Q. Anton, George Deltas, and Madhu Khanna, 2003, “Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications for environmental performance”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48, pp. 632-654.
Robert Innes and Abdoul G. Sam, “Voluntary Pollution Reductions and the Enforcement of Environmental Law: an Empirical Study of the 33/50 Program”????
Charles Eesley and Michael J. Lenox, 2006, “Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action”, Strategic Management Journal, 27, 765-781.
Jacob Brower and Vijay Mahajan, 2011, “Driven to Be Good: A Stakeholder Theory Perspective on the Drivers of Corporate Social Performance”, Journal of Business Ethics
Forest L. Reinhardt, Robert N. Stavins, and Richard H.K. Vietor, 2008, “Corporate social Responsibility Through an Economic Lens”, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2, pp. 219-239.
Stefan Ambec, Philippe Barla, 2002, “A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis”, Economic Letters, 335-360.
Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih, 2002, “Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Msnagement, pp. 412-436.
Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih, 2001, “The Cost of Environmental Protection”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, pp. 732-738.
David Pearce and Charles Palmer, 2001, “Public and Private Spending for Environmental Protection: A Cross-Country Policy Analysis, Fiscal Studies, pp. 403-456.
Karen Palmer, Wallace E. Oates, and Paul R. Portney, 1995, “Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, pp. 119-132.
Carl Pasurka, 2008, “Perspectives on Pollution Abatement and Competitivness: Theory, Data, and Analyses”, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2, pp. 194-218.
Joshua D. Margolis, Hillary Anger Elfenbein, James P. Walsh, 2007, “Does is pay to be good? A Meta-Analysis and redirections of research on the the relationship between corporate social and financial performance”
Paul C. Godfrey, Craig B. Merril, and Jared M. Hansen, 2009, “ The relationship between corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis”, Strategic Management Journal, 30, pp. 425-445.
Markus Kitzmueller and Jay Shimshack, 2012, “Economic Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility”, Journal of Economic Literature, pp. 51-84.
Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer, 2002, “The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philantropy”, Harward Business Review, pp. 56-68.