Is social responsibility driven by industry or firm‐specific factors?

Abstract

Purpose -This study aims to revisit the relative importance of industry and firm level effects on corporate social responsibility (CSR), with the objective of clarifying their diverse effects on CSR. Design/methodology/approach -The authors suggest that CSR is a shared strategic asset based on insights from the industrial organization and institutional schools, taking into account that there are determinants of CSR that may be operating inside the corporation according to the resource-based view. They employ a variance components method and a sample compiled of 495 US firms from 19 industries using five-year periods. Findings -The study indicates that firms retain considerable self-determinism regarding their CSR trajectories, but the latter also represent a shared strategic asset. Thus, these results combined imply that CSR needs to be examined on both levels simultaneously. Practical implications -The results of this study can provide non-governmental organizations and governmental and regulatory institutions with an indicator that explains the performance variation levels of each dimension of CSR, and can help improve tools designed to promote it. Furthermore, the authors' research provides managers with evidence of CSR variability among CSR dimensions that could help in strategic decision-making. In addition this research can provide assistance and give perspective regarding selection criteria for investment portfolios in responsible investment funds. Originality/value -The industry effect is an important factor to consider in CSR intensity. The variation in firm and industry effects on CSR strategies has not been extensively studied; hence, explaining the sources of performance differences regarding industry and firm factors is a key theoretical and empirical issue in the field of management.

Tracing stakeholder terminology then and now: Convergence and new pathways

“…Recent research examining the context of stakeholder relations is increasingly examining small or medium‐sized business (SMEs) (Williamson, Lynch‐Wood, & Ramsay, ), entrepreneurial new ventures (Casson & Pavelin, ; Spence, ; Wang & Bansal, ) and family firms (Van Gils, Dibrell, Neubaum, & Craig, ). At the same time, macro‐level stakeholder research is examining industries, eco‐systems and constellations of relationships (Aguilera et al, ; Moura‐Leite, Padgett, & Galan, ; Short, McKenny, Ketchen, Snow, & Hult, ).…”

“…Miles, Snow, and Sharfman () examined different industries, suggesting a variety of firm actions/responses (to stakeholders) was indicative of a growing industry, while Mahon and McGowan () explicitly incorporated sociopolitical pressures from stakeholders into competitive strategy at the industry level. Industry characteristics such as growth, capital intensity, dynamism or peers’ behavior significantly has been found to affect a focal firm's stakeholder activities (Berman et al, ; Griffin et al, ; Moura‐Leite et al, ; Schuler, Rehbein, & Cramer, ) and competitiveness (Rumelt, ).…”

An Empirical Examination of Firm, Industry, and Temporal Effects on Corporate Social Performance

“…Recent efforts to explore the dynamics of CSP have begun to incorporate advanced empirical methods that examine the KLD data over time, partitioning variance into firm and industry levels of analysis (Moura-Leite, Padgett, & Galan, 2012). Such investigation is valuable to scholars in social issues as limited research exists examining stakeholder management over time (Shropshire & Hillman, 2007).…”

“…While recent work has made a number of advances to understand the nature of the CSP over time, a number of opportunities remain. For example, while initial efforts to examine firm and industry effects examine a measure of CSP combining strengths and concerns (Moura-Leite et al, 2012), Mattingly and Berman (2006) found that such measures mask important nuances and inhibit the ability to build systematic knowledge about CSP. Techniques such as random coefficient modeling (RCM) are valuable in regard to the study of longitudinal data because they allow for the assessment of autocorrelation, which has long plagued longitudinal designs (Short, Ketchen, Bennett, & Du Toit, 2006).…”

Corporate Social Responsibility Effect on Information Asymmetry

“…Firm performance in the same industry tends to have similarities because they face similar drivers, including CSR performance. The industry plays a role in the intensity of social responsibility because of the pressure of industryspecific stakeholder pressures to improve social responsiveness [12]. So, it can be said that CSR information for a particular industry has a specific role.…”