Abstract
For many firms, a focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an indication to stakeholders that the firm is concerned about social and environmental issues. However, these same firms may engage in CSR activities with the expectation that these activities will increase their bottom line. A relevant, and highly researched question, is the relationship between CSR and performance. The findings are inconclusive, indicating a need to consider other explanations. Several authors have drawn on the resource-based view of the firm to suggest that CSR can give a firm a competitive advantage. In this article we draw on and further develop this research, by focusing on four outcomes of CSR initiatives: strategic disadvantage, strategic necessity, temporary strategic advantage, and strategic advantage. We exemplify this with two cases. The article contributes to the literature by developing a set of possible outcomes, by recognizing several issues which result in strategic necessity, and by suggesting movement between the outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The names of the firms have been changed.
References
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.
Bell, G., & Dyck, B. (2009). Beyond profit maximization: Broadening the RBT to a radical framework. Niagra Fall: Paper presented at the International Conference Promoting Business Ethics.
Brunsæl, P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility as competitive advantage and strategic necessity looking at firm vision and stakeholder perceptions. Master’s Thesis, University of Agder.
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.
Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17(1), 121–154.
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1.
Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504–1511.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutionalism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 47, 147–160.
Fombrun, C., & Gardberg, N. (2000). Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business & Society Review, 105(1), 85–107.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 32–33, 122–126.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.
Gruppen, A. (2003). Topplederundersøkelse om Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), (Top leader report on CSR) Oslo, Argument Gruppen AS, www.argument.no.
Gugler, P., & Shi, J. Y. J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility for developing country multinational corporations: Lost war in pertaining global competitiveness? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 3–24.
Hu, Y., & Fatima Wang, C. (2009). Collectivism, corporate social responsibility, and resource advantages in retailing. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 1–13.
Jušcius, V., & Snieška, V. (2008). Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Competitive Abilities of Corporations. Engineering Economics, 3, 34–44.
Küskü, F. (2007). From necessity to responsibility: Evidence for corporate environmental citizenship activities from a developing country perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14, 74–87.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley &Sons.
Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179–191.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Shen, C.-H., & Chang, Y. (2009). Ambition versus Conscience, does corporate social responsibility pay off? The application of matching methods. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 133–153.
Stortingsmelding 10 (2008–2009). http://www.regjeringen.no/dep/ud/dok/regpubl/stmeld/2008-2009/stmeld-nr-10-2008-2009-.html?id=542966.
The Economist (2009). Corporate social responsibility: A stress test for good intentions. May 16–22, 2009, p. 67.
Tullberg, J. (2005). Reflections upon the responsive approach to corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(3), 261–276.
Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M., & Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 57–69.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Falkenberg, J., Brunsæl, P. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Strategic Advantage or a Strategic Necessity?. J Bus Ethics 99 (Suppl 1), 9–16 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1161-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1161-x