Is the corporate social responsibility–innovation link homogeneous?: Looking for sustainable innovation in the Spanish context

Abstract

This study examines if the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and innovation is homogeneous or depends on the type of CSR practice and/or the type of innovation. The paper focuses on the three dimensions of the “three bottom line” of CSR (economic, social, and environmental) and on the so‐called “fateful triangle” of innovation, which together with studied product and process innovation types also considers organizational innovation. The theoretical framework is based on the resource‐based view and the knowledge‐based view approaches. In analysing sustainable innovation in the Spanish context, we look at a set of firms taking data for the 2009–2014 Spanish Community Innovation Survey. The empirical study uses random effect probit panel data methodology. The results show that, although the positive effect of CSR on innovation is confirmed for the majority of the cases, there are differences depending on the innovation type and the CSR dimension.

Corporate social responsibility and eco‐innovation: The triple bottom line perspective

“…Indeed, our findings indicate that both dimensions are more strongly related to long‐term performance, such as sustainable environmental innovation, than to short‐term benefits, such as pollution prevention. Hence, our findings support previous work that suggests that financial CSR tends to focus on harmonious and sustainable development (García‐Piqueres & García‐Ramos, 2020) and on how firms utilise resources to profit in the long term (Currás‐Pérez, Dolz‐Dolz, Miquel‐Romero, & Sánchez‐García, 2018). Our findings also support previous research on social CSR that suggests that the social dimension of CSR may not directly relate to short‐term financial benefits, as it emphasises the importance of active involvement in the local and global community and a secure workforce to enable sustainability (Torugsa et al, 2013).…”

“…Second, we are unable to distinguish between symbolic and substantive CSR, which are classifications used in previous research (Marquis & Qian, 2014). While substantive CSR directly affects outcomes, symbolic activities might compromise on production efficiency (García‐Piqueres & García‐Ramos, 2020). Further research could examine in‐depth case studies to unpack symbolic and substantive CSR in greater detail.…”

The Desirability of a Future Integrated Reporting in the Study of Social and Innovative Practices

“…The positive correlation between CSR and stakeholder orientation shows that socially responsible companies address the demands and interests of their stakeholders and integrate them into their CSR practices [79]. In this sense, socially responsible companies could integrate stakeholders' social and environmental demands into their innovation and development strategies.…”

“…Therefore we eliminate the possibility of aggregation bias that can arise when using mean data for the variables, in time series models. The use of random effects has advantages over fixed effects, such as the problem of incidental parameters, being appropriate for random samples of large populations or allowing the treatment of omitted factors [79].…”

“…Panel data allow for the introduction of dynamic elements into the model. All this is why this analysis has been used in the recent literature on CSR and innovation [79,80]. To test the hypotheses, the following model was considered:…”