Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:09:17.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Firm strategy and CSR: the moderating role of performance management systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2020

Jeremy Galbreath Open the ORCID record for Jeremy Galbreath [Opens in a new window] ,
Lorenzo Lucianetti ,
Daniel Tisch  and
Benjamin Thomas
Jeremy Galbreath*
Affiliation:
Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
Lorenzo Lucianetti
Affiliation:
University of Chieti and Pescara, Pescara, Italy
Daniel Tisch
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Benjamin Thomas
Affiliation:
Curtin University, Bentley
*
Author for correspondence: E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Little empirical research has explored whether or not firm strategy is linked with corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to that end we explore the impact of low-cost and differentiation strategies on CSR. Using a sample of 229 Italian firms, a low-cost strategy is negatively associated with ethical and discretionary CSR, while a differentiation strategy is positively associated with both. Given its focus on nonfinancial outcomes and stakeholders, we test if a performance management system (PM system) acts as a moderating influence. We find that a PM system positively moderates the negative association between a low-cost strategy and ethical and discretionary CSR, while also positively moderating these relationships with respect to a differentiation strategy. These findings advance the literature on strategy and CSR, while demonstrating the contingent effect of PM systems. The findings are discussed along with limitations and directions for future research.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibilityethicsMichael Porterperformance management systemstakeholdersstrategy
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 202 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. (1998). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, M., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones Irwin.Google Scholar
Balsam, S., Fernando, G. D., & Tripathy, A. (2011). The impact of firm strategy on performance measures used in executive compensation. Journal of Business Research, 64, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banker, R. D., Hu, N., Pavlou, P. A., & Luftman, J. (2011). CIO Reporting structure, strategic positioning and firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35, 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banker, R. D., Mashruwala, R., & Tripathy, A. (2014). Does a differentiation strategy lead to more sustainable financial performance than a cost leadership strategy? Management Decision, 52, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. L. (2019). The business case for social responsibility: A critique and an indirect path forward. Business & Society, 58, 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bento, R. F., Mertins, L., & White, L. F. (2017). Ideology and balanced scorecard: An empirical exploration of the tension between shareholder value maximization and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 769–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, E. D., Spekman, R. E., Kamauff, J. W., & Werhane, P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains: A procedural justice perspective. Long Range Planning, 40, 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brignall, S. (2002). The unbalanced scorecard: A social and environmental critique. In A. Neely, A. Walters, & R. Austin (Eds.), PMA conference proceedings – performance measurement and management 2002: Research and action: Cranfield School of Management (pp. 85–92). Boston: Performance Management Association.Google Scholar
Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the rwg indices. Organisational Research Methods, 5, 159–172.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.10.2307/257850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organisational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. B. (2004). Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 114–120.Google Scholar
Carroll, A. B., & Hoy, F. (1984). Integrating corporate social policy into strategic management. Journal of Business Strategy, 4, 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L. J., Mackey, A., & Whetten, D. (2014). Taking responsibility for corporate social responsibility: The role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviours. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conner, K. R. (1991). A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organisation economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17, 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, P. D., Lawson, B., & Squire, B. (2008). Performance measurement in strategic buyer–supplier relationships: The mediating role of socialization mechanisms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28, 238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragg, J. G., & Donald, S. G. (1993). Testing identifiability and specification in instrumental variable models. Econometric Theory, 9, 222–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, J. S., Hwang, Y., Pei, B. K., & Reneau, W. (2002). The performance effects of congruence between product competitive strategies and purchasing management design. Management Science, 48(7), 866–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organisational task environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, R., Grant, R. M., & Madsen, T. L. (2017). The expanding domain of strategic management research and the quest for integration. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echambadi, R., & Hess, J. D. (2007). Mean-centring does not alleviate collinearity problems in moderated multiple regression models. Marketing Science, 26, 438–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdiaw-Kwasie, M. O., Alam, K., & Kabir, E. (2017). Modelling corporate stakeholder orientation: Does the relationship between stakeholder background characteristics and corporate social performance matter? Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 465–479.Google Scholar
Fan, Y. (2005). Ethical branding and corporate reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard – Linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 269–284.Google Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance management systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research, 23, 79–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 September, 32–33, 122, 124, 126.Google Scholar
Galbreath, J. (2006). Corporate social responsibility strategy: Strategic options, global considerations. Corporate Governance, 6, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbreath, J. (2009). Building corporate social responsibility into strategy. European Business Review, 21, 109–127.Google Scholar
Galbreath, J. (2010). How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence from Australia. European Business Review, 22, 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbreath, J. (2019). Drivers of green innovations: The impact of export intensity, women leaders, and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Ethics, 158, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, C. (2002). Balanced scorecard ethics. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 21, 129–151.Google Scholar
George, G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R., & Visconti, M. (2006). The strategic background to corporate accounting scandals. Long Range Planning, 39, 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gras, D., & Krause, R. (2020). When does it pay to stand out as stand-up? Competitive contingencies in the corporate social performance–corporate financial performance relationship. Strategic Organisation, 18, 448–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guibert, L., & Roloff, J. (2017). Stakeholder dialogue: Strategic tool or wasted words? Journal of Business Strategy, 38, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackston, D., & Milne, J. J. (1996). Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9, 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance. Accounting Organisations and Society, 33, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. (1983). High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 687–707.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2018). Sustainability balanced scorecards and their architectures: Irrelevant or misunderstood? Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 937–952.Google Scholar
Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1145–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. (2005). The role of business in the world today. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17, 30–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, H. G., Kubik, J. D., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2012). Financial constraints on corporate goodness. Working paper, Princeton University and NBER.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, A. (2011). Corporate ethical trading in an economic downturn: Recessionary pressures and refracted responsibilities. Journal of Economic Geography, 12, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacobucci, D., Schneider, M. J., Popovich, D. L., & Bakamitsos, G. A. (2016). Mean centring helps alleviate ‘micro’ but not ‘macro’ multicollinearity. Behaviour Research Methods, 48, 1308–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximisation, stakeholder theory and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14, 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. D. (1998). Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators: Application of the balance scorecard approach. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 5, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. T. (1999). The institutional determinants of social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). Mastering the management system. Harvard Business Review, 86, 1–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organisational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 570–598.Google Scholar
Konrad, A., Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., & Martinuzzi, A. (2006). Empirical findings on business-society relations in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koufteros, X., Vergheses, A., & Lucianetti, L. (2014). The effect of performance measurement systems on firm performance: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurucz, E. C., Colbert, B. A., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility. In Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 83–112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Länsiluoto, A., & Järvenpää, M. (2008). Environmental and performance management forces: Integrating ‘greenness’ into balanced scorecard. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 5, 184–206.Google Scholar
Learned, E., Christensen, C. R., Andrews, K. R., & Guth, W. D. (1965). Business policy: Text and cases. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
Mahama, H. (2006). Management control systems, cooperation and performance in strategic supply relationships: A survey in the mines. Management Accounting Research, 17, 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: An investigation of French businesses. Journal of Business Research, 51, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27, 455–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltz, A. C., Shenhar, A. J., & Reilly, R. R. (2003). Beyond the balanced scorecard: Refining the search for organisational success measures. Long Range Planning, 36, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matten, D. A., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnyk, S. A., Stewart, D. M., & Swink, M. (2004). Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: Dealing with the metrics maze. Journal of Operations Management, 22, 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24, 934–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., Greckhamer, T., & Lepine, J. A. (2006). A new perspective on a fundamental debate: A multilevel approach to industry, corporate and business unit effects. Strategic Management Journal, 27(6), 571–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, A., & Filer, L. (2003). Cointegration of firm strategies within groups: A long-run analysis of firm behaviour in the Japanese steel industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.Google Scholar
O'Shannassy, T. (2015). Editorial: Strategic management special issue. Journal of Management & Organization, 21, 551–557.Google Scholar
O'Shannassy, T. (2017). Associate editor reflections on the progress in and future of strategic management research in the Journal of Management & Organisation. Journal of Management & Organisation, 23, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40, 369–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlitzky, M., Louche, C., Gond, J.-P., & Chapple, W. (2017). Unpacking the drivers of corporate social performance: A multilevel, multistakeholder, and multimethod analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 144, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organisation Studies, 24, 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, T. B., & Wiseman, R. M. (1999). Decoupling risk taking from income stream uncertainty: A holistic model of risk. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1037–1062.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parent, M. M., & Deephouse, D. L. (2007). A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parisi, C. (2010). Using qualitative systems dynamics to enhance the performance measurement of sustainability. In Taticchi, P. (Ed.), Business performance measurement and management: New contexts, themes and challenges (pp. 115–130). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Park, H., & Dickson, M. A. (2008). Engaging in buyer-seller partnership for fair labour management: The role of buyer firm's strategic emphasis. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 26, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. A. II., & Doh, J. P. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 30–39.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74, 61–78.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80, 56–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Reimer, M., Van Doorn, S., & Heyden, M. L. M. (2018). Unpacking functional experience complementarities in senior leaders’ influences on CSR strategy: A CEO-top management team approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 977–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, T. J., & Berman, S. L. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39, 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D. E., & Teece, D. J. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Sargan, J. D. (1958). The estimation of econometric relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica, 26, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, R., & Vieira, R. (2010). Insights from action research: Implementing the balanced scorecard at a wind-farm company. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciarelli, M., & Tani, M. (2015). Sustainability and stakeholder approach in Olivetti from 1943 to 1960: A lesson from the past. Sinergie: The Italian Journal of Management, 33, 19–36.Google Scholar
Selling, T. I., & Stickney, C. P. (1989). The effects of business environmental and strategy on a firm's rate of return on assets. Financial Analysis Journal, 45, 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sethi, S. P., & Sama, L. M. (1998). Ethical behaviour as a strategic choice by large corporations: The interactive effect of marketplace competition, industry structure, and firm resources. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, J. C., McKenny, A. F., Ketchen, D. J., Snow, C. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). An empirical examination of firm, industry, and temporal effects on corporate social performance. Business & Society, 55, 1122–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, R. (1991). Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, L. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations and the public. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Sundin, H., Granlund, M., & Brown, D. A. (2010). Balancing multiple competing objectives with a balanced scorecard. European Accounting Review, 19, 203–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tantalo, C., & Priem, R. L. (2016). Value creation through stakeholder strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 314–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trumpp, C., Endrikat, J., Zopf, C., & Guenther, E. (2015). Definition, conceptualization, and measurement of corporate environmental performance: A critical examination of a multidimensional construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions thematic issue on corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 534–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D. J., & Jones, E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. The International Journal of Organisational Analysis, 3, 229–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Wu, M. (2006). Corporate social performance, corporate financial performance, and firm size: A meta-analysis. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8, 163–171.Google Scholar
Yamakawa, Y., Yang, H., & Lin, Z. (2011). Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organisational, strategic and environmental fit. Research Policy, 40, 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar