Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconciling Corporate Citizenship and Competitive Strategy: Insights from Economic Theory

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Neoclassical and Austrian/evolutionary economic paradigms have different implications for integrating corporate social responsibility (corporate citizenship) and competitive strategy. Porter’s “Five Forces” model implicitly rests on neoclassical theory of the firm and is not easily reconciled with corporate social responsibility. Resource-based models of competitive strategy do not explicitly embrace a particular economic paradigm, but to the extent their conceptualization rests on neoclassical assumptions such as imperfect factor markets and profits as rents, these models also imply a trade-off between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Differences in Austrian/evolutionary economic model’s assumptions about equilibrium, profits, and other economic concepts allow this paradigm to embrace alternative views of strategy such as the activities or dynamic capabilities views. These alternative views of strategy focus on learning and adaptation; they align more easily with corporate social responsibility. In practice this alignment comes about because social engagement facilitates the learning and adaptation that are a source of competitive advantage. Among the many business arguments for CSR such as improved employee morale/productivity or brand differentiation, this view prioritizes innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allinson R. E. (2004) Circles within a Circle: The Conditions for the Possibility of Ethical Business Institutions within a Market System. Journal of Business Ethics 53(1–2):17–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amalric F., Hauser J. (2005) Economic Drivers of Corporate Responsibility Activities. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 20:27–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L.: 2007, ‹Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility’, Academy of Management Review 37(3)

  • Barney J. (1991) Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17(1):99–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron D. P. (2001) Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Integrated Strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10(1):7–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black J. A. (2003) From End-State Fit to Fitting Dynamics: Implications for Organizational Studies. Journal of Business Strategies 20(2):157–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreaux D. J., Holcombe R. G. (1989) The Coasian and Knightian Theories of the Firm. Managerial and Decision Economics 10(2):147–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding K. E. (1981) Evolutionary Economics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., C. Brooks and S. Pavelin: 2005, ‹The Stock Performance of America’s 100 Best Corporate Citizens’, SSRN

  • Branco C. M., Rodrigues L. L. (2006) Corporate Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics 69:111–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromily P., Papenhausen C. (2003) Assumptions of Rationality and Equilibrium in Strategy Research: The Limits of Traditional Economic Analysis. Strategic Organization 1(4):413–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks S. (2005) Corporate Social Responsibility and Strategic Management: The Prospects for Converging Discourses. Strategic Change 14(7):401–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruch H., Walter F. (2005) The Keys to Rethinking Corporate Philanthropy, MIT Sloan Management Review 47(1):49–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, G.: 2004, Economics for Real People: An Introduction to the Austrian School, http://www.mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf, accessed August 12, 2006

  • Cardan, S. D. and O. Darragh: 2004, ‹A Halo for Angel Investors’, The McKinsey Quarterly (1), 6–8

  • Carroll G. R., Teece D. J. (1999) Firms, Markets and Hierarchies: The Transaction Costs Economics Perspective. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen C. M. (2003) The Innovators Dilemma. Collins Business Essentials, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase R. (1937) The Nature of the Firm. Economica 14(16):386–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly H. (1997) Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz H.: 1988, Ownership, Control and the Firm: The Organization of Economic Activity. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopfer, K.: 2005, The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics (Cambridge University Press)

  • Dunn D., Yamashita K. (2003) Microcapitalism and the Megacorporation. Harvard Business Review 81(8):46–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. and P. Wisner: 2001, ‹Good Neighbors: Implementing Social and Environmental Strategies with BSC’, Balanced Scorecard Report, May–June (HBS Publishing)

  • Fishman, R. J., G. M. Heal and V. B. Nair: 2005, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing Well by Doing Good?’, SSRN

  • Foss N. J. (1996) Research in Strategy, Economics, and Michael Porter. Journal of Management Studies 33(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J.: 1997, ‹Austrian Insights and the Theory of the Firm’, Advances in Austrian Economics (4), 175–198

  • Foss K., N. Foss: 2000, The Knowledge-Based Approach and Organizational Economics: How Much Do They Really Differ? And Does It Matter? In: Foss, Mahnke (eds.) Competence, Governance and Entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss K., Foss N. J. (2005) Resources and Transaction Costs: How Property Rights Economics Furthers the Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal 26:541–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J. and P. G. Klein: 2005, ‹The Theory of the Firm and Its Critics’, DRUID Working Paper No. 04-12

  • Foss N., V. Mahnke: 2000, Competence, Governance and Entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat P. (2001) Strategy and the Business Landscape. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart S. L., Sharma S. (2004) Engaging Fringe Stakeholders for Competitive Imagination. Academy of Management Executive 18(1):7–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill T. A. (2004) Corporate Citizenship: The Case for a New Corporate Governance Model. Business and Society Review 109(3):339–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman A. J., Keim G. (2001) Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management. Strategic Management Journal 22(2):125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe H., Lehman-Grube U. (2001) Second-Mover Advantages in Dynamic Quality Competition. Strategic Management Journal 22:125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz S. (2000) Micro-foundations and Macro-economics: An Austrian Perspective. Routledge: London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S.: 2002, “Resource-Advantage Theory and Austrian Economics”, in N. J. Foss and P. G. Klein (eds.), Entrepreneurship and the Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization (Edward Elgar)

  • Husted B.W. (2005) Risk Management, Real Options and Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 60:175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted B.W., Salazar J. (2006) Taking Friedman Seriously; Maximizing Profits and Social Performance. The Journal of Management Studies 43(1):75–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson R. (1992) The ‚Austrian’ School of Strategy. Academy of Management Review 17:782–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, R. M.: 1999, ‹From Spare Change to Real Change: The Social Sector as a Beta Site for Business Innovation’, Harvard Business Review (May–June), 123–132

  • Keim G. (1978) Corporate Social Responsibility: An Assessment of the Enlightened Self-Interest Model. Academy of Management Review 3(1):32–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J., Mahoney J. T. (2005) Property Rights, Transaction Costs Theory, and Agency Theory: An Organizational Economic Approach to Strategic Management. Managerial and Decision Economics 26:223–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B., U. Zander: 1992, Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science 3:383–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreps D. M. (2003) Microeconomics for Managers. W.W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlois R. N. (2001) Strategy and the Market Process: Introduction to the Special Issue. Managerial and Decision Economics 22(4):163–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois R. N.: 2002, Modularity in Technology and Organization. In: Foss, Klein, (eds.) Entrepreneurship and yhe Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, pp 24–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin P: 2005, ‹The Firm in Disequilibrium: Contributions from the Austrian Tradition’, Working Paper, School of Managament, University of Texas-Dallas

  • Lewin P., Phelan S. E. (1999) Firms, Strategies, and Resources: Contributions From Austrian Economics, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 2(2) 3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin P., S. Phelan: 2000, An Austrian Theory of the Firm. Review of Austrian Economics 13(1):59–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipman S. A., Rumelt R. (2003) A Bargaining Perspective on Resource Advantage. Strategic Management Journal 24(11):1069–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett A.: 2005, Edith Penrose’s Legacy to the Resource-Based View. Managerial and Decision Economics 26:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett A., Thompson S. (2001) The Resource-Based View and Economics. Journal of Management 27:723–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longley A. (2005) The Challenge of Integration CR in a Diverse Business. Corporate Responsibility Management 2(1):4–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews J. A. (2006) Strategizing, Disequilibrium and Profit. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A., Siegel D. (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective. Academy of Management Review 26:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A., Siegel D. (2006) Corporate Social Responsibility: Strategic Implications. Journal of Management Studies 43(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A., Smart D. L. (1993) Efficiency v. Structure-Conduct-Performance: Implications for Strategy Research and Practice. Journal of Management 19(1):63–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams A., D. S. Siegal, P. M. Wright: 2006, ‹Corporate Social Responsibility: International Perspectives’, Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0604, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics

  • Nelson R. R., Winter S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky M., Schmidt F. L., Rynes S. L. (2003) Corporate Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Organization Studies 24(3):403–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf M. A. (1993) The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal 14:179–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage. NY: Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2006, ‹Strategy and Society; The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, December

  • Reinhardt L.: 1992, Environmental Product Differentiation: Implications for Corporate Strategy. California Management Review 40(4):43–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt R. P., Schendel S., Teece D. J. (1991) Strategic Management and Economics. Strategic Management Journal 12:5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salanie B. (2000) Microeconomics of Market Failures. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A. (2002) Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. (1997) Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7):509–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist: 2005, ‹Survey: Corporate Social Responsibility’, January 20, 2005

  • Van de Ven B. W., Jeurissen R. (2005) Competing Responsibly, Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(2), 299–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel D. J. (2005) Is There a Market for Virtue? California Management Review 47(4):19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener N. (1954) The Human Use of Human Beings. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Zingales, F. and K. Hockerts: 2003, ‹Balanced Scorecard and Sustainability: Examples from Literature and Practice’, Working Paper Series, Center for the Management of Environmental Resources, Insead

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Simmons College, 409 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA, 02445, U.S.A.

    Sylvia Maxfield

Authors
  1. Sylvia Maxfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia Maxfield.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maxfield, S. Reconciling Corporate Citizenship and Competitive Strategy: Insights from Economic Theory. J Bus Ethics 80, 367–377 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9425-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9425-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation