Societal,Environmental and Stakeholder Value Drivers

Abstract

There is a shift in the role of business in society where societal, environmental and stakeholder value drivers could reshape the basis of economic competitive advantage. Investors are willing to pay a premium for well-governed companies because of positive perceptions of CSR. Organizations respond to the value drivers to endure and function effectively along the societal, environmental and stakeholder dimensions. In this article case analysis is performed for four international firms, chosen from USA/Europe and Asia, with distinguished records of sustainability. The case studies were based on the company sustainability reports and related material published in EthicalCorp, CSRWire and Covalence online publications. Assessments were performed using publicly available information. The non-parametric correlation analysis shows that firms with better commitment to CSR respond more to societal, environmental and stakeholder drivers through strategic initiatives. This improves their competitive advantage as assessed by economic value added.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bansal, P. (2005), ‘ Evolving Sustainably: A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Sustainable Development ’, Strategic Management Journal, 26 (3), 197–218 .

Burns, M., F. Brody and J. Weiser (2003), ‘ The Impact of Corporate Responsibility Standards and Practices ’, AccountAbility: Business and Economic Development.

Carroll, A. (1979), ‘ A Three Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance ’, Academy of Management, 4 (4), 497–505 .

Chatterjee, S.R. (2000), ‘ Work Goals and Societal Value Orientations of Senior Indian Managers: An Empirical Analysis ’, Journal of Management Development, 19 (7), 643–53 .

Clarkson, M. (1995), ‘ A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance ’, Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 92–117 .

Dillon, R. and J. Owers (1997), ‘ EVA as a Financial Metric: Attributes, Utilization, and Relationship to NPV ’, Financial Practice and Education, 7 (1), 32–40 .

Donaldson, T. and L. Preston (1995), ‘ The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications ’, Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 65–91 .

GRI (2000), http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/2002.asp.

Hillman, A. and G. Keim (2001), ‘ Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What's the Bottom Line? ’ Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2), 125–39 .

10.

Katrinli, A. E. , G. Atabay and G. Gunay (2006), ‘ Congruence of Family and Organizational Values in Relation to Organizational Citizenship Behaviour ’, Journal of Human Values, 12 (1), 81–89 .

11.

Marcus, A. and M. Anderson (2006), ‘ A General Dynamic Capability: Does it Propagate Business and Social Competencies in the Retail Food Industry? ’ Journal of Management Studies, 43 (1), 19 .

12.

McKinsey Quarterly (2006), http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_abstract, February.

13.

Mitchell, R. , B. Agle and D. Wood (1997), ‘ Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts? ’ Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853–86 .

14.

Ramus, C. (2002), ‘ Encouraging Innovative Environmental Actions: What Companies and Managers Must Do ’, Journal of World Business, 37 (2), 151–64 .

15.

Schaltegger, S. and M. Wagner (2003), ‘ How Does Sustainability Performance Relate to Business Competitiveness? ’ Green Management International, 44, 5–16 .

16.

Sharma, S. and I. Henriques (2005), ‘ Stakeholder Influences on Sustainability Practices in the Canadian Forest Products Industry ’, Strategic Management Journal, 26 (2), 159–80 .

17.

Swift, T. and S. Zadek (2002), Corporate Responsibility and the Competitive Advantage of Nations ( Copenhagen: Accountability ).

18.

Windsor, D. (2006), ‘ Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches ’, Journal of Management Studies, 43 (1), 93–114 .

19.

Zairi, M. and J. Peters (2002), ‘ The Impact of Social Responsibility on Business Performance ’, Managerial Auditing Journal, 17 (4), 174–78 .