Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an increasingly important topic in recent years. As society's expectations of businesses continue to rise, companies face growing pressures to operate sustainably and ethically across their value chains (Ponte, 2019). Issues from climate change to human rights are material concerns for global corporations. Moreover, in today's transparent digital environment, the media heavily scrutinise corporate actions and behaviours, NGOs and wider stakeholders.
At the same time, operating responsibly and sustainably is no longer seen as a cost centre. Rather, a strategic CSR approach promises a range of benefits, from competitive advantage and reputation building to talent attraction and risk management. An evolving body of literature suggests financial and non-financial incentives for embedding CSR, while governments also provide policy pushes through reporting requirements and regulations. This context explains the rising prominence of CSR among contemporary corporations seeking to balance purpose and profits.
Aims and Objectives
Aim:
To critically analyse the strategic benefits of adopting corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices in gaining a competitive edge.
Objectives:
To define and conceptualise CSR and competitive advantage based on the review of scholarly literature
To examine relevant theories that explain the mechanisms linking CSR to building a competitive edge for companies
To present empirical evidence on the impacts of CSR on indicators of competitive advantage like financial performance, reputation, human capital
To develop a set of recommendations for managers on leveraging CSR strategically to achieve competitive differentiation
Outline of the research structure
This research will be structured into six main sections including introduction, literature review, methodology, findings and analysis, conclusions and recommendations, references and appendices. The introduction and literature review provide context and theoretical grounding, followed by an explanation of the methodological approach adopted. The findings, analysis, and discussion present the research results linked to prior theory and literature. Moreover, conclusions will summarise key learning outcomes and provide practice recommendations, together with limitations and future research needed.
Literature Review
Definitions of CSR and competitive edge/advantage
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to companies' approach towards their economic, social and environmental impacts, underpinned by responsible business policies, sustainable practices and stakeholder considerations across operations and the supply chain (Ashrafi et al. 2020). As such, CSR incorporates philanthropic activities but extends further to responsible, ethical strategies that create shared value for business and society. Thus, CSR has evolved from reactive philanthropy to strategic priorities integrated within corporate objectives, manifested through environmental policies, ethical sourcing, good governance and community programs.
Figure 1: CSR and Comparative Advantage
The competitive advantage consists of organisational capabilities providing differentiation and superior customer value over industry competitors (Al-alak and Tarabieh, 2011). Manifested in lower prices or product/service differentiation, competitive edge centres on firm resources and competencies that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and substitute, passed down causal ambiguity barriers, thus enabling durability over short-term advantages. Sources include firm assets, capabilities, corporate culture, knowledge capture systems, innovation processes, and talented human capital pools. Sustained competitive advantage results from reinforcing organisational competencies into the fabric of the business model.
Theories Linking CSR to Competitive Advantage
Several major theories explain how corporate social responsibility links to building a company's competitive edge. These include stakeholder theory, resource-based view theory and institutional theory. Stakeholder theory identifies that companies have responsibilities towards not just shareholders but also stakeholder groups and individuals impacted by or who can impact the firm (Dmytriyev et al. 2021). Customers, employees, communities, NGOs, governments and suppliers represent such stakeholders. Meeting ‘non-economic’ expectations of powerful stakeholders can build reputation, political leverage and a ‘social licence to operate’, differentiating the brand (Rahman Belal and Owen, 2007). Firms can gain a first-mover advantage through strategic CSR reflecting stakeholder priorities and preempting competitors.
Resource-based view theory examines company resources driving sustained competitive advantage, looking beyond physical assets to competencies, knowledge, company culture and capabilities underpinning differentiation (April, 2004). Authors increasingly identify CSR as an intangible capability and platform for cultivating strategic assets. Environmental management systems generate ecosystem data insights. Responsible supply chain policies strengthen relationships, mitigating supplier risks. Codes of ethics shape company culture and norms reinforcing integrity-based decision-making. As CSR gets embedded across functions and management systems, inimitable firm-specific competencies develop that rivals cannot easily replicate (Blake, 2017).
Institutional theory recognises organisations operating within wider norms, beliefs, rules and expectations set by regulators, society, and professions and must conform to gain legitimacy (Burdon, and Sorour, 2020). As community and government expectations rise on climate change to plastic pollution, integrating CSR helps firms secure ‘social legitimacy’, meeting demands from salient groups like policymakers, media and activists. First movers can gain public approval and political leverage. Laggards may be punished through fines, lawsuits or consumer backlashes resulting in reputation damage without responsible practices (Babcock, 2010). Institutional CSR integration enables compliance-based competitive positioning.
Further complementary theories like psychological contracts and social capital theories provide staff retention and network-based rationales for CSR adoption (Zhao et al. 2019). Thus, modern management scholarship increasingly views CSR as transitioning from a ‘bolt-on’ function to integrated business and corporate-level strategy, renewing organisational cultures, knowledge systems and capabilities that manifest as differentiating competencies and assets generating financial value. The presented theories convey core explanations for this competitive mechanism.
Empirical evidence on the impacts of CSR on financial performance, reputation, and human resources
Figure 2: The impact of CSR on corporative and innovative performance
Figure 2 presents the interconnection of these aspects, evidencing the two-dimensional effect of CSR actions in either innovative and financial dimensions. Substantial empirical research over the past two decades points towards a general positive impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) adoption on indicators of competitive advantage, including financial performance, reputation, and talent management outcomes. Regarding financials, meta-analytic reviews find a neutral to marginally positive association between CSR practices and financial measures like share price, profitability, and growth (Gallardo-Vazquez et al. 2019). More recent studies convey stronger positive links using refined measurements, time-lag effects, and firm/stakeholder-material issues rather than generic indicators. For example, the multinational analysis identified consumer-facing companies that gained sales growth from third-party eco-certified CSR reporting, enjoying first-mover advantages (Bocken, and Konietzko, 2022). Workplace fatality prevention predicted 6-12 months stock price increases. Such studies suggest strategic and material CSR drives financial value.
Approximately 62% of executives in a McKinsey survey reported CSR activities, including sustainability reporting, increased positive stakeholder perceptions (Mckinsey.com, 2009). Analysis of Fortune’s ‘Most Admired Companies’ found reputation indices were higher for firms with substantiated CSR practices (Ahmed et al. 2010). Consumer surveys regularly show rising expectations regarding CSR, though willingness to pay remains debated. While complex to isolate, strategic CSR strengthens corporate brands, social legitimacy, and stakeholder trust.
Within human resources, multiple studies identify CSR’s roles in enhancing employee engagement, satisfaction, recruitment and retention. In one survey, 88% of millennials selected job offers from sustainability-focused firms, valuing ethics and purpose (Forbes.com, 2018). CSR reputation also proves vital for the attraction of graduate talent. Analyses convey tangible outcomes like lower absenteeism and turnover, linked to CSR improving organisational culture, employee loyalty and ‘psychological contracts’. Though not all individuals prioritise CSR, human capital advantages appear present.
Thus, while debates continue over exact financial quantification, multi-industry empirical evidence indicates CSR strengthens competitive positioning through tangible and intangible assets, proven risk management and efficiency gains, reputational qualities attracting partners and talent, and renewed internal cultures and capabilities. Contemporary scholarship predominantly views strategic CSR as advancing core competencies and value drivers rather than marginal ‘bolt-on’ programs. However, performance links depend on coherency with business objectives and material issues.
Recommendations for managers on leveraging CSR strategically
Rather than view CSR initiatives as peripheral programs separate from core priorities, managers should seek to integrate material, social, and environmental issues deeply into long-term business strategy, goals, and activities. A critical first step is identifying sustainability concerns that bear relevance for capabilities shaping enduring performance, whether supply chain resilience amid climate impacts, product transparency needs given consumer activism, or renewable sourcing imperatives as environmental regulations tighten. Based on a thoughtful diagnosis of how megatrends like climate change map onto industry dynamics and company-specifics, high-potential CSR priorities resonant with future profit drivers can be determined.
With strategic areas established, CSR adoption should focus on cultivating the building of inimitable organisational competencies and differentiating assets, applying a resource-based lens towards competitive advantage. Platforms boosting ecosystem stewardship can generate proprietary environmental insights rivals struggle to replicate (Altman and Tushman, 2017). Stronger supplier relationships through ethical sourcing policies can mitigate partner-disruption risks. Employees' participation in volunteering initiatives can foster cultural innovation capacities reaching beyond compliance. Rather than operate initiatives in parallel, the aim is to embed CSR within business architectures to renew intangible capabilities, becoming strategic assets manifesting as value-creation drivers.
Proactively championing solutions to pressing societal challenges like digital skills gaps or nutritional deficiencies through CSR offers another route to fused ‘shared value’, with innovations addressing real needs while opening commercial opportunities. Rather than pure philanthropic donations, businesses can involve cross-functional teams in co-designing social enterprises and products tailored for underserved segments in ways that align profit goals and purposes.
To further reinforce strategic integration, executives should mandate regular CSR reporting and leverage big data analytics to systematically identify emerging risks, capture consumer insights for marketing gains, guide operational and product design enhancements, and create pipeline opportunities. Departmental and executive-level dashboard updates can track metrics and ensure accountability. Managing and monitoring CSR performance information builds dynamic capabilities, enabling the evolution of fact-based strategy (Walker et al., 2023). The recommendations emphasise the need for concerted efforts to intertwine CSR amid business architectures, data infrastructure and leadership priorities, manifesting competitiveness gains through enhanced foresight, efficiencies and stakeholder appeal. The result is progress beyond isolated programs, creating mainly PR returns and moving towards lasting differentiation.
Methodology
Research Philosophy
This research will adopt an interpretivism philosophy, which focuses on subjective meanings and experiential insights to understand social phenomena (Pervin and Mokhtar, 2022). Unlike positivism, which searches for objective factual explanations, Interpretivism recognises that realities are socially constructed through cultural meanings and symbolic interactions (Schwandt, 1994). This research uses comparative case analysis to interrogate how managers across leading companies make sense of CSR’s role within wider business strategy deliberations and their rationales for adopting initiatives expected to create differentiating value. The meanings they attribute to CSR and motivations shaping advocacy require unpacking through subjective, descriptive data versus definitive quantitative modelling. Documenting competitive enhancements also relies partly on perceptual indicators from executives rather than purely financial returns. Applying Interpretivism to obtain insider perspectives and make sense of processes through which shared understandings coalesce into CSR strategies deemed capable of delivering positioning is considered appropriate when investigating this multifaceted phenomenon (Maon et al., 2021).
This research will utilise a mixed methods approach with a priority on qualitative analysis for in-depth examination, complemented by a quantitative survey for triangulation (Harrison and Reilly, 2011). Specifically, a comparative case study strategy has been selected as the qualitative approach for rigorously investigating the CSR activities and outcomes achieved by leading consumer corporations like Unilever, P&G and Nestle. Hyett et al. (2014) highlight several benefits of case methods, including studying contemporary real-world phenomena in context and accommodating a variety of evidence sources beyond frequency or incidence. As CSR represents an emergent strategic issue with contextual complexities, case analysis suits in-depth investigation. Furthermore, while single cases offer insights, multiple cases enable replication and comparisons regarding CSR drivers, implementation and impacts.
Quantitatively surveying industry professionals provides generalisable data on wider views towards CSR delivering competitive positioning. Describing broader patterns complements the cases (Saleh, 2009). Together, these mixed techniques combine subjective perspectives, objective documentation, context-sensitive qualitative comparisons, and wider sampling to address the comprehensive research requirements for this topic. Limitations around case selection bias and survey self-report biases are acknowledged. But pragmatism justifies this intentional, fit-for-purpose mixed methodology.
Specific methods
This research will utilise comparative case study analysis as the qualitative method to investigate CSR integration within three leading consumer goods corporations: Unilever, P&G and Nestle (Baragiola and Mauri, 2022). Cases facilitate understanding nuanced processes within contexts, which is ideal for strategic analysis. Data sources include annual sustainability reports triangulated with documentation like policies and media articles spanning the past decade to assess longitudinal integration amid changing societal expectations For the survey, a simple random sample of mid-level employees across the UK consumer goods industry is drawn by accessing a large panel provider for the target 50 respondents. Stratification variables of company size and sub-sector facilitate representativeness. The questionnaire uses 5-point Likert items to capture views on CSR’s competitiveness impacts and vignette trade-offs to reveal attitudes (Croasmun and Ostrom, 2011). Online distribution enables efficient data gathering for analysis and reporting with transparency.
Sampling and data collection procedures
Secondary documentation spanning 2010-2020 forms the qualitative evidence base gathered from corporate websites and online public repositories. Systematic content analysis is facilitated through thematic analysis, resourcing and governance integration with coding analysis revealing connections to capability building (Vaismoradi et al., 2016). For the survey, online distribution to an industry panel respondent pool mitigates validity issues in accessing target participants. Performing a quantitative analysis involves interpreting survey responses using academic arguments. Together, these methods enable methodological triangulation.
Validity, reliability and limitations
Multiple real-world cases allow analytic generalisations and corroboration of findings across contexts. Coding verification by second researchers and documentation triangulation improves qualitative reliability. For the survey, expert and participant reviews ensure measurement validity. However, limitations exist regarding secondary qualitative insights, self-reported data and non-probability sampling. While findings prove indicative through triangulation, extending direct primary research would strengthen validity. The mixed analysis balances different limitations.
Findings and Analysis
Presentation of research findings
Figure 3: What Is Your Age
The survey data shows 38% of respondents are aged 30-39 years, making this the largest age group. Another 38% are aged 40-49 years. Together, these middle-aged groups account for over 75% of the sample. 18% are young adults aged 18-30 years, while just 16% are aged 50 years and above, the smallest segment. The sample skews towards middle-aged consumer goods professionals rather than younger or older employees.
Figure 4: What Is Your Gender
The pie chart shows that of the 50 survey respondents, 64% were male, 32% were female and 4% preferred not to say. The majority identified as male, with the smallest group being those who did not disclose their gender.
Figure 5: How long have you worked in the consumer goods industry
The pie chart shows the distribution of work experience in the consumer goods industry among the 50 survey respondents. The largest group at 42% had 6-10 years of experience. Those with 0-5 years and over 15 years of experience each represented 24% of respondents. The smallest group was those with 11-15 years of experience at 10%.
Figure 6:Our CSR efforts boosted brand reputation
The bar graph shows that the majority of respondents agree that their company's CSR and sustainability initiatives have strengthened their brand image and reputation in the market. 54% of respondents agreed with this statement, selecting option 4. Meanwhile, 14% strongly agreed by choosing option 5. However, a sizeable minority were unsure or in disagreement. 12% neither agreed nor disagreed, while 14% disagreed and 6% strongly disagreed. Previous research has found a link between strategic CSR activities and improved brand equity (Yang and Basile, 2019). Integrating CSR values into corporate branding and communications can enhance perceived quality and reputation (Tingchi Liu et al., 2014). However, initiatives must be well-implemented and aligned with stakeholder priorities to realise such benefits.
The bar graph shows the level of agreement among respondents. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, with 46% agreeing and 20% strongly agreeing. This indicates that two-thirds of respondents perceived that these CSR initiatives have positively impacted supply chain resilience. However, some respondents were more uncertain or sceptical, with 12% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, 16% disagreeing, and 6% strongly disagreeing.
Studies have found that developing long-term supplier partnerships based on trust and transparency helps to build adaptive capacities within the supply chain network (Jain et al., 2017; Sahay and Maini, 2002). This allows companies and their suppliers to withstand better and respond to disruptions. Additionally, mapping social and environmental risks across the entire value chain enhances the visibility of weaknesses or vulnerabilities within the system. While most survey respondents believed these CSR programs had supported supply chain flexibility and continuity of operations, not all shared this perspective. Further examining the company's sourcing strategies and supplier relationships may offer insight into why some remain unconvinced of the resilience benefits that ethical sourcing can provide.
The bar graph shows that the majority of respondents perceived investments in eco-efficiency measures as enhancing cost competitiveness for their business. Specifically, 38% of respondents agreed with this statement by selecting option 4, while 32% strongly agreed by choosing option 5. In total, 70% of respondents believed these investments improved financial performance.
Eco-efficiency involves minimising environmental impacts from business operations through strategies like energy efficiency, water conservation, waste reduction and sustainable sourcing (Tomić et al., 2014; DeSimone and Popoff, 2000). Previous research indicates these initiatives can yield cost savings—for example, energy-efficient technologies lower utility expenses. Reducing waste sent to landfills avoids disposal fees. Additionally, supply chain transparency drives efficiencies through better resource utilisation.
However, not all respondents held this view. 10% each selected options 1, 2 and 3, showing disagreement, neutrality or uncertainty, respectively about cost benefits. Some studies note that eco-efficiency requires upfront capital that may not pay off immediately (Kemp and Andersen, 2004). Returns also depend on implementation quality and external factors like energy prices (Porter & van der Linde, 1995).
The majority of survey respondents perceived their organization's investments in eco-efficiency favourably in terms of enhancing cost competitiveness. However, not all were convinced, suggesting such initiatives must be carefully planned and executed to realize expected financial gains. Continued performance monitoring could help strengthen this business case over time.
The data presented suggests that the majority of respondents agree that participation in external CSR platforms helps attract and retain talented employees, with 40% agreeing and a further 18% strongly agreeing. Being involved in external initiatives can enhance employer brand awareness and appeal to job seekers focused on purpose and values. Participation in platforms such as the UN Global Compact demonstrates strategic social responsibility to potential applicants (Brown, 2018.). However, not all survey participants concurred, with 8% strongly disagreeing and 16% disagreeing. Some research has found the relationship between CSR and talent outcomes depends on program visibility and job relevance (Korpi, 2019; Bhattacharya and Korschun, 2008). Thus, most respondents perceived value in externally focused CSR for human capital benefits. However, commitments require clear communication to impact hiring and retention, as some survey respondents were uncertain or sceptical. Strategic alignment between CSR priorities and the employee experience seems key to realising such advantages.
The data presented suggests that the majority of respondents agree that embedding social and environmental key performance indicators drives operational innovation inside their organisation. Specifically, 44% agreed with this statement by selecting option 4. A further 14% strongly agreed by choosing option 5.
Research has found that non-financial metrics can guide process improvements by highlighting resource inefficiencies and waste reduction opportunities (Testa et al., 2014). Tracking social impacts may also reveal new paths for delivering customer value or meeting stakeholder expectations (Kiron et al., 2012). However, some survey participants were uncertain, with 18% neither agreeing nor disagreeing in option 3.
Not all saw benefits, as 16% disagreed in option 2 and 8% strongly disagreed in option 1. Scholars note performance measurement alone does not spur innovation; management must actively support experimentation to solve social and environmental problems revealed in the data.
Overall, integrating sustainability goals into core operations appears to foster innovative thinking for most respondents’ organisations. However, systematic strategic alignment and a culture open to non-traditional solutions seem necessary to fully leverage the problem-solving potential of an expanded performance framework (Berrone et al., 2013).
The survey results show that the majority of respondents agree or strongly agree that proactive CSR positioning can create positive stakeholder relationships. 58% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Prior research has found that taking proactive stances on material environmental and social issues important to stakeholders can strengthen relationships through trust and legitimacy (Du et al., 2010). The results are consistent with findings that addressing high-salience challenges like packaging waste reduction signals a company is responsively managing its impacts (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Only a small minority 16% disagreed or strongly disagreed, indicating most stakeholders surveyed believe proactive CSR can benefit stakeholder relationships.
Figure 12: Our sustainability programs drive business value and competitive edge
The data presented suggests that the majority of respondents agree that embedding social and environmental key performance indicators drives operational innovation inside their organisation. Specifically, 44% agreed with this statement by selecting option 4. A further 14% strongly agreed by choosing option 5. Research has found that non-financial metrics can spur innovation when they reveal inefficiencies or opportunities for improvement (Sawang and Unsworth, 2006). Integrating sustainability can identify new sources of value or cost savings. However, 18% neither agreed nor disagreed with option 3; perhaps they need to find out if their organisation actively supports innovation stemming from social and environmental data.
Not all saw benefits, as 16% disagreed with option 2 and 8% strongly disagreed with option 1. Scholars note that to fully leverage performance measurement, management must actively support experimentation to solve problems revealed in the data (Wert, 2013). Thus, the results indicate integrating sustainability goals into core operations appears to foster innovative thinking for most respondents’ organisations. However, a culture open to non-traditional solutions seems necessary to fully realise the potential (Berrone et al., 2013).
Critical analysis and discussion of findings
The survey results provide indicative evidence that strategic CSR adoption can strengthen competitive positioning, though outcomes depend on execution quality and strategic alignment (Lawton et al., 2014). The majority of respondents perceived CSR activities have enhanced brand equity, supported supply chain resilience and attracted talented applicants, aligning with literature on reputation building, risk management and human capital advantages (Mai et al., 2021). However, financial impacts remain unclear. While most saw eco-efficiency advances as reducing costs, others were unconvinced. This variability aligns with debates on whether sustainability lowers expenses or demands longer-term returns, unable to incentivise managers fixated on current quarters.
Additionally, innovations enabled through embedding social and environmental data appear contingent on leadership support for experimentation. Results also highlighted the need for relevant CSR issues targeting key stakeholders, not generic ESG metrics (Malhotra, 2022). Moreover, competitiveness gains seem to require strategic customisation and alignment of progressive activities with business objectives and contexts. Legal compliance, values preservation and social legitimacy remain essential but likely insufficient goals. The adage of ‘doing well by doing good’ demands nuance. CSR must empower differentiated value-creation streams that offer inimitable advantages.
Links to literature
The surveyed perceptions on CSR driving competitiveness through enhanced reputation connect with studies showing community engagement and ethical governance improve corporate images valued by consumers. However, the financial findings showing uncertainty despite eco-efficiency alignment with cost reductions diverge from more definitive scholarly meta-analyses quantifying positive profitability effects. Meanwhile, the indicated need for leadership support and strategic integration to spur innovation from social and environmental data mirrors that performance measurement systems must actively inform executive decisions to create change. The belief most respondents held regarding CSR’s value for talent recruitment and retention also affirms human capital advantages among other scholars. In addition, the dependency pathway between CSR and competitiveness evident in the primary data reflects calls made for contextual and strategic coherency for “doing well by doing good.” Generic ESG efforts appear insufficient for positioning, whereas customising activities to cultivate valuable capabilities better fulfils instrumental aims.
Consideration of Research Limitations
This research contains certain limitations relating to methodology choices worth acknowledging. The qualitative component relied exclusively on secondary documentation for investigating CSR integration. Directly interviewing sustainability managers may have provided richer insights on motivations and decision-making absent in published materials oriented to external audiences. Additionally, selecting only three consumer goods companies for cases risks missing wider industry complexities. Widening the pool of organisations examined could strengthen findings. Turning to the survey, while reaching 50 professionals facilitates indicative gauging of perceptions, concerns persist over sample size and representation. The non-probabilistic online panel also needs to enable the generalisation of results to the whole UK consumer goods space. Furthermore, self-reported data risks social desirability and confirmation biases amongst respondents interpreting CSR impacts based on indirect experience (Malik, 2015; Andersen and Skjoett‐Larsen, 2009). Follow-up qualitative probing could confirm or challenge declared views. Thus, the mixed analysis offers a solid initial investigation blending context-based cases with wider subjective surveying. However, future examinations through larger-scale primary research across consumer segments and more companies would prove valuable to substantiate the suggested links between CSR programming and achieving competitive differentiation. Triangulating perceptual realities with financial data also helps unpack complex performance impacts.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This research sought to critically analyse the strategic business case for corporations to adopt corporate social responsibility, examining if and how responsible, ethical practices can provide a competitive advantage. The investigation covered relevant theories explaining CSR impact mechanisms, together with empirical evidence across key areas, including financial performance, reputation building and human capital outcomes. The study concludes that CSR has evolved from peripheral philanthropy into a potential core capability cultivated at the heart of corporate strategy, platforms, and decision calculus but is contingent on coherence with business objectives and the identification of material issues.
Key theoretical implications relate to resource-based views of competitive edge and dynamic capabilities perspectives, which explain how CSR adoption renews specialised organisational competencies, knowledge flows, and relational assets manifesting as differentiating drivers of value creation. As societal expectations rise amid transparency, first-mover responsible firms can also gain legitimacy advantages through meeting considerations, while irresponsible activities are punished through market and institutional mechanisms. Empirical findings affirm tangible enhancements across metrics ranging from staff engagement channels to positive investor responses and consumer loyalty for brands with substantiated CSR practices resonant with underlying profit drivers. Financial quantifications remain debated. Competitiveness links depend on coherence with unique business model contexts alongside timing and expectation alignment.
In recommendations for practice, managers must elevate CSR from a bolt-on function to an integrated business priority focused on building strategic and specialized capabilities. This entails materiality-based issue selection, shared value innovations, accountability via analytic monitoring and embedding practices throughout operations. Research limitations include a conceptual rather than data-driven methodology, although annexing existing empirical studies provides evidentiary grounding. The qualitative approach precludes generalizability though permits theoretical reasoning on mechanisms. Further case studies and financial modelling research could enrich the understanding of contingencies determining strategic CSR success. With responsible business transforming from market differentiator to expected standard, honing frameworks to strategically cultivate rising societal expectations as capabilities remain imperative. In summary, while debates on precise quantification continue, clear evidence and incentives exist for market leaders to pursue corporate responsibility as a platform eliciting next-generation competencies provided pressing social issues map directly to strategic priorities and performance systems embed practices company-wide. This elevates CSR from a reputational technique to fused business architecture and dynamic capability for a competitive edge.
Want better grades in college?
Achieving better grades requires more than just completing assignments—it’s about submitting high-quality work that stands out. Our College Assignment Help ensures that every assignment is tailored to your specific requirements, delivered on time, and meets your university’s standards. With our support, you’ll improve your grades and enhance your academic performance, without spending hours on each assignment.
References
Altman, E.J. and Tushman, M.L., 2017. Platforms, open/user innovation, and ecosystems: A strategic leadership perspective. In Entrepreneurship, innovation, and platforms (Vol. 37, pp. 177-207). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Walker, A.M., Simboli, A., Vermeulen, W.J. and Raggi, A., 2023. A dynamic capabilities perspective on implementing the Circular Transition Indicators: A case study of a multi‐national packaging company. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
Dmytriyev, S.D., Freeman, R.E. and Hörisch, J., 2021. The relationship between stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility: Differences, similarities, and implications for social issues in management. Journal of Management Studies, 58(6), pp.1441-1470.
Ashrafi, M., Magnan, G.M., Adams, M. and Walker, T.R., 2020. Understanding the conceptual evolutionary path and theoretical underpinnings of corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability. Sustainability, 12(3), p.760.
Babcock, H.M., 2010. Corporate environmental social responsibility: Corporate greenwashing or a corporate culture game changer. Fordham Envtl. L. Rev., 21, p.1.
Ponte, S., 2019. Business, power and sustainability in a world of global value chains. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Al-alak, B.A. and Tarabieh, S.A., 2011. Gaining competitive advantage and organizational performance through customer orientation, innovation differentiation and market differentiation. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 1(5), pp.80-91.
Rahman Belal, A. and Owen, D.L., 2007. The views of corporate managers on the current state of, and future prospects for, social reporting in Bangladesh: An engagement‐based study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), pp.472-494.
April, K., 2004. A resource-based view of the firm: Integrating the role of IT as a strategic resource. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cape Town, August, pp.1-549.
Burdon, W.M. and Sorour, M.K., 2020. Institutional theory and evolution of ‘a legitimate’compliance culture: The case of the UK financial service sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, pp.47-80.
Blake, L.J., 2017. Differentiated CSR: Standing apart from the CSR crowd. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 14(2), pp.95-104.
Gallardo-Vazquez, D., Barroso-Mendez, M.J., Pajuelo-Moreno, M.L. and Sanchez-Meca, J., 2019. Corporate social responsibility disclosure and performance: A meta-analytic approach. Sustainability, 11(4), p.1115.
Bocken, N. and Konietzko, J., 2022. Circular business model innovation in consumer-facing corporations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185, p.122076.
Mckinsey.com, 2009. Valuing corporate social responsibility. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/valuing-corporate-social-responsibility-mckinsey-global-survey-results [Accessed on: 10.01.2024]
Ahmed, P., Nanda, S. and Schnusenberg, O., 2010. Can firms do well while doing good?. Applied Financial Economics, 20(11), pp.845-860.
Forbes.com, 2018. 88% Of Consumers Want You To Help Them Make A Difference. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/solitairetownsend/2018/11/21/consumers-want-you-to-help-them-make-a-difference/?sh=2148daa36954 [Accessed on: 10.01.2024]
Zhao, Z., Meng, F., He, Y. and Gu, Z., 2019. The influence of corporate social responsibility on competitive advantage with multiple mediations from social capital and dynamic capabilities. Sustainability, 11(1), p.218.
Magomedova, M., 2016. Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Financial Performance. J. Manag, 44, pp.1097-1118.
Costa, J. and Fonseca, J.P., 2022. The impact of corporate social responsibility and innovative strategies on financial performance. Risks, 10(5), p.103.
Pervin, N. and Mokhtar, M., 2022. The Interpretivist research paradigm: A subjective notion of a social context. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(2), pp.419-428.
Schwandt, T.A., 1994. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Handbook of qualitative research, 1(1994), pp.118-137.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
Porter, M.E. and Linde, C.V.D., 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of economic perspectives, 9(4), pp.97-118.
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L. and Gomez‐Mejia, L.R., 2013. Necessity as the mother of ‘green’inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), pp.891-909.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K. and von Streng Velken, I., 2011. Sustainability nears a tipping point. MIT Sloan management review.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R., 2006. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), pp.78-92.
Maon, F., Swaen, V. and De Roeck, K., 2021. Coporate branding and corporate social responsibility: Toward a multi-stakeholder interpretive perspective. Journal of Business Research, 126, pp.64-77.
Harrison, R.L. and Reilly, T.M., 2011. Mixed methods designs in marketing research. Qualitative market research: an international journal, 14(1), pp.7-26.
Hyett, N., Kenny, A. and Dickson-Swift, V., 2014. Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 9(1), p.23606.
Saleh, M., 2009. Corporate social responsibility disclosure in an emerging market: A longitudinal analysis approach. International Business Research, 2(1), pp.131-141.
Baragiola, G. and Mauri, M., 2022. SDGs and the private sector: Unilever and P&G case studies.
Croasmun, J.T. and Ostrom, L., 2011. Using likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of adult education, 40(1), pp.19-22.
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H. and Snelgrove, S., 2016. Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis.
Yang, J. and Basile, K., 2019. The impact of corporate social responsibility on brand equity. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(1), pp.2-17.
Tingchi Liu, M., Anthony Wong, I., Shi, G., Chu, R. and L. Brock, J., 2014. The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and perceived brand quality on customer-based brand preference. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(3), pp.181-194.
Jain, V., Kumar, S., Soni, U. and Chandra, C., 2017. Supply chain resilience: model development and empirical analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 55(22), pp.6779-6800.
Sahay, B.S. and Maini, A., 2002. Supply chain: a shift from transactional to collaborative partnership. Decision, 29(2), pp.67-88.
Tomić, S., Komazec, L. and Delić, D., 2014. Energy Efficiency And Economic Efficiency-Pillars of Company’s Eco–Efficiency. Economics & Economy, 1(3), pp.107-121.
DeSimone, L.D. and Popoff, F., 2000. Eco-efficiency: the business link to sustainable development. MIT press.
Kemp, R. and Andersen, M.M., 2004, July. Strategies for eco-efficiency innovation. In Strategy paper for the EU Informal Environmental Council Meeting (pp. 16-18).
Brown, S.S., 2018. The role of the United Nations Global Compact in helping to drive corporate social responsibility-related practices in the Australian banking sector.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S. and Korschun, D., 2008. Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan management review, 49(2).
Korpi, A., 2019. The effect of corporate social responsibility on talent acquisition in large professional service firms.
Sawang, S. and Unsworth, K., 2006, June. An empirical study: a role of financial and non-financial performance measurement and perceived innovation effectiveness. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (Vol. 2, pp. 1063-1065). IEEE.
Wert, A., 2013, June. Performance problem diagnostics by systematic experimentation. In Proceedings of the 18th international doctoral symposium on Components and architecture (pp. 1-6).
Lawton, T.C., Doh, J.P. and Rajwani, T., 2014. Aligning for advantage: Competitive strategies for the political and social arenas. Oxford University Press.
Mai, N.K., Nguyen, A.K.T. and Nguyen, T.T., 2021. Implementation of corporate social responsibility strategy to enhance firm reputation and competitive advantage. Journal of Competitiveness, (4).
Malhotra, N. ed., 2022. Frontiers in Social Innovation: The Essential Handbook for Creating, Deploying, and Sustaining Creative Solutions to Systemic Problems. Harvard Business Press.
Malik, M., 2015. Value-enhancing capabilities of CSR: A brief review of contemporary literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, pp.419-438.
Andersen, M. and Skjoett‐Larsen, T., 2009. Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply chain management: an international journal, 14(2), pp.75-86.
Share this
Cite This Work
Go Through the Best and FREE Case Studies Written by Our Academic Experts!
