Main Factors for Understanding High Impacts on CSR Dimensions in the Finance Industry

  1. Lopez, Belen
  2. Ruozzi, Alberto
  3. Vicente, Jose Antonio
  4. Torres, Alfonso
Revista:
Sustainability

ISSN: 2071-1050

Año de publicación: 2020

Volumen: 12

Número: 6

Páginas: 2395

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3390/SU12062395 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Sustainability

Resumen

The objective of this study is to explore empirically the dimensions that generate high impact in the finance industry to better understand its contribution from a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) perspective. We analyze data concerning impacts of finance sector firms certified by B Corp in order to identify the combinations that are necessary and/or sufficient to obtain a recognition of their high impact generation. The methodology followed to identify the impact dimensions is fsQCA, (fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis), a qualitative comparative analysis method applied to a sample of finance firms (n-181). The results indicate that financial sector firms exhibited four combinations focusing on different impact dimensions. Specifically, the first route indicates that a high degree of focus on customers and communities is sufficient to obtain a high impact score. The second path signals that the combination of the impacts on customers and corporate governance could lead to the same result, while in the third pathway the focus would be on the employees. Finally, the fourth route indicates that some financial firms focus strongly on their communities, corporate governance and their employees, but very weakly on the environmental dimension. Consequently, diverse combinations of CSR dimensions characterize financial sector contributions to impact generation and sustainable development.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Delmas, A.; Toffel, W. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 1027–1055. [CrossRef]
  • Arena, M.; Azzone, G.; Bengo, I. Performance Measurement for Social Enterprises. VOLUNTAS: Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Org. 2015, 26, 649–672. [CrossRef]
  • Sulkowski, A.J.; Edwards, M.; Freeman, R.E. Shake your stakeholder: Firms leading engagement to cocreate sustainable value. Organ. Environ. 2018, 31, 223–241. [CrossRef]
  • Bonilla-Alicea, R.J.; Fu, K. Systematic Map of the Social Impact Assessment Field. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4106. [CrossRef]
  • Rawhouser, H.; Villanueva, J.; Newbert, S.L. Strategies and Tools for Entrepreneurial Resource Access: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Typology. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2017, 19, 473–491. [CrossRef]
  • Bustos, S.; Wastavino, F. ¿De qué manera las Empresas B generan impactos positivos en el ámbito social y medioambiental? Revista Electrónica Gestión de las Personas y Tecnologías 2016, 9, 21–33.
  • Forcadell, F.J.; Aracil, E.; Ubeda, F. The Influence of Innovation on Corporate Sustainability in the International Banking Industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3210. [CrossRef]
  • Poponi, S.; Colantoni, A.; Cividino, S.R.; Mosconi, E.M. The stakeholders’ perspective within the B corp certification for a circular approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1584. [CrossRef]
  • Roy, M.K.; Salam, M.; Parvez, S. Sustainability in Banking Industry: Which way to move? ASA Univ. Rev. 2015, 9, 53–69.
  • Schneider, M.R.; Eggert, A. Embracing complex causality with the QCA method: An invitation. J. Bus. Mark. Manag. 2014, 7, 312–328.
  • Silva, S.; Nuzum, A.K.; Schaltegger, S. Stakeholder expectations on sustainability performance measurement and assessment. A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019. [CrossRef]
  • Carroll, A.B.; Buchholtz, A.K. Business and Society. In Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management, 9th ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2014.
  • European Commission. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)0681_en.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  • Porter, M.; Kramer, M. The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. How to reinvent capitalism—And unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 62–77.
  • Remacha, M. Cuaderno No 34—Empresa y objetivos de desarrollo sostenible. Cuadernos de la Cátedra CaixaBank de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa 2017, 34, 1–28.
  • Bellostas, A.J.; López-Arceiz, F.J.; Mateos, L. Social value and economic value in social enterprises: Value creation model of Spanish sheltered workshops. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2016, 27, 367–391. [CrossRef]
  • Hoogendoorn, B.; Pennings, E.; Thurik, R. What Do We Know about Social Entrepreneurship: An Analysis of Empirical Research; ERIM Report Series Research in Management; Erasmus Research Institute of Management at Erasmus University Rotterdam: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2010.
  • Aupperle, K.E.; Carroll, A.B.; Hatfield, J.D. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Manag. J. 1985, 28, 446–463.
  • McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D.; Teoh, S.H. Issues in the use of the event study methodology: Critical analysis of corporate social responsibility studies. Organ. Res. Methods 1999, 2, 350–372. [CrossRef]
  • McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecifications? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 603–609. [CrossRef]
  • Chandra, Y. Whose value? Problems in valuing social enterprise and research implications. Soc. Enterp. J. 2019, 15, 233–242. [CrossRef]
  • McDonald, L.M.; Lai, C.H. Impact of corporate social responsibility initiatives on Taiwanese banking customers. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2011, 29, 50–63. [CrossRef]
  • Poolthong, Y.; Mandhachitara, R. Customer expectations of CSR perceived service quality and brand effect in Thai retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2009, 27, 408–427. [CrossRef]
  • Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for the sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1699–1710. [CrossRef]
  • Rebai, S.; Azaiez, M.N.; Saidane, D. A multi-attribute utility model for generating a sustainability index in the banking sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 835–849. [CrossRef]
  • Zimmermann, S. Same but Different: How and Why Banks Approach Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2267. [CrossRef]
  • Young, R. For what it is worth: Social value and the future of social entrepreneurship. In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change; Nicholls, A., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  • Martin, R.; Osberg, S. Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition, Stanford Social Innovation Review. 2007. Available online: www.skollfoundation.org/media/skoll_docs/2007SP_feature_martinosberg.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2019).
  • Austin, J. Three avenues for social entrepreneurship research. In Social Entrepreneurship; Mair, J., Robinson, J., Hockerts, K., Eds.; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  • Burdge, R.J.; Vanclay, F. Social impact assessment: A contribution to the state of the art series. Impact Assess. 1996, 14, 59–86. [CrossRef]
  • Zappala, G.; Lyons, M. Recent Approaches to Measuring Social Impact in the Third Sector: An Overview. The Center for Social Impact. 2009. CSI Background Paper No. 5. Available online: www.csi.edu.au/uploads/31642/ufiles/V2%20CSI%20Background%20Paper%20No%205% 20-%Approaches%20to%20measuring%20social%20impact.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2019).
  • Andersson, F.O.; Ford, M. Reframing social entrepreneurship impact: Productive, unproductive and destructive outputs and outcomes of the Milwaukee school voucher programme. J. Soc. Entrep. 2015, 6, 299–319. [CrossRef]
  • Vanclay, F.; Esteves, A.M.; Aucamp, I.; Franks, D.M. Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects; International Association for Impact Assessment: Fargo, ND, USA, 2015; 107 p, Available online: https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/17534793/IAIA_2015_Social_Impact_ Assessment_guidance_document.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2019).
  • Emerson, J. The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial return. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2003, 45, 35–51. [CrossRef]
  • Lall, S. Measuring to Improve Versus Measuring to Prove: Understanding the Adoption of Social Performance Measurement Practices in Nascent Social Enterprises. Voluntas 2017, 28, 2633–2657. [CrossRef]
  • Grieco, C.; Michelini, L.; Iasevoli, G. Measuring Value Creation in Social Enterprises: A Cluster Analysis of Social Impact Assessment Models. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2014, 44, 1173–1193. [CrossRef]
  • Irene, B.; Marika, A.; Giovanni, A.; Mario, C. Indicators and metrics for social business: A review of current approaches. J. Soc. Entrep. 2016, 7, 1–24. [CrossRef]
  • Ormiston, J.; Seymour, R. Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: The importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement. J. Soc. Entrep. 2011, 2, 125–150. [CrossRef]
  • Lall, S.A. From Legitimacy to Learning: How Impact Measurement Perceptions and Practices Evolve in Social Enterprise–Social Finance Organization Relationships. Voluntas 2019, 30, 562–577. [CrossRef]
  • OECD. How’s Life? Measuring Well-Being; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015.
  • OECD. How’s Life? Measuring Well-Being; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017.
  • Schiff, H.; Bass, R.; Cohen, A. The business value of impact measurement. In The Global Impact Investing Network; GIIN: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
  • DiMaggio, P.; Powell, W.W. The iron cage revisited. Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [CrossRef]
  • Mair, J.; Sharma, S. Performance measurement and social entrepreneurship. In Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business; Gabler Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 175–189.
  • Bugg-Levine, A.; Emerson, J. Impact Investing: Transforming How We Make Money While Making a Difference; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011.
  • Sandberg, J.; Juravle, C.; Hedesström, T.; Hamilton, I. The Heterogeneity of Socially Responsible Investment. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 87, 519–533. [CrossRef]
  • OECD. Investment Governance and the Integration of Environmental, Social and Governance Factors. 2017. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/finance/Investment-Governance-Integration-ESG-Factors.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2019).
  • Kolk, A.; Walhain, S.; Van de Wateringen, S. Environmental reporting by the Fortune Global 250: Exploring the influence of nationality and sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2001, 10, 15–28. [CrossRef]
  • Scholtens, B. Corporate social responsibility in the international insurance industry. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 19, 143–156. [CrossRef]
  • Weber, O.; Diaz, M.; Schwegler, R. Corporate social responsibility of the financial sector–strengths, weaknesses and the impact on sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 22, 321–335. [CrossRef]
  • Ho, C.C.; Huang, C.; Ou, C.Y. Analysis of the factors influencing sustainable development in the insurance industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 391–410. [CrossRef]
  • Kavitha, N.V.; Anuradha, T. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Insurance Sector in India. Int. Conf. High. Educ. 2016, 5, 137–143.
  • Aramburu, I.A.; Pescador, I.G. The effects of corporate social responsibility on customer loyalty: The mediating effect of reputation in cooperative banks versus commercial banks in the Basque country. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 154, 701–719. [CrossRef]
  • Forcadell, F.J.; Aracil, E. European banks’ reputation for corporate social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 1–14. [CrossRef]
  • Jitmaneeroj, B. A latent variable analysis of corporate social responsibility and firm value. Manag. Financ. 2018, 44, 478–494. [CrossRef]
  • Terlaak, A.; King, A.A. The effect of certification with the ISO 9000 Quality Management Standard: A signalling approach. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2006, 60, 579–602. [CrossRef]
  • Lytton, T.D. Competitive third-party regulation: How private certification can overcome constraints that frustrate government regulation. Theor. Inq. Law 2014, 15, 539–572. [CrossRef]
  • Cao, K.; Gehman, J.; Grimes, M.G. Standing out and fitting in: Charting the Emergence of Certified B Corporations by industry and region3. In Hybrid Ventures; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017; pp. 1–38.
  • Moroz, P.W.; Branzei, O.; Parker, S.C.; Gamble, E.N. Imprinting with purpose: Prosocial opportunities and B Corp certification. J. Bus. Ventur. 2018, 33, 117–129. [CrossRef]
  • Honeyman, R. Manual para empresas B; Aguilar Chilena de Ediciones S.A.: Santiago, Chile, 2015.
  • Rodríguez, A.I. El fenómeno de las empresas B en América Latina; Fondo Multilateral de Inversiones, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  • Clark, W.H.; Vranka, L. The need and rationale for the benefit corporation: Why it is the legal form best addresses the needs of social entrepreneurs, investors and ultimately, the public. White Paper. vol. 1, p. 2014. Available online: http://benefitcorp.net/sites/default/files/Benefit_Corporation_White_Paper.pdf (accessed on 31 December 2013).
  • Romi, A.; Cook, K.A.; Dixon-Fowler, H.R. The influence of social responsibility on employee productivity and sales growth: Evidence from certified B corps. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2018, 9, 392–421. [CrossRef]
  • Stubbs, W. Sustainable entrepreneurship and B corps. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 331–344. [CrossRef]
  • Thornton, P.H.; Ocasio, W.; Lounsbury, M. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process; Oxford University Press on Demand: Oxford, UK, 2012.
  • Dineen, B.R.; Allen, D.G. Third party employment branding. Human capital inflows and outflows following “best places to work” certifications. Acad. Manag. J. 2016, 59, 90–112. [CrossRef]
  • Edelman, B. Adverse selection in online “trust” certifications and search results. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2011, 10, 17–25. [CrossRef]
  • Bergh, D.D.; Connelly, B.L.; Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Shannon, L.M. Signalling theory and equilibrium in strategic management research: An assessment and a research agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 2014, 51, 1334–1360. [CrossRef]
  • Herbert, A.S. Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations; Free Press. Collier. Macmillan Publishers: London, UK, 1976.
  • Cyert, R.M.; March, J.G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1963; Volume 2, pp. 169–187.
  • Hillary, R. Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 12, 561–569. [CrossRef]
  • Stevens, R.; Moray, N.; Bruneel, J.; Clarysse, B. Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for-profit social enterprises. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 1006–1016. [CrossRef]
  • Parker, S.C.; Gamble, E.N.; Moroz, P.W.; Branzei, O. The impact of B lab certification on firm growth. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2019, 5, 57–77. [CrossRef]
  • Ragin, C.C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1987.
  • Fiss, P.C. Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [CrossRef]
  • Vis, B. The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses. Sociol. Methods Res. 2012, 41, 168–198. [CrossRef]
  • Ragin, C.C. Redesigning Social Enquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008.
  • Kim, J.; Kim, H.; Kwon, H. Corporate Social Responsibility Activity Combinations for Sustainability: A Fuzzy Set Analysis of Korean Firms. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7078. [CrossRef]
  • Ragin, C.C. User’s Guide to Fuzzy-set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis. 2017. Available online: http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~{}cragin/fsQCA/software.shtml (accessed on 10 October 2019).
  • Schneider, C.Q.; Wagemann, C. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012.
  • Greckhamer, T.; Furnari, S.; Fiss, P.C.; Aguilera, R.V. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strateg. Organ. 2018, 16, 482–495. [CrossRef]
  • Russo, I.; Confente, I. From dataset to qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)—Challenges and tricky points: A research note on contrarian case analysis and data calibration. Australas. Mark. J. 2019, 27, 129–135. [CrossRef]
  • González-Cruz, T.F.; Roig-Tierno, N.; Botella-Carrubí, D. Quality management as a driver of innovation in the service industry. Serv. Bus. 2018, 12, 505–524. [CrossRef]
  • Misangyi, V.F.; Acharya, A.G. Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 57, 1681–1705. [CrossRef]
  • Legewie, N. An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 2013, 14, 1–45. Available online: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/ fqs/article/view/1961 (accessed on 18 March 2020).
  • Yoo, J.M.; Choi, W.; Chon, M.L. Do Employees Matter in the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance? Sustainability 2019, 11, 6251. [CrossRef]
  • Lin, C.S.; Chang, R.Y.; Dang, V.T. An integrated model to explain how corporate social responsibility affects corporate financial performance. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8292–8311