CSR

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Long Range Planning ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Long Range Planning

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l r p
Innovation and CSR — Do They Go Well Together?

Murad A. Mithani
In this study we use the stakeholder theory and the attention-based view to investigate two questions: Do investments in ecological and
social environments yield comparable economic returns as investments in R&D? Are there economic benefits to pursuing R&D, ecolog-
ical and social investments simultaneously? Using a longitudinal sample of 5999 Indian firms, we find an ordering of implications such
that R&D has a significantly larger impact on economic performance than contribution to the ecological environment, which in turn has
a stronger effect than charitable and community contributions. Moreover, we find that ecological and social contributions weaken the
effect of R&D, which suggests that managerial attention to innovation can be undermined by a greater emphasis on social responsibility.
Our study illustrates the difficulty of simultaneous attention to innovation and social responsibility.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Sustainability represents a focus on growth and development that “meets the needs of the present without compromis-
ing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987,
p. 16). At the level of organizations, sustainability conceptualizes the idea of economic, social and environmental (or eco-
logical) endurance that is sometimes referred to as the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1999; also see United Nations, 2007).
In this view, the economic dimension encompasses the immediate well-being of the primary stakeholders, the sharehold-
ers, through the generation of persistent above-average returns (Mitchell et al., 1997). Since the rapid pace of change has
made research and innovation an important driver for competitive advantage, economic endurance is closely associated with
R&D expenditures. In contrast, social and ecological sustainability emphasize the well-being of the secondary stakeholders
(Freeman et al., 2007). The social dimension conceptualizes the development of local and global communities, and the eco-
logical dimension pertains to the protection of the natural environment for current as well as future generations. In concert,
the three dimensions of sustainability offer an all-encompassing view of human and environmental well-being.
Given the difficulty of assessing organizational impact on the broader natural and social environment, researchers have
often focused on monetary investments to understand managerial commitment to the triple bottom line. This includes ex-
amining the extent to which a firm invests into R&D, promotes environmentally-friendly production and logistical practices,
and prioritizes the well-being of employees and external communities. It has led to the identification of a strong connec-
tion between R&D investments and organizational attention to ecological and social environments; the latter two dimensions
commonly associated with corporate social responsibility (CSR). For example, McWilliams and Siegel examined the asso-
ciation between R&D and CSR (2000) and they explained how social and environmental contributions can benefit innovative
activities (2001). Miles and Covin (2000) explained how environmental consciousness can lead to new and more market-
able products through cost savings and market gains. Holmes and Smart (2009) identified how social considerations are
closely tied to the success of innovation projects. And Choi and Wang (2009) demonstrated that investments in secondary
stakeholder relationships not only contribute to the sustainability of superior profits, the performance consequences of CSR
are significantly different from the implications of R&D.
The evidence of an overlap between R&D and social responsibility is generally viewed as an indication of ‘complemen-
tarity’ (Epstein and Roy, 2001; Kramer, 2009; Porter and Kramer, 2002). These complementarities can be separated into the
weak and the strong form. The weak form of the complementarity argument posits that a focus on innovation should not
distract managers from the fulfillment of social and ecological objectives (Elkington, 1994; Kacperczyk, 2009; Mattingly and
Berman, 2006; Starik and Kanashiro, 2013). Each dimension of sustainability is critical and therefore a significant invest-
ment in R&D should be matched by ‘comparable’ investments into the ecological and the social environments. The strong
form of the argument goes a step further and suggests that firms that focus on R&D can ‘optimize’ economic returns by
simultaneously attending to the social and the ecological dimensions. A failure to recognize the value of corporate social
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.002
0024-6301/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Murad A. Mithani, Innovation and CSR — Do They Go Well Together?, Long Range Planning (2016), doi: 10.1016/
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 M.A. Mithani / Long Range Planning ■■ (2016) ■■–■■
responsibility (CSR) can seriously jeopardize the potential of economic success (Freeman et al., 2010; Gibson, 2001, p. 3;
Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010; Mahoney, 2012).1 However, neither the weak nor the strong form of the complementarity
argument has received sufficient theoretical or empirical attention (for e.g., see Epstein et al., 2015). As a result, it remains
unclear if organizational attention to ecological or social environment compares with or complements the focus on R&D.
In this study, we build on the stakeholder theory (ST) and the attention-based view (ABV) to investigate these ques-
tions. We examine if ecological or social investments yield economic returns that are comparable to those from investments
in R&D (weak complementarity), and if attention to social or ecological environment increases the economic benefits of
investments in R&D (strong complementarity). We explain that although ST and ABV converge with regard to the salience
of R&D compared to that of ecological and social investments, they diverge in their prediction of strong complementarity.
While ST suggests that R&D and ecological and social investments reinforce each other, ABV argues that social responsibil-
ity can be a distraction when an organization’s emphasis is on innovation. We examine our arguments with a sample of
5999 Indian firms over a period of 13 years. Our findings suggest a hierarchy of economic implications. We find that in-
vestment in R&D has a far greater impact on economic performance than a comparable contribution to the ecological
environment, which in turn has a significantly higher beneficial effect than contributions to charity and community welfare.
This ordering of implications is fully consistent with the expectations of ST as well as of ABV. However, we observe that
the benefits of R&D are compromised in the presence of ecological or social investments. This contradicts ST but validates
ABV to suggest that an emphasis on innovation can be jeopardized by simultaneous attention to CSR.
Our study contributes by illustrating that investments into sustainability can have unique and mutually exclusive im-
plications. We show that the pursuit of social responsibility by an R&D-intensive organization requires careful consideration.
While monetary contribution to the natural environment can be economically more beneficial than contribution to the social
environment, both of these implications are significantly limited relative to the economic benefits of R&D. An optimal model
of sustainability investments requires the recognition of an underlying tradeoff between innovation and social responsibility.
Theoretical framework
The fundamental aim of strategic management is an effective understanding of the generation and distribution of eco-
nomic value (Mahoney, 2012, p. 13). Value generation pertains to activities that lie at the heart of organizational existence
(Blair, 1995). They determine the extent to which a firm fulfills its promise to the primary stakeholders — its shareholders
(Friedman, 1970; Jensen, 2002). This promise manifests as organizational ability to fulfill customer expectations through
better and more competitive products that can lead to a persistent competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Attention to in-
novation not only provides a firm with a stable revenue stream, it also contributes to the pool of future choices that can be
deployed to maintain a superior market position (Greve, 2003). This makes investments in R&D central to value generation
(Teece et al., 1997). However, organizations cannot exist for long without attending to value distribution. It comprises of
the choices that help disseminate economic gains to other groups that are relatively indirectly associated with the organi-
zation. These groups include but are not limited to local communities, civil society organizations, and the general public
that are commonly referred to as the secondary stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2007). These stakeholders provide legitimacy
that makes it necessary for the organization “to spend time and resources” to fulfill their expectations “regardless of the
appropriateness of their demands” (Freeman, 1984, p. 45). It is therefore no surprise that the maintenance of an ongoing
relationship with secondary stakeholders has become increasingly salient to long-term organizational success (Godfrey et al.,
2009).
The distinction between value generation and value distribution is not impermeable largely due to the spillover effects.
Investments in R&D can lead to the development of new products that play a major role in improving the general well-
being of the society (Harrison et al., 2010). Even though the organization may not always succeed in capturing the value
generated by these spillovers, value distribution can indirectly contribute to performance through the enhancement of or-
ganization’s ties with its secondary stakeholders. At the same time, investments to protect the natural environment can
lead to the deployment of advanced technologies that facilitate greater experimentation, reduce the cost of process modi-
fications, and in turn serve as an impetus for greater innovation (Miles and Covin, 2000). So while it is difficult to completely
separate value generation from value distribution, firm performance offers an effective gauge to understand the relative ef-
ficacy of R&D and socially responsible choices.
R&D, social responsibility and firm performance
The research on value generation has extensively focused on innovative activities as a mechanism for the persistence of
superior profits (Barney, 1991; also see Chari and David, 2012). It identifies how attention to R&D improves organizational
capacity to adapt to the changing nature of the competitive environment (Teece et al., 1997). This effect is not just limited
to developed economies (Eklund and Wiberg, 2008; Greenhalgh and Rogers, 2006), the evidence has also been validated
for emerging economies (Chari and David, 2012). At the same time, the research on value distribution has focused on how
1
For a discussion of strong and weak conceptualizations of sustainability at the level of the economy, see Pearce et al. (1989), Neumayer (2003), and
George (1999). They refer to the aggregate outputs and the extent to which human and natural capital may be comparable or substitutable.
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.A. Mithani / Long Range Planning ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ 3
corporate contributions to the ecological and the social environments can have a direct effect on organizational perfor-
mance (Brower and Mahajan, 2013; Choi and Wang, 2009) and an indirect effect through the reinforcement of innovative
choices (Holmes and Smart, 2009; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Even though the findings of this stream of research are
somewhat inconsistent (Margolis and Walsh, 2003), most scholars recognize that corporate social responsibility is neces-
sary for legitimacy (Thomas and Lamm, 2012; Wood, 2010). It leads to the development of a mutually beneficial relationship
that improves the quality of life of organizations’ external constituencies, who repay through greater loyalty and support
(Bansal and Roth, 2000; Godfrey et al., 2009; Thomas and Lamm, 2012).
Besides the difference in the focal constituencies and the ways in which they affect firm performance, value generation
and value distribution also invoke distinct organizational priorities. Value generation treats organizational resources, both
financial as well as non-financial, to be scarce and limited (Friedman, 1970). Since it is geared toward the primary stake-
holders, value generation highlights shareholder expectations of persistent economic returns through the pursuit of research
and innovation, the development of new products, and the refinement of existing processes (Barney, 1991; Eklund and Wiberg,
2008; Porter, 1980). While this view does not denigrate the social or the ecological environment, it recognizes that limited
managerial and organizational resources make it difficult for the organization to attend to multiple issues simultaneously
(Cyert and March, 1963). Consequently, the attention-based view (ABV) of organizations (Ocasio, 1997) suggests a priori-
tization of issues so that shareholder concerns are given immediate attention (Simon, 1955) and remaining issues are either
ignored or relegated to others such as the government or the civil society (Jensen, 2002).
In contrast, value distribution emphasizes social responsibility which has been increasingly informed by the stakehold-
er theory (ST). ST associates the persistence of economic performance with the well-being of the larger society (Freeman,
1984). It identifies that organizations that fail to attend to their various stakeholders are vulnerable to social and, in turn,
economic disruptions. A narrow focus on controlling economic resources makes it likely that the concerns of several con-
stituencies other than the shareholders may remain unresolved. Although the prioritization of economic choices for smaller
periods may only have a limited effect, organizations that consistently fail to attend to their secondary stakeholders are un-
likely to benefit from their support in the long run (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman et al., 2004). A challenge to organizational
legitimacy in the eyes of any stakeholder group can undermine the very economic aspiration that is often the reason for
the alienation of these groups (Phillips, 2003). ST therefore suggests that long-term success depends on the ability of man-
agers to cultivate a strong and enduring relationship with various audiences that are directly or indirectly associated with
the organization (Dean and McMullen, 2007; Kacperczyk, 2009). This relationship provides organizations with an ongoing
mechanism to maintain economic performance (Choi and Wang, 2009).
So with a focus on broad all-encompassing relationships, ST identifies a holistic approach which suggests the enlarge-
ment of organizational cognition to incorporate all key stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2010). And with its acknowledgment
of cognitive and resource limitations, ABV suggests a preservation of organizational attention for economic, managerial and
technical considerations (Ocasio, 1997; also see Chatterjee et al., 2003). Consequently, these two perspectives both con-
verge as well as diverge when predicting the economic implications of investments into innovation and CSR. Their convergence
is primarily associated with the recognition that not all expectations, whether from shareholders or from the other key stake-
holders, have equal implications. Organizations benefit by following a preference order that corresponds to the relative urgency
of impact (Mitchell et al., 1997). In terms of weak complementarity, ST and ABV both acknowledge a difference between
the economic implications of R&D and of social responsibility. The divergence between ST and ABV appears when we examine
the joint implications of R&D and the ecological and the social environment. While ST suggests the potential of greater ben-
efits from attending to multiple constituencies simultaneously in order to holistically integrate the primary and the secondary
stakeholder concerns, ABV suggests that multiple foci of attention can undermine the beneficial implications and there is a
need to focus on a single initiative at the exclusion of others. Thus, the strong form of complementarity is viewed differ-
ently by the two theoretical perspectives. We discuss these overlaps and contrasts in greater detail in the following section.
Weak complementarity and the convergence on preference ordering
In attending to multiple stakeholder expectations, ST recognizes that certain stakeholders are more consequential to the
organization at least in the shorter run (Driscoll and Starik, 2004; Mitchell et al., 1997). Primary stakeholders have greater
power and capacity to demand urgency on managerial attention. In addition to the shareholders, they include customers,
employees, and suppliers who form a more proximate relationship that is necessary and critical for organizational surviv-
al. In comparison, secondary stakeholders are less salient because they neither have the power nor capacity to demand
immediate managerial attention. These groups include relatively distant audiences such as local communities, civil society
organizations, and the general public, who are not directly associated with the organization (Agle et al., 1999). Despite their
limited influence, the failure to attend to the secondary stakeholders can eventually make it more difficult for the primary
stakeholders to continue to support the organization for long (Godfrey et al., 2009). The loss of legitimacy in the eyes of
the general public can erode the confidence of those that are closely tied to the organization. So while ST expects organi-
zations to respond to all stakeholder groups, it also acknowledges that attention to the primary stakeholders is more urgent
and the operational distance allows some flexibility in responding to the expectations of the secondary stakeholders (Jawahar
and McLaughlin, 2001; Waldman et al., 2006). Moreover, since organizations that fail to fulfill their economic mission cannot
cater to the expectation of any stakeholder, this makes it necessary that considerations essential to existence are fulfilled
without exception (Freeman et al., 2010). It is therefore important that organizations identify effective tradeoffs among
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
alternate courses of action, and once economic conditions become favorable, the unmet expectations of secondary stake-
holders are promptly addressed (Phillips et al., 2003).
Given the central nature of innovation to organizational performance, primary stakeholders are likely to expect the firm
to pay greater attention to R&D (Harrison et al., 2010). Consequently, organizations that invest more into R&D will receive
strong reciprocal support from these stakeholders in the form of forbearance toward smaller temporary dividends (share-
holders), greater willingness to try newer products (customers), as well as close collaboration with suppliers to help quickly
resolve technical issues (Holmes and Smart, 2009). Support from the primary stakeholders adds to organizational confi-
dence and inspires support from the other constituencies (Ruf et al., 2001). As a result, it also enables managers to fine-
tune their offering for subsequent large-scale commercialization (Greenley et al., 2005). This presence of strong ties with
the immediate beneficiaries suggests that organizations are likely to be more effective in translating the value-generation
implications of R&D into persistent economic performance (Ayuso et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2003).
Compared to R&D, investments in ecological environment have a less immediate but a reasonably strong effect (e.g. Mattingly
and Berman, 2006). This is because there is a grassroots movement to influence organizations into realizing the dangers of
environmentally unfavorable choices that is bringing the primary and the secondary stakeholders together in their demand
for changes in corporate practices (Konar and Cohen, 1997; Polonsky and Ottman, 1998). The resulting pressure is forcing
firms to invest more into advanced technologies and cleaner processes that help reduce the environmental footprint and
where possible, support civil society organizations that are working toward the betterment of the natural environment. Ac-
cordingly, firms that invest into ecologically friendly practices earn greater goodwill from the society (Bansal and Clelland,
2004). Stakeholders are more responsive to such organizations and this appreciation translates into higher material support
from the primary stakeholders and a positive word-of-mouth from the secondary stakeholders. Each of these influences
strengthens organization’s competitive position in its industry. But at the same time, the temporally distant effect of eco-
logical contribution on the natural environment makes most stakeholders quite forgiving in the absence of immediate
organizational actions. They are more willing to negotiate the terms of reciprocity and more tolerant toward commitments
that unfold gradually over time. Thus, despite pressure from the primary as well as the secondary stakeholders, a relative
lag in the manifestation of ecological choices suggests that the associated economic implications will be relatively mild com-
pared to those of R&D.
The economic implication of social contribution is likely to be even more limited. Although an organization’s social ini-
tiative is associated with choices that are aimed toward the internal environment (e.g. employees) as well as those directed
toward the external environment (e.g. communities), we limit out discussion to the latter to avoid the possibility of theo-
retical ambiguity. This is because even though employees are part of the social environment, they also play a key role in
channeling the implications of innovation on firm performance. Fair hiring practices and diversity increase the heteroge-
neity of ideas that are necessary for innovation, and at the same time, increase the potential of internal conflict that undermines
innovation (Amason, 1996; Mihalache et al., 2012). This suggests that attention to internally-directed social initiatives can
confound the discussion of value distribution and value generation.2
When attending to the external social environment, financial contributions to local and distant communities are critical
for building and maintaining ties with the secondary stakeholders (Galaskiewicz, 1997). They increase the responsiveness
of external constituencies in providing organizations with a buffer against reputational and technical issues (Suchman, 1995).
Yet the weaker influence of secondary stakeholders on the organization suggests that the beneficial implications of social
contribution may be significantly limited. The support of communities and the general public, although essential in cumu-
lative terms, is less instrumental in terms of its immediate impact. As long as the primary stakeholders are engaged through
R&D and significant investments into the ecological environment, lack of sufficient attention to social expectations will lead
to a smaller persistent effect on the bottom-line (Mattingly and Berman, 2006; Mitchell et al., 1997). Thus, ST predicts a
preference order with R&D investments most valuable for stakeholder relationships and for performance, followed by eco-
logical contribution, rendering social contribution with the smallest relative effect on superior profits.
Consistent with ST, ABV also offers an identical ordering of implications but they are shaped by a different set of under-
lying mechanisms. ABV identifies that the serial nature of managerial attention limits the focus to issues that are more urgent
to organizational survival (Greve, 2008). But unlike the externally imposed demands in ST, the urgency of issues in ABV is
largely determined by shareholder and managerial interests. High performance firms are more likely to attend to core issues
much earlier than their low performance counterparts (McGahan and Porter, 2003) and therefore the central nature of R&D
to organizational survival and growth makes it the foremost consideration for long-term performance (Greve, 2003). In con-
junction, the close association between managerial incentives and organizational competitive position makes it likely that
innovative activities receive higher priority (Choi and Wang, 2009; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Managers are more vested
into activities that have a direct effect on their personal gains including but not limited to larger incentives, higher stock
value, a steady growth in compensation, and possibly higher reputation (Aguilera et al., 2007; Wright and Ferris, 1997). This
greater interest translates into large investments that can maximize the likelihood of performance. Given the risk inherent
in exploratory choices (Becerra, 2008), a higher frequency of bets increases the odds of success. This makes it likely that
2 In discussing our empirical approach, we further explain how the exclusion of employees from the social environment facilitates measurement.
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
investments in R&D will be viewed as a mechanism for new and successful products of which some will become a source
of persistent superior performance (Chatterjee et al., 2003).
ABV also recognizes the ecological and social context (Cyert and March, 1963), although uncertain implications make
them a lower priority to R&D (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). Once the core innovative activities are sufficiently addressed, ABV
acknowledges the need to attend to environmental and social issues (Ocasio, 1997). In this context, the ecological dimen-
sion is a relatively higher priority (Sharma, 2000). This is because environmentally friendly technologies are generally more
robust, reduce operating costs, and they often require limited manual intervention that can reduce the rate of accidents
(Miles and Covin, 2000; Russo and Fouts, 1997). These implications minimize the potential of regulatory penalties and fa-
cilitate the development of a more efficient working environment (Bansal and Clelland, 2004). Similarly, contribution to
entities that are working toward ecological sustainability such as ‘industry sponsored environmental policy organizations’
are more visible and directly associated with a larger segment of the target market, which makes them a valuable invest-
ment toward customer loyalty (Miles and Covin, 2000; also see Wright and Ferris, 1997). But even though the reduction in
operating costs and greater customer loyalty have positive implications, the effect of ecological contribution is relatively
ambiguous and substantively uncertain as it does not lead to the resolution of an immediate issue or the capitalization of
a unique market opportunity (Hamilton, 1995; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996). This suggests that an investment in the natural
environment may have a relatively smaller effect on economic performance than R&D.
In terms of organizational attention to the social environment, local communities and the general public are associated
with an expectation of financial benevolence. A reputation for generosity adds to the positive local sentiment, leads to a
more competitive pool of employees, and it often translates into official favors (Aupperle et al., 1985; Turban and Greening,
1996; Williams and Barrett, 2000). But unlike investments in R&D and the natural environment, externally-directed social
contributions have limited operational advantages in relation to their costs (Gallego-Álvarez et al., 2011; Hillman and Keim,
2001). Philanthropy and community contributions remain questionable in terms of their direct implications for perfor-
mance (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). So even though reputational and resource advantages may promise a positive contingency,
the ambiguous nature of their implications place them at the lowest level in terms of the economic effect.
In sum, the predictions of ST and ABV propose a ranking of economic implications for investments in R&D, ecological
and social environments. They extend the previous research which has shown that innovation and social responsibility have
a positive effect on the persistence of economic profits (Chari and David, 2012; Choi and Wang, 2009; McWilliams and Siegel,
2000) by suggesting that stakeholder relationships and technical–managerial considerations yield a comparable ordering
of implications. Investment in R&D is likely to have a significantly larger effect on the persistence of superior profits than a
comparable investment in the ecological environment, which in turn will have a more positive effect than an equivalent
social contribution. This leads us to hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1a. Investment in R&D will be more strongly associated with the persistence of superior profits than investment in
ecological or social environment.
Hypothesis 1b. Investment in ecological environment will be more strongly associated with the persistence of superior profits
than investment in social environment.
Strong complementarity and the divergence on attention
Despite their convergence, there are critical differences between ST and ABV that arise from their unique foundational
assumptions. In demanding attention to multiple stakeholders, ST focuses on a moral framework where the acknowledg-
ment and fulfillment of distinct stakeholder demands is viewed as a critical managerial responsibility (Harrison et al., 2010;
Kacperczyk, 2009). It associates the harmony across multiple and competing demands as an opportunity to reflect equity
and fairness. Although ST acknowledges the potential of distractions that can temporarily lead to disproportionate atten-
tion to the primary stakeholders, the organization is identified as a nexus of relationships that need to be contemporaneously
and comprehensively reconciled. The process suggests a higher-order equilibrium that coordinates the diverse and possi-
bly inconsistent expectations for a solution that is acceptable to all relevant stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2010). The all-
encompassing nature of this equilibrium leads to the possibility that firms with large investments in R&D will be viewed
more positively when they simultaneously attend to ecological and social environment as a demonstration of their com-
mitment to fairness (Roberts and Dowling, 2002). In turn, this implies greater and more unequivocal support from concerned
stakeholders which can lead to value distribution choices enhancing the gains from value generation activities (Mahoney,
2012). This broad-based reconciliation among diverse constraints (i.e. distinct stakeholder groups) suggests that social re-
sponsibility can reinforce the benefits of innovative processes and yield a stronger positive effect on performance (Godfrey,
2005). In other words, “the combined impacts, positive and negative, of the sets of measures as a whole, are likely to be
more than the simple sum of the impacts of their constituent measures because of synergistic effects” (Lee and Kirkpatrick,
2001). This leads us to infer from ST that ecological and social contribution will strengthen the effect of R&D on the per-
sistence of superior profits:
Hypothesis 2a. Investment in ecological environment will strengthen the association between R&D and the persistence of su-
perior profits.
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Hypothesis 2b. Investment in social environment will strengthen the association between R&D and the persistence of superior
profits.
However, the serial nature of organizational attention in ABV yields the opposite effect. ABV explains that large invest-
ments in any domain consume significant managerial capabilities that make it difficult to attend to other organizational
choices (Ocasio and Joseph, 2005). Since strong managerial capabilities increase the reliance on heuristics that are shaped
by past successes, firms with superior economic performance will continue to focus on existing customers to sustain their
market position (Acquaah, 2003). This will lead to the enactment of blinders against the appreciation of alternate avenues
of growth (Prahalad, 2004), leaving little room to attend to ecological or social considerations. Given the limitation of re-
sources, the combination of economic expectation and the historically reinforced success patterns, organizations will have
limited cognitive and material capacity to attend to ecological or social concerns (Ocasio, 2011). Rather than follow ST and
view the balance between innovation and social responsibility as a question of coordination, ABV suggests that firms are
neither capable nor keen to attend to multiple stakeholder concerns simultaneously. Their focus on R&D can be preserved
by avoiding the distraction from other issues. Only when sufficient progress has been made toward innovation goals may
managerial attention be diverted toward the ecological or the social environment (Cyert and March, 1963). Thus, in con-
trast to ST, ABV suggests mutual exclusivity for the joint implication of R&D and socially responsibility. It leads us to predict
that higher contribution to the ecological or the social environment can distract the firm from its ability to translate R&D
into a source of persistent superior profits (see Gallego-Álvarez et al., 2011). This leads to the hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a. Investment in ecological environment will weaken the association between R&D and the persistence of superior
profits.
Hypothesis 3b. Investment in social environment will weaken the association between R&D and the persistence of superior profits.
Data and methods
Sample
Previous studies have generally examined the economic implications of R&D and CSR independently (e.g. Chari and David,
2012; Choi and Wang, 2009). A major reason for this separation is the absence of comparable data. In most parts of the
world, it is mandatory for corporations to report R&D contributions in the annual reports. But there is no such expectation
for ecological and social contributions. This has led to scholars frequently relying on CSR information from third-party sources
such as KLD or the Fortune magazine (Brown and Perry, 1994; Sharfman, 1996). These datasets are generally available as
bimodal or limited response categorizations which are difficult to translate into monetary terms comparable to invest-
ments in R&D. Although the resulting variables can be used to understand the joint implications of R&D and CSR as predicted
in hypotheses 2 and 3, non-monetary CSR data are ineffective to understand the relative implications of R&D and CSR as
predicted in hypothesis 1 (e.g. Norman and MacDonald, 2004).
An interesting regulatory exception is India where in addition to financial indicators firms are required to disclose their
charitable donations and other contributions in the annual reports. These contributions can be separated into those that
are aimed at the natural environment, philanthropic contributions, and investments into community-based projects. They
allow us a valuable opportunity to examine how the implications of R&D compare to and are complemented by ecological
and social contributions.
We collected our data from the Center of Monitoring Indian Economy’s (CMIE) Prowess database which has been widely
used in the previous research (Chari and David, 2012; Khanna and Palepu, 2000; Lamin, 2013; Vissa et al., 2010). Prowess
records the ecological, philanthropic and community contributions as distinct variables. This makes the data ideal for our
analysis. However, the Indian context also imposes two major constraints. First, it does not allow us to observe some of the
other dimensions of CSR, such as employee relations, diversity, or health and safety, which are reflections of the firms’ in-
ternal social environment. Since our focus is on monetary contributions and it is difficult to translate the information on
employee relations and other internal activities into monetary units, this omission does not impose a significant tradeoff.
Even though it reduces our ability to fully capture all activities that fall under the social dimension, we believe this is a rea-
sonable compromise given the empirical constraints as well as the theoretical ambiguity that we discussed earlier.
A second limitation pertains to the relatively uncommon nature of social contributions. While Indian firms are now in-
creasingly active in the social arena, it is likely that historical trends may be exposed to some reporting or commitment
bias. To overcome this possibility, we begin our sample from the year 2000 and restricted it to firms which have made at
least one reported contribution during the sample period. Our final dataset includes 5999 firms with 48,532 observations
across 13 years between 2000 and 2012. All reported values are in Indian Rupees, unless otherwise indicated.3
3
India implemented a corporate responsibility law in 2014 that requires large firms to contribute at least 2% of their average net income to charitable
causes (for details, see PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2013). As our sample period ends in 2012, this regulation does not affect our analysis.
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Variables
Superior profit
We follow the previous research and use Return on Assets (ROA) to operationalize profits. The superiority of profits is
identified by subtracting from it the median ROA for the industry (Chari and David, 2012). Large values indicate superior
financial performance relative to competitors. The results are substantively similar if we use the industry mean. Accord-
ingly, the persistence of superior profits is incorporated by including the lagged value of superior profits as an independent
variable. We explain the dynamics of our approach in more detail in our discussion of the analytical model.
R&D
We used the value of total research and development expenditures to measure R&D investment. Since firms can vary
significantly in their investments toward R&D, we log-transformed (+1) the variable to reduce its skewness. When discuss-
ing the results, we interpret R&D as the exponentiated regression coefficient to eliminate the effect of logarithmic transformation.
Ecological contribution
We used firms’ contribution toward the natural environment as the measure for ecological contribution. It captures mon-
etary investments into processes or equipment that are aimed toward the reduction of organization’s ecological footprint.4
For instance, the annual report of Hindalco from 2012 identifies several activities that fall under its ecological initiative:
In the alumina plant at Muri, Jharkhand, an initiative has been taken to implement Rain Water Harvesting structures in the
factory colony premises to recharge underground water by constructing nine recharge pits and two injections wells [water
management] … Belur Plant has taken Initiatives to phase out diesel operated units by battery operated ones so as to reduce
fugitive emission within the plant. In 2011–12, two diesel operated units have been replaced [air emission] … Hirakud complex
has successfully completed its CDM project and is already reaping partial monetization of the carbon credits accumulated [carbon
footprint] … units in Belgaum, Renukoot and Muri have resorted to environment friendly disposal methods such as dry dis-
posal and stacking of Red Mud, recycling of Spent Pot Lining and using sludge from effluent treatment plants as a soil conditioner
for the plantation [waste management] … Anode baking furnaces have installed Fume Treatment plants and wet gas scrub-
bing systems coupled with state-of-art microprocessor based controls and advance dry scrubbing to ensure less emission and
energy [process improvement]… In Belgaum, Karnataka, 15,000 saplings were planted near the red mud pond and bauxite
handling areas [green belt] (p. 43–45).
Social contribution
Before operationalizing the measure, we first analyzed philanthropy and community contribution data for the top 100
firms. We found that firms were not very consistent in reporting these values and community contributions from one year
were reported as philanthropy in the following year, or vice versa. This made it difficult to completely separate the two vari-
ables. To avoid any ambiguity, we combined philanthropy and community contributions into a single variable called social
contribution. It represents monetary contributions toward charitable causes and community development as well as funds
paid to non-profit organizations. For example, Mahindra and Mahindra reported its philanthropic contribution for the year
2012 as Indian Rupees 276.9, all of which were identified as monetary disbursements (p. 163). In contrast, some activities
identified by Reliance Industries (RIL) that fall under its community development initiatives can be seen below:
RIL has developed its own network of 11 schools in and around the manufacturing units of the company in Jamnagar, Surat,
Vadodara, Patalganga, Nagothane and Nagpur benefitting more than 15,000 students. These schools promote education among
children of the underprivileged communities … RIL, in partnership with the Government of Gujarat, created a society named
the ‘Dahej Health & Welfare Society’ (DHWS) to run a 50 bed hospital for secondary level healthcare facilities at Dahej. RIL
has invested in the society and takes care of its daily expenses (Reliance Industries Annual Report, 2012: 53).
Controls
We control for firm size and the access to in-house resources by including assets and the log (+1) of sales. Previous studies
have found a strong relationship between promotional emphasis, R&D and CSR (Brik et al., 2011; Fry et al., 1982; McWilliams
and Siegel, 2000). This suggests the need to include advertising to ensure that firm-level differences in economic perfor-
mance do not arise from their market orientation. Since greater financial exposure can also affect a firms’ responsiveness
to its stakeholders, we include the debt to equity ratio (Choi and Wang, 2009). It controls for the level of indebtedness. Fol-
lowing Chari and David (2012), we operationalize the industry by using the three-digit National Industrial Classification
(NIC) used in Prowess and control for industry sales to capture the effect of variations in the industrial environment. We
also control for market concentration to capture the level of competitive intensity in the industry. It is operationalized as
the Herfindahl index, which is the squared value of market shares of all firms present in an industry. As India has gone through
4 It can also include funds donated to external entities that are working toward improvement of the natural environment.
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
rapid industrialization and growth over the last few decades, we control for macroeconomic effects by including year dummies.
We also include industry dummies in our robustness tests as discussed in the following section.
Analytical model
The persistence of superior profits (dependent variable) is operationalized by using a first-order autoregressive model
which incorporates the lag of the dependent variable (Chari and David, 2012; Choi and Wang, 2009). This produces the fol-
lowing equation for our model:
SPt = β0 + β1 × SPt −1 + β 2 × SPt −1 × R & Dt + β 3 × SPt −1 × ECt
+ β 4 × SPt −1 × SCt + β5 × SPt −1 × R & Dt × ECt + β6
× SPt −1 × R & Dt × SCt + Controls + ε
Here SP denotes superior profits, and EC and SC identify ecological and social contribution. Hypothesis 1a predicts that
β 2 > β 3 as well as β 2 > β 4 , and hypothesis 1b predicts that β 3 > β 4 . Incorporating the interaction effects for β5 and β6 , hy-
potheses 2a and 2b predict them to be positive while hypotheses 3a and 3b predict negative effects.
Our sample includes multiple observations per firm. This violates the ordinary least squares (OLS) assumption of the
independence of errors. To overcome this effect, we used the fixed effects models. Fixed effects examine the significance of
an effect after accounting for the unique firm-level mean. This approach not only accommodates the correlation between
errors, but it also offers highly conservative estimates which eliminate the potential of omitted variable bias. However, fixed
effects models with lagged dependent variables can sometimes produce biased estimates. They require some mechanism
for correction where least squares dummy variable (LSDV) is a potential remedy. However, LSDV assumes the normality of
standard errors. A more robust approach is the Driscoll–Kraay standard error correction, which offers a non-parametric model
that accounts for heteroskedasticity and correlation across panels in the case of autoregressive dynamic panel models (Driscoll
and Kraay, 1998). We report our results both with the standard fixed effects models and with Driscoll and Kraay error
correction. Note that while fixed effects drop industry dummies, Driscoll–Kraay correction facilitates the retention of non-
variant panel effects. We therefore include industry dummies in those models. Following standard practice, we use mean-
centered variables for all interactions (Cohen et al., 2002).
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations. It shows that while most variables are weakly correlated, there
is a strong correlation between the dependent variable and its lag. Although this correlation is expected as well as consis-
tent with the previous studies, we checked to ensure that it does not suppress the significance of our key variables. The
variable inflation factor (VIF) showed all values to be significantly below the acceptable threshold of 10. We found the average
VIF to be 1.82 with a maximum value of 4.48, ensuring that multicollinearity does not pose a critical concern for our analysis.
Table 2 shows the tests of our hypotheses. Model 1 is limited to controls where the positive significant effect of the lagged
dependent variable is consistent with the previous research. It validates that above-average profits in a year positively affect
above-average profits in the following year which establishes the persistence of superior profits. The model also shows that
firms with higher sales are significantly more successful. Model 2 includes the interactive effect for R&D and for ecological
contribution. Both effects are highly significant and the Wald test confirms that the coefficient of R&D is more positive than
the coefficient of ecological contribution. This difference is significant at p < 0.001. Model 3 includes the interactive effect for
social contribution. Its coefficient is positive but significantly smaller relative to ecological contribution yielding a signifi-
cance of p < 0.001 based on the Wald test. After exponentiating the log-transformation, the effect of R&D turns out to be
6.07 times that of ecological contribution and almost 3800 times that of social contribution. This supports hypothesis 1a
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Superior profits 0.01 4.92

2 Superior profitst−1 0.03 2.56 0.85
3 R&D 0.34 0.42 0.00 0.00
4 Ecological contribution 0.55 21.64 0.00 0.00 0.07
5 Social contribution 6.28 36.59 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.03
6 Assets (10−6) 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.19 0.10
7 Sales 5.96 0.86 0.01 0.00 0.39 0.13 0.04 0.28
8 Advertising (10−3) 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.21
9 Debt/equity 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 −0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00
10 Industry sales (10−9) 0.00 0.001 0.01 0.01 −0.06 0.00 0.00 0.10 −0.15 −0.02 0.02
11 Market concentration 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.00 −0.18
N = 48,532; Correlations > |0.02| are significant at p < 0.001.
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Fixed effects models
Variables 1 2 3 4 5
Superior profitst−1 X R&D 2.38*** 2.33*** 2.29*** 2.46***

Superior profitst−1 X Ecological contribution 0.55*** 0.55*** 0.55*** 0.55***
Superior profitst−1 X Social contribution 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01***
Superior profitst−1 X R&D X Ecological contribution −0.32*** −0.32***
Superior profitst−1 X R&D X Social contribution −0.01**
Assets (10−6) −0.07 0.26 0.43 0.39 0.41
Sales 0.08*** 0.06*** 0.06*** 0.06*** 0.06***
Advertising (10−3) −0.04 −0.03 −0.03 −0.05 −0.05
Debt/equity −0.84 −0.08 0.41 0.42 0.41
Industry sales (10−9) 15.53 1.46 1.51 1.61 1.02
Market concentration 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Superior profitst−1 1.58*** 1.67*** 1.67*** 1.67*** 1.67***
R&D −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01
Ecological contribution −0.01*** −0.01*** −0.01*** −0.01***
Social contribution −0.001+ −0.001* −0.001+
R&D X Ecological contribution 0.01** 0.01**
R&D X Social contribution 0.0001
Year dummies Y Y Y Y Y
Constant −0.48*** −0.35** −0.35** −0.36** −0.35**
F 4523.33*** 4731.36*** 4356.72*** 4043.70*** 3765.68***
R2 0.6690 0.7191 0.7193 0.7198 0.7200
N = 48,532; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, +p < 0.10.
that the economic effect of R&D is significantly larger than the effect of ecological or social contribution. The significant
difference between ecological and social contributions validates hypothesis 1b. In numerical terms, an investment in the
ecological environment yields 628 times the economic effect of a similar investment in the external social environment.
Models 4 and 5 examine the competing perspectives of ST and ABV. Model 4 shows that the three-way interaction for
lagged superior profits with R&D and ecological contribution is negative and significant, and model 5 shows a negative effect
for the interaction between lagged superior profits, R&D and social contribution. These models show that firms that invest
into social responsibility in the presence of large investments in R&D diminish the economic effects of innovation. In other
words, the advantages of R&D are larger for firms that have lower simultaneous investments in the ecological or the social
environment. Interestingly, the coefficients suggest that the negative implications are stronger for ecological contribution
than for social contribution, possibly because of the relatively greater engagement necessary for the former. These models
support hypotheses 3a and 3b and validate the attention-based view while showing lack of support for hypotheses 2a and
2b.
In Table 3, we repeat all our tests in the presence of Driscoll–Kraay corrected standard errors. The results are largely con-
sistent with our primary results and they validate the robustness of our findings. Overall, they show that while the hierarchical
ordering of economic implications of sustainability investments is consistent across ST and ABV, the joint implications of
R&D and ecological–social investments support ABV but not ST.
Discussion and conclusion
There is a long history of studies that have focused on the tradeoff between economic growth and environmental pres-
ervation (Hotelling, 1931; Solow, 1974; United Nations, 2007, p. 12). These tradeoffs have been viewed in terms of ‘social
organization’ and the ‘current state of technology’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). However,
this tradeoff has received limited attention in the context of organizations (e.g. Epstein et al., 2015). In this study, we ex-
plored this possibility by investigating the economic implications of investments in R&D and in social responsibility. In particular,
we examined how investments in the ecological and the social environments compare with and complement the focus on
R&D, which we separated into the weak and the strong form of complementarity arguments, respectively. In doing so, we
relied on two different theoretical perspectives. First is the stakeholder theory which recognizes financial constraints but
ignores cognitive limitations in favor of a broad-based equilibrium between key stakeholders. Second is the attention-
based view which acknowledges the scarcity of economic and managerial resources. Both perspectives predicted that
investments in R&D will have a more positive economic effect than contribution to the natural environment, which in turn
will be economically more beneficial than contribution to the social environment. Our empirical results fully support this
ordering of implications and show that investment in R&D produces six times the effect compared to an equivalent eco-
logical contribution, and almost 3800 times the effect relative to an equivalent social contribution. Moreover, the economic
effect of ecological contribution is 628 times that of an equivalent social contribution. However, ST and ABV offered con-
trasting predictions regarding the joint economic implications of R&D and social responsibility. While ST suggested a more
positive effect when CSR is undertaken in the presence of R&D, ABV predicted a negative effect. The findings strongly support
ABV and show that the limitations of organizational attention can undermine the benefits of R&D when complemented by
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Fixed effects models with Driscoll–Kraay standard errors
Variables 1 2 3 4 5
Superior profitst−1 X R&D 2.38* 2.33+ 2.29+ 2.46*

Superior profitst−1 X Ecological contribution 0.55*** 0.55*** 0.55*** 0.55***
Superior profitst−1 X Social contribution 0.01 0.01 0.01
Superior profitst−1 X R&D X Ecological contribution −0.32*** −0.32***
Superior profitst−1 X R&D X Social contribution −0.01+
Assets (10−6) −0.07 0.26 0.43 0.39 0.41
Sales 0.08 0.06* 0.06* 0.06* 0.06*
Advertising (10−3) −0.04 −0.03 −0.03 −0.05 −0.05
Debt/equity −0.84 −0.08 0.41 0.42 0.41
Industry sales (10−9) 15.53 1.46 1.51 1.61 1.02
Market concentration 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Superior profitst−1 1.58*** 1.67*** 1.67*** 1.67*** 1.67***
R&D −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01
Ecological contribution −0.01** −0.01** −0.01** −0.01**
Social contribution −0.001 −0.001 −0.001
R&D X Ecological contribution 0.01 0.01
R&D X Social contribution 0.0001
Year dummies Y Y Y Y Y
Industry dummies Y Y Y Y Y
Constant −0.48+ −0.35* −0.35* −0.36* −0.35*
F 9921.74*** 245.32*** 33,400.52*** 563.78*** 7576.88***
N = 48,532; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, +p < 0.10.
large contributions to the ecological or the social environment. These findings illustrate that sustainability investments have
unique and non-complementary effects and when handled inappropriately, they can undermine the economic viability of
the organization.
There are several important implications of our study. Foremost is the need to recognize that the growing concern about
sustainability has led to an undue expectation. Organizations are increasingly scrutinized on their ability to innovative and
be socially responsible at the same time. It has led to the perception that simultaneous attention to multiple dimensions of
sustainability leads to higher success. Our findings challenge this notion and suggest the need to understand the appropri-
ate balance between R&D and social responsibility. CSR initiatives require significant attention and resources. Greater emphasis
on the ecological–social environment can lead to substantive costs in terms of organizational capacity to focus on the in-
novative environment. By cost, we imply a strategic tradeoff (Child, 1972). This tradeoff suggests that firms will have to forego
some activities in order to fully commit to the others. Thus, rather than strategic complements, it may be more appropri-
ate to view economic and ecological–social sustainability as strategic alternatives. The associated cost appears as a performance
discount when the focus spreads from R&D to social responsibility. It needs to be noted, however, that our analytical ap-
proach has focused on the average effects of R&D, ecological and social investments on persistent performance over a significant
period of time. Since mature programs are generally associated with more effective organizational routines, they are likely
to yield a better cost-to-benefit ratio. One way to address the strategic tradeoff could be to introduce temporal discrepan-
cies between investment targets that allow the pairing of newly initiated projects with ongoing investments. This may provide
respite against some of the discounting effects of attentional deficit. Along these lines, other streams of research have iden-
tified that organizational choices that undermine economic performance can be balanced through structural, temporal or
cognitive separation (Raisch et al., 2009). It would be interesting to examine if these approaches may be applicable to the
observed tension between R&D and CSR. Possibly, changes in the nature and the temporal organization of activities may
yield a more promising answer.
The findings of our study should be contextualized with respect to its limitations. As discussed earlier, we did not take
into account social contributions that are aimed toward the internal environment. It would be interesting to explore if or-
ganizational efforts toward employee and minority relations, health and safety or other internal practices can be translated
into economic value. This can provide an opportunity to examine differences in the effect of internal and external social
contributions on firm performance. A second limitation of our study relates to the measurement of cognitive prowess. Con-
sistent with the research on ABV, we do not directly observe the dissipation of organizational attention. The evidence of a
direct positive effect of ecological and social contribution on performance but a negative effect when interacted with R&D
show that focal CSR activities are not devoid of value. While investments in sustainability have a positive effect, it is their
combination which undermines persistent economic performance reflecting that the joint pursuit of innovation and social
responsibility serves as a source of distraction. However, further research is necessary to more clearly understand the nature
of the underlying constraints. And third, while we have been able to compile one of the largest samples in the context of
CSR studies, our observations only include listed firms. It remains to be seen how private firms that are less exposed to public
scrutiny respond to the relative implications of sustainability initiatives.
There are several additional directions for the extension of this study. First, while we have focused on economic perfor-
mance, it is also important to understand the implications on ecological and social performance. This will require a measurement
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
approach whereby organizational investments in innovation and CSR are viewed for their effect on the natural and the social
environment. It offers the possibility to examine if the superiority of R&D persists even when the outcome variable is eco-
logical or social performance, and if R&D may become a source of distraction for CSR activities. Second, our focus on persistent
superior profits makes it difficult to answer if sustainability investments vary in their short-term and long-term effects. It
remains to be seen if the higher impact of R&D may be associated with its persistence while the smaller effect of CSR stems
from the failure of organizations to make long-term ecological or social commitments. It would thus be interesting to explore
whether the initial phase of new sustainability initiatives is the primary source of the performance discount. Second, it is
important to validate the generalizability of our findings. Even though the Indian context is a valuable empirical setting, it
is important to examine how the hypothesized effects materialize in more developed economies. A third possibility is to
examine the extent to which these effects are influenced by funds directed toward intermediary organizations. When CSR
contributions are directed toward non-profit intermediaries, they not only diminish the visibility of the donor organiza-
tion but they also minimize external contacts to reduce the social engagement of managers. This suggests that intermediaries
can, on the one hand, diminish the positive effects on superior performance, but they can also allow organizations to over-
come the negative implications of attentional deficits. More research is necessary to understand these effects.
Our study also offers important implications for practice. We illustrate a hierarchy of economic implications for sustainability
initiatives with R&D being the strongest contributor to persistent superior performance, followed by contribution to the
natural environment, and lastly, social contribution. We also explain that the joint implications of R&D and CSR can under-
mine organizational value which makes it important for managers to establish an effective model for their integration. Although
our focus has been on the innovation–CSR complementarity, we do not suggest that social responsibility should be a lower
priority for innovative firms. Consistent with the previous work (Margolis and Walsh, 2003), we recognize the importance
of ecological and social investments and add that if such investments are pursued primarily in anticipation of economic
gains, managers should be prepared to accept sub-optimal returns. We believe that these findings will help shift the at-
tention from the tendency to view ecological and social contributions as a unitary decision and recognize them as a series
of inter-connected choices that require concurrent evaluation in the presence of R&D to understand the most effective form
of integration.
References
Acquaah, M., 2003. Corporate management, industry competition and the sustainability of firm abnormal profitability. Journal of Management and Governance
7 (1), 57–85.
Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K., Sonnenfeld, J.A., 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and
CEO values. Academy of Management Journal 42 (5), 507–525.
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A., Ganapathi, J., 2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review 32 (3), 836–863.
Amason, A.C., 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management
teams. Academy of Management Journal 39 (1), 123–148.
Aupperle, K.E., Carroll, A.B., Hatfield, J.D., 1985. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy
of Management Journal 28 (2), 446–463.
Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M.Á., García-Castro, R., Ariño, M.Á., 2011. Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial
Management & Data Systems 111 (9), 1399–1417.
Bansal, P., Clelland, I., 2004. Talking trash: legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy
Bansal, P., Roth, K., 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43 (4), 717–736.
Barney, J.B., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1), 99–120.
Becerra, M., 2008. A resource-based analysis of the conditions for the emergence of profits. Journal of Management 34 (6), 1110–1126.
Blair, M.M., 1995. Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-First Century. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.
Brik, A.B., Rettab, B., Mellahi, K., 2011. Market orientation, corporate social responsibility, and business performance. Journal of Business Ethics 99 (3),
307–324.
Brower, J., Mahajan, V., 2013. Driven to be good: a stakeholder theory perspective on the drivers of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics
117 (2), 313–331.
Brown, B., Perry, S., 1994. Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s “Most Admired” companies. Academy of Management Journal 37 (5),
1347–1359.
Chari, M.D., David, P., 2012. Sustaining superior performance in an emerging economy: an empirical test in the Indian context. Strategic Management Journal
33 (2), 217–229.
Chatterjee, S., Wiseman, R.M., Fiegenbaum, A., Devers, C.E., 2003. Integrating behavioural and economic concepts of risk into strategic management: the
twain shall meet. Long Range Planning 36 (1), 61–79.
Child, J., 1972. Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology 6 (1), 1–22.
Choi, J., Wang, H., 2009. Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 30 (8), 895–907.
Clarkson, M.B.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 92–117.
Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S.G., Aiken, L.S., 2002. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, third ed. Routledge Academic,
New York.
Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dean, T.J., McMullen, J.S., 2007. Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action.
Journal of Business Venturing 22 (1), 50–76.
Driscoll, C., Starik, M., 2004. The primordial stakeholder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal
of Business Ethics 49 (1), 55–73.
Driscoll, J.C., Kraay, A.C., 1998. Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics 80 (4),
549–560.
Eklund, J.E., Wiberg, D., 2008. R&D and the persistence of profits. The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics 6 (2), 40–53.
Elkington, J., 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review
36 (2), 90.
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Elkington, J., 1999. Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Epstein, M.J., Roy, M.-J., 2001. Sustainability in action: identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Planning 34 (5), 585–604.
Epstein, M.J., Buhovac, A.R., Yuthas, K., 2015. Managing social, environmental and financial performance simultaneously. Long Range Planning 48 (1), 35–45.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Harpercollins College Div, New York.
Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B., 2004. Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science 15 (3), 364–369.
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., 2007. Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L., de Colle, S., 2010. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Friedman, M., 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times.
Fry, L.W., Keim, G.D., Meiners, R.E., 1982. Corporate contributions: altruistic or for-profit? Academy of Management Journal 25, 94–106.
Galaskiewicz, J., 1997. An urban grants economy revisited: corporate charitable contributions in the twin cities, 1979-81, 1987-89. Administrative Science
Quarterly 42 (3), 445–471.
Gallego-Álvarez, I., Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., García-Sánchez, I.-M., 2011. Corporate social responsibility and innovation: a resource-based theory. Management
Decision 49 (10), 1709–1727.
George, C., 1999. Testing for sustainable development through environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19 (2), 175–200.
Gibson, R.B., 2001. Specification of Sustainability-Based Environmental Assessment Decision Criteria and Implications for Determining “Significance” in
Environmental Assessment. University of British Columbia, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Research and Development Programme, Waterloo,
British Columbia.
Godfrey, P.C., 2005. The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective. Academy of Management
Review 30 (4), 777–798.
Godfrey, P.C., Merrill, C.B., Hansen, J.M., 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk
management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal 30 (4), 425–445.
Greenhalgh, C., Rogers, M., 2006. The value of innovation: the interaction of competition, R&D and IP. Research Policy 35 (4), 562–580.
Greenley, G.E., Hooley, G.J., Rudd, J.M., 2005. Market orientation in a multiple stakeholder orientation context: implications for marketing capabilities and
assets. Journal of Business Research 58 (11), 1483–1494.
Greve, H.R., 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal 46 (6), 685–702.
Greve, H.R., 2008. A behavioral theory of firm growth: sequential attention to size and performance goals. Academy of Management Journal 51 (3), 476–
494.
Hamilton, J.T., 1995. Pollution as news: media and stock market reactions to the toxics release inventory data. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 28 (1), 98–113.
Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A., Phillips, R.A., 2010. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management
J 31 (1), 58–74.
Hillman, A.J., Keim, G.D., 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal 22
(2), 125–139.
Holmes, S., Smart, P., 2009. Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: a corporate social responsibility perspective. R&D Management
39 (4), 394–409.
Hotelling, H., 1931. The economics of exhaustible resources. The Journal of Political Economy 39 (2), 137–175.
Jawahar, I.M., McLaughlin, G.L., 2001. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review 26
(3), 397–414.
Jensen, M.C., 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2), 235–256.
Kacperczyk, A., 2009. With greater power comes greater responsibility? Takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders. Strategic Management
Journal 30 (3), 261–285.
Khanna, T., Palepu, K., 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance 55
(2), 867–891.
Klassen, R.D., McLaughlin, C.P., 1996. The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management Science 42 (8), 1199.
Konar, S., Cohen, M.A., 1997. Information as regulation: the effect of community right to know laws on toxic emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 32 (1), 109–124.
Kramer, M.R. 2009. Catalytic philanthropy. Retrieved January 8, 2012.
Kuhlman, T., Farrington, J., 2010. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2 (11), 3436–3448.
Lamin, A., 2013. Business groups as information resource: an investigation of business group affiliation in the Indian software services industry. Academy
Lee, N., Kirkpatrick, C., 2001. Methodologies for sustainability impact assessments of proposals for new trade agreements. Journal of Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management 3 (3), 395–412.
Mahoney, J.T., 2012. Costa, J.E.R., Martí, J.M.R. (Eds.), Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Strategic Management. Towards a New Theory of the Firm: Humanizing
the Firm and the Management Profession. Fundacion BBVA, Bilbao, Spain, pp. 153–182.
Margolis, J.D., Walsh, J.P., 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (2), 268–305.
Mattingly, J.E., Berman, S.L., 2006. Measurement of corporate social action discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business &
Society 45 (1), 20–46.
McGahan, A.M., Porter, M.E., 2003. The emergence and sustainability of abnormal profits. Strategic Organization 1 (1), 79–108.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal
21 (5), 603–609.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26 (1), 117–127.
Mihalache, O.R., Jansen, J.J.J.P., Van Den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., 2012. Offshoring and firm innovation: the moderating role of top management team
attributes. Strategic Management Journal 33 (13), 1480–1498.
Miles, M.P., Covin, J.G., 2000. Environmental marketing: a source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics 23 (3),
299–311.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review 22 (4), 853–886.
Neumayer, E., 2003. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Norman, W., MacDonald, C., 2004. Getting to the bottom of “Triple Bottom Line”. Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (2), 243–262.
Ocasio, W., 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 18 (S1), 187–206.
Ocasio, W., 2011. Attention to attention. Organization Science 22 (5), 1286–1296.
Ocasio, W., Joseph, J., 2005. An attention-based theory of strategy formulation: linking micro-and macroperspectives in strategy processes. Advances in
Strategic Management 22, 39–61.
Pearce, D.W., Markandya, A., Barbier, E., 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan Publications, London.
Phillips, R., 2003. Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (1), 25–41.
Phillips, R., Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C., 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4), 479–502.
Polonsky, M.J., Ottman, J., 1998. Stakeholders’ contribution to the green new product development process. Journal of Marketing Management 14 (6), 533–557.
Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Companies. Free Press, New York.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review 80 (12), 56–68.
j.lrp.2016.08.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Prahalad, C.K., 2004. The blinders of dominant logic. Long Range Planning 37 (2), 171–179.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2013. Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility in India. Confederation of Indian Industry, Ahmedabad, India.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., Tushman, M.L., 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance.
Organization Science 20 (4), 685–695.
Roberts, P.W., Dowling, G.R., 2002. Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 23 (12), 1077–1093.
Ruf, B.M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R.M., Janney, J.J., Paul, K., 2001. An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance
and financial performance: a stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 32 (2), 143–156.
Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal
40 (3), 534–559.
Sharfman, M., 1996. The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg & Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (3), 287–296.
Sharma, S., 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management
Journal 43 (4), 681–697.
Simon, H.A., 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69 (1), 99–118.
Solow, R.M., 1974. The economics of resources or the resources of economics. The American Economic Review 64 (2), 1–14.
Starik, M., Kanashiro, P., 2013. Toward a theory of sustainability management uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Organization & Environment
26 (1), 7–30.
Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20 (3), 571.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (7), 509–533.
Thomas, T.E., Lamm, E., 2012. Legitimacy and organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 110 (2), 191–203.
Turban, D.B., Greening, D.W., 1996. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. The Academy of Management
Journal 40 (3), 658–672.
United Nations. 2007. The United Nations Development Agenda: Development for all: 85. New York: Economic and Social Affairs.
Vissa, B., Greve, H.R., Chen, W.-R., 2010. Business group affiliation and firm search behavior in India: responsiveness and focus of attention. Organization
Science 21 (3), 696–712.
Waldman, D.A., Siegel, D.S., Javidan, M., 2006. Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management
Studies 43 (8), 1703–1725.
Wang, H., Barney, J.B., Reuer, J.J., 2003. Stimulating firm-specific investment through risk management. Long Range Planning 36 (1), 49–59.
Williams, R.J., Barrett, J.D., 2000. Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: is there a link? Journal of Business Ethics 26 (4), 341–350.
Wood, D.J., 2010. Measuring corporate social performance: a review. International Journal of Management Reviews 12 (1), 50–84.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York.
Wright, P., Ferris, S.P., 1997. Agency conflict and corporate strategy: the effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic Management Journal 18 (1), 77–83.
Murad Mithani is an Assistant Professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology. He received his PhD in management from the Rensselaer Polytechnic In-
stitute. His research focuses on organizational politics, strategic change and corporate social responsibility.
Murad has received several awards including the best dissertation based paper from the OMT division of the Academy of Management, best strategy re-
search paper from the Southern Management Association, best research project from the Smart Lighting Competition, and funding from the National Science
Foundation for investigation into the competitive dynamics of the Liquid Crystal Display industry.
j.lrp.2016.08.002

CSR

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CSR

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Long Range Planning ■■ (2016) ■■–■■

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Long Range Planning

Innovation and CSR — Do They Go Well Together?

R&D, social responsibility and ﬁrm performance

Weak complementarity and the convergence on preference ordering

Strong complementarity and the divergence on attention

Data and methods

Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Superior proﬁts 0.01 4.92

N = 48,532; Correlations > |0.02| are signiﬁcant at p < 0.001.

Superior proﬁtst−1 X R&D 2.38* 2.33* 2.29* 2.46*

Discussion and conclusion

Superior proﬁtst−1 X R&D 2.38* 2.33+ 2.29+ 2.46*

Вам также может понравиться