Investigating the role of Strategic Corporate Social ......in the adoption of sustainability...
Transcript of Investigating the role of Strategic Corporate Social ......in the adoption of sustainability...
Investigating the role of Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
in the adoption of sustainability oriented innovation
Nicolas Poussing
LISER – CREM
3, Avenue de la Fonte
4364 Esch-sur-Alzette
Luxembourg
Abstract
This contribution explores the role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) on the
adoption on Sustainability Oriented Innovation. To analyse this relationship we adopt
an empirical approach. We use a survey carried on in Luxembourg in 2008 on firms’
CSR practices jointly with the Community Innovation Survey 2010. With a
dichotomous model (logit), we estimate the effect of different CSR strategies. We
contribute to the literature by taking into account two types of CSR strategies:
strategic CSR versus responsive CSR. The results shown that CSR has a positive
impact on the adoption of Sustainability Oriented Innovation.
Keywords: Strategic CSR, Sustainability oriented innovation, empirical approach,
Community Innovation Survey.
1. Introduction
In the global warming context, an increasing number of firms are taking into account
their impacts on the environment (Porter and Reinhardt, 2007) and numerous
academic papers focus on environmental innovation like the contribution of Rennings
(2000). Over the past decade, environmental issue remains an important subject but
is more often associated with social concerns. The concept of sustainable
development has emerged (Faucheux et al., 2010) and sustainable innovations and
sustainability oriented innovation become major subjects in the literature (Ketata et
al., 2014). A literature review shows that many articles focus on firms’ environmental
practices while sustainable innovation is more challenging than other types of
innovation activities by introducing different layers of complexity (Hall and
Vredenburg, 2003). In particular, a little attention is given to what drives firms to
adopt sustainable innovation (Gilley et al., 2000; Paramanathan et al., 2004).
Because more and more firms declare to adopt Corporate Social Responsibility, in
other words, integrate social and environmental concerns to their business
operations and their interactions with stakeholder on a voluntary basis (Commission
of the European Communities, 2001), we hypothesise that Corporate Social
Responsibility could be a driver of sustainable innovation or sustainability oriented
innovation. In order to test this hypothesise, we are going to take into account two
types of CSR policies in accordance with Porter and Kramer (2006): strategic CSR
versus responsive CSR. We hypothesise that a higher level of maturity of CSR policy
(strategic CSR) drives organisations to adopt sustainable innovation. The question
that arises is: Does Corporate Social Responsibility drive Sustainability innovation
and do different CSR strategies have the same effect on the adoption of sustainable
innovation?
The main objective of this paper is to contribute to this literature by investigating the
drivers of sustainable innovation, in particular sustainability oriented innovation. The
value added of this contribution is threefold. We will investigate the role of strategic
CSR. We will provide empirical evidence from a sample of more than 280 firms and
we will be able to provide managerial and policy implications in that it finds under
which conditions a firm addresses sustainable issue through innovation. This paper
is structured as follows. The concepts used, such sustainable terms and strategic
Corporate Social Responsibility, and the corresponding hypothesis will be described
in section 2. An overview of the empirical strategy will be presented in section 3
(data, variables, method). Section 4 will summarise the findings. Section 5 concludes
by presenting the policy implications, the limitations, and the future prospects.
2. Concepts and hypothesis
In recent years, the importance of sustainable development stimulates research and
many terms emerge in this field. A review made by Glavič and Lukman (2007)
provides definitions of different concepts which include the words ‘sustainable’ or
‘sustainability’ (sustainable production, sustainable consumption, sustainable policy,
sustainable development, sustainability policy). Glavič and Lukman (2007) notice
that all these concepts refer to environmental protection, societal welfare and
economic performance. The definition of sustainable development illustrates this
fact. The Bruntland’s commission defines Sustainable development as “development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987).
Simultaneously, the importance of innovation in the corporate commitment to
sustainable development is uncovered (Hart and Milstein, 2003; Hockert and
Morsing, 2008) and an increasing body of research address social innovation, eco-
innovation, sustainable innovation and sustainability oriented innovation.
Social innovations are “Innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal
of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through
organizations whose primary purposes are social” (Mulgan, 2007). For OECD1, social
1 http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Forum-Social-Innovations.htm
innovation "can concern conceptual, process or product change, organisational
change and changes in financing, and can deal with new relationships with
stakeholders and territories”. Social innovation seeks new answers to social
problems by: identifying and delivering new services that improve the quality of life of
individuals and communities; identifying and implementing new labour market
integration processes, new competencies, new jobs, and new forms of participation,
as diverse elements that each contribute to improving the position of individuals in
the workforce (OECD, 2011).
Eco-innovation is related to environmental issue and is associated to the resolution
of environmental deterioration and degradation (Aghion et al., 2013; Veugelers,
2012; Ghisetti and Quatraro, 2014). For Schiederig et al. (2012), the concepts of
green innovation, ecological innovation and environmental innovation are quite
similar. Eco-innovation consist in the “production, assimilation or exploitation of
product, production process, service or management or business methods that is
novel to the organization (developing or adopting it) and which results, throughout its
life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and other negative impacts of
resources use (including energy use) compared to relevant alternatives” (Kemp and
Foxon, 2007). The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) which addresses eco-
innovation in 2008 adopts the same definition and specifies that “the environmental
benefits of an innovation can occur during the production of a good or service, or
during the after sales use of a good or service by the end user”2.
With sustainability innovation, we don’t consider one specific dimension. Social and
environmental issues are addressed simultaneously. Sustainable innovation is
broader than environmental innovation because sustainable innovation concept
includes a social dimension. To date, various definitions are available. McElroy
(2004) proposes three different definitions: “sustainability of innovation artifacts
relative to meeting financial or business goals… sustainability of innovation artifacts
relative to meeting social and/or environmental goals… and sustainability of
innovation processes relative to the validity of their outcomes and their internal
authenticity”. Knot (2003) focuses on the ability to support financial success or
business growth over a period of time. It is generally accepted that sustainability
innovation is related to innovations which contribute to the triple bottom line concept:
economic, ecological and social benefits (Yoon and Tello, 2009; Wheeler and
Elkington 2001). To resume, sustainability innovation refers to the definition of
innovation gives by Roger (1995) - “an idea, practice or object that is perceived as
new to an individual or another unit of adoption” - and the definition of sustainable
development. Sustainable innovation takes into account both the ecological and the
social dimension of innovation activities (Ketata at al., 2015).
2 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/203647/203701/CIS_Survey_form_2008.pdf/e06a4c11-
7535-4003-8e00-143228e1b308
In line with the concept of sustainable innovation, a growing body of literature in the
field of sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) emerges. Hansen and Goße-Dunker,
(2012) underline that, in comparison with sustainable innovation, SOI consider the
risk associate with the social and environmental dimensions (Paech et al., 2007). For
Hansen et al. (2009), the market success and non-economic sustainability of SOI are
uncertain. To illustrate this argument, Hansen et al. (2009) mentioned the research
of Kölsch and Saling (2008) and Rennings and Zwick (2002) relative to the negative
societal impacts of bio-fuel. With SOI, sustainability is a direction; a goal of the firm
linked to a risk (Wagner and Llerena, 2008). “The concept of SOI expresses only an
individual declaration of intent. A priori, the direction of the actual effects of an
innovation to sustainable development is unknown” (Hansen et al., 2009, p. 687).
If technology-push and a market-pull models explain the adoption of technological
innovation, these models could be inappropriate to identify the determinant of
sustainable innovation, in particular because innovations which take into account
environmental concerns differ fundamentally from other types of innovation (Kemp
and Soete, 1992). To promote environmental practices, taxes, regulation and
incentives remain three important determinants (Acemogulu et al. 2012; Aghion et al.
2009, Veugelers 2012). In addition to these external factors, Demirel and Kesidou
(2011) find a positive influence of internal firms’ behaviours which are voluntary
implemented. As a consequence, in our point of view, Corporate Social
Responsibility, assimilated by Antonioli and Mazzanti (2009) to voluntary measures,
becomes a major determinant of the adoption of innovation when innovations pursue
an environmental objective.
This hypothesis is strongly supported by a significant body of literature which
analyzes the relation between CSR and innovation and try to better understand why,
as mentioned by the European Commission (2011), CSR drives innovation. Most of
these studies show a positive effect of CSR on innovation. Mcwilliams and Siegel
(2001) underlined the fact that CSR generates technological innovation. Nidumolu et
al. (2009) consider CSR as a one of the key drivers of innovation. For Bocquet et al.
(2013), CSR strategies lead to technological innovation. For Hart (1995), Jaffe and
Palmer (1997), Surroca et al. (2010) and Renning and Rammer (2011), the
implementation of environmental practices in the CSR context has an effect on
innovation. Moreover, Poussing and Le Bas (2013) and Bohas et al. (2014) shown
that Corporate Social Responsibility has a positive impact on business practices in
favour of the environment. Poussing and Le Bas (2013) adopt an empirical approach
with micro-data at the firms level to shown that CSR plays a positive role in the
adoption of environmental innovation. In the same vein, the work by Bohas et al.
(2014) underline the positive impact of CSR on the adoption of green IT.
Because in essence environmental practices are a part of Sustainable Innovation or
sustainability oriented innovation, CSR could be a determinant of this kind of
innovation. This effect should be reinforcing by the fact that social issues concern
both CSR and sustainable Innovation (sustainable Innovation or sustainability
oriented innovation). In line with this framework, we could formulate a first
proposition:
Proposition 1: CSR has a positive impact on the adoption of sustainability oriented
innovation by firms.
CSR can take many forms (Brammer et al., 2007). CSR practices are related the
social, environmental and economic dimensions, so called the triple bottom line
principle (Elkington, 1997). CSR is not characterized by a single activity, but by a set
of very different activities (Lindgreen et al., 2008). CSR activities could be described
along a continuum of actions between do nothing to do much (Carroll, 1979). In
consequence, CSR is measured in different ways (Wolfe and Aupperle, 1991). Some
measures come from firms’ publication, other measures from case studies, survey,
reputation indices or perceptional scales (Waddock and Graves, 1997). The
conceptualization of Carroll (1979) includes four dimensions: economic
responsibilities, legal responsibilities, ethical responsibilities and discretionary
responsibilities. Economic responsibilities are related to the obligation for businesses
to make profit and produce services and goods. Legal responsibilities refer to the
respect of the law. Ethical responsibilities expects that organizations adopt moral
rules. Discretionary responsibilities refer to voluntary and charitable activities. For
each of the dimensions of Carroll’s conception, Maignan and Ferrell (2000) develop
measures. They also elaborate a typology of measure in three categories: expert
evaluations, single- and multiple-issue indicators, and surveys of managers
(Maignan and Ferrell, 2000). Other researchers proposed to distinguish two types of
CSR practices: environmental practices and social practices (Baden et al., 2009;
Fernando, 2010). It is also possible to investigate the reason why firms deploy CSR
practices. In line with this point of view, Sethi (1979) propose a typology in four
categories: reactive, defensive, responsive, and proactive. Other researches
distinguish only two types of CSR initiative: proactive vs reactive (Groza et al., 2011;
Du el al., 2007). Reactive strategy permits to protect the image after irresponsible
actions occur. Proactive CSR consist in deploying CSR practices to prevent
irresponsible actions. In most cases, the effects of CSR are not clear cut because
the effect depends on which CSR practices are taking into account (Lankoski, 2009).
When Brammer and Milligton (2008) or Barcos et al. (2013) analyse the link between
CSR and firm performance, they show that some CSR practices have a positive
impact on firm performance while other are not.
In recent years, growing literature considers CSR as value-driven (Porter and
Kramer, 2006; Vilanova et al., 2009). Some authors distinguish two kinds of CSR:
CSR driven by pure altruism versus strategic CSR which is profitable (Lyon and
Maxwell, 2008; Baron, 2001). For Porter and Kramer (2006), CSR creates a
competitive advantage when firms integrate CSR into their strategic visions. Porter
and Kramer (2006) distinguish strategic CSR, which is part of the business strategy
and ties in with the highest level of commitment, to responsive CSR which is a
limited level of commitment in the firms. Burke and Logsdon (1996, 497) propose
differentiating strategic CSR from responsive CSR through five strategy dimensions:
(1) centrality (the ‘closeness of fit to the firm’s mission and objectives’); (2) proactivity
(the ‘degree to which the programme is planned in anticipation of emerging social
trends and in the absence of crisis’); (3) voluntarism (‘the scope for discretionary
decision-making and the lack of externally imposed compliance requirements’); (4)
visibility (‘observable, recognizable credit by internal and/or external stakeholders for
the firm’); (5) specificity (the ‘ability to capture private benefits by the firm’)3.
Because strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and sustainability oriented
innovation contribute to the improvement of firms’ performance (Porter and Kramer,
2006; Maletič et al., 2015), we could hypothesis that the firms are going to implement
both. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and sustainability oriented innovation
are positively linked. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility which is a more
general strategy could be a driver of sustainable oriented innovation. According to
these considerations we could improve our first proposition by formulating a more
detailed one:
To the best of our knowledge, no previous research investigates the role of Strategic
Corporate Social Responsibility in the adoption of sustainable oriented innovation.
To complete the strategic CSR framework, we could improve our first proposition by
formulating a more detailed one:
Proposition 2: strategic CSR has a positive impact on the adoption of sustainability
oriented innovation.
3. Empirical strategy
3.1. The data
To assess the effect of strategic CSR on the adoption of sustainability oriented
innovation, we used two Luxembourgish data sets. The first data set comes from a
survey of CSR practices by firms. The second data set comes from the Community
Innovation Survey (CIS 2010) which is a commonly used data source for measuring
private sector innovations (Veugelers, 2012).
The CSR survey was conducted by Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic
Research (LISER)4 in 2008. This survey included firms, with 10 employees and
more, belonging to all economic sectors. This survey gives details about the CSR
activities of firms in 2008. Among a population of 3.296 firms, we built a sample of
3 Husted and Allen (2007) propose measures for each dimension of Burke and Logsdon’s conceptual
framework (1996). 4 Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research, formerly CEPS/INSTEAD, http://www.liser.lu
2.511 firms. With a questionnaire in French, German and English, we obtain 1.114
responses. The survey provides details about CSR activities of the firms; in particular
on the implementation of their CSR activities: the existence of a CSR department,
allocation of a CSR budget, definition of measurable objectives, creation of a
reporting system, training of the staff, etc5.
The Community Innovation Survey was conducted by LISER in 2012, on behalf of
STATEC (the National Statistics Institute of Luxembourg) with financial support from
the European Commission (EUROSTAT). The target population of the CIS 2010 is
the total population of enterprises, with 10 employees or more, in NACE Rev. 2
(these sections include most market activities). From a sample of 958 firms, we
obtain 652 responses with face-to-face interviews. Many of the CIS questions have
been used in prior versions of the survey6. The survey describes firms’ innovation
behaviour in terms of product, process or organizational innovation for the period
2008-2010. In CIS 2010 a specific part of the survey is dedicated to innovation
objectives. The ten questions introduced in this specific part of the questionnaire
allow us to know if the firms implement sustainability or non sustainability oriented
innovation.
These two surveys followed exactly the same methodology for the sampling process:
a stratified random sample of firms from the national database of companies located
in Luxembourg, available from STATEC. In consequence, using the identification
number for the firms, we merge the two data sets and solve an important limitation of
the CIS data: the impossibility to assess path dependency (CSR survey gives a
description of the CSR practices in 2008 and CIS covers the period 2008-2010).
Our final dataset contain 286 firms. To obtain representative results of the studied
population, we use a weighting system based on the sampling probability and the
rate of response.
In our sample, the proportion of large firms (with 250 employees and more)
represents 4.0% of the sample. The proportion of industrial firms is 12.3%. Around
one firm in four (27.0%) adopts CSR practices. Concerning innovation practices,
44.6% of firms implement a product innovation; 39.1% a process innovation and
55.8% implement an organizational innovation.
5 Appendix 1 provides the questionnaire items of the CSR survey used in our paper.
6 The harmonized survey questionnaire is available (Last access: July 2015) at:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/203647/203701/CIS_Survey_form_2010.pdf/b9f2c70e-0c46-
4f82-abeb-c7661f1f2166
3.2. Sustainability oriented innovation variables
In our database, a question concern the importance gives by the firms for ten
different objectives for their activities to develop product or process innovations
during the three years 2008 to 2010. Among these objectives, sustainability oriented
innovations are captured by three items: two of them are relative to environmental
issue: Reduce material and energy costs per unit output (ENERGY), Reduce
environmental impacts (IMPACT) and one concern social issue: Improve health or
safety of your employees (HEALTH). The other objectives are more market oriented
innovation: Increase range of goods or services (LARGE), Replace outdated
products or processes (REPLACE), Enter new markets or increase market share
(MARKET), Improve quality of goods or services (QUALITY), Improve flexibility for
producing goods or services (FLEXIBILITY), Increase capacity for producing goods
or services (CAPACITY), Reduce labour costs per unit output (COST).
The analysis of the importance given to each objective (high or medium importance)
shows that the proportion of innovative firms is greater for non sustainability oriented
innovations than for sustainability oriented innovations (cf. Figure 1). Approximately
one quarter of firms innovate and consider important the objective to improve health
or safety of your employees (26.6%) or to reduce environmental impacts (25.5%).
Adopt an innovation with the objective to reduce material and energy costs per unit
output are considered important for 20.6% firms.
Figure 1: Objectives linked to product or process innovations during the three years
2008 to 2010 (% of firms)
50,7
44,741,6
36,732,5
29,026,6 25,5
20,6
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
We notice that 56.0% of innovative firms follow more than one objective at the same
time. They follow more frequently (9.4%) six objectives.
It is important to see (cf. Table 1) that the firms never follow only sustainable
objectives: Sustainable objectives or sustainability oriented innovation are always
associated with non sustainability oriented innovation (32.9%). At the opposite,
24.1% follow only non sustainability oriented innovation.
Table 1. Distribution of enterprises by type of innovation’s objectives (number,
percentage in brackets)
Follow sustainability oriented innovation TOTAL
NO YES
Follow non sustainability
oriented innovation
NO 123
(43.0)
0
(0.0)
123
(43.0)
YES 69
(24.1)
94
(32.9)
163
(57.0)
TOTAL 192
(67.1)
94
(32.9)
286
(100.0)
Source: Community Innovation Survey 2010 and CSR 2008 survey (Luxembourg)
At this stage of our analysis, it seems relevant to analyse the probability to pursue
only non sustainability oriented innovation (NO_SUSTAIN) and to analyse the
probability to pursue both non sustainability oriented innovation and sustainability
oriented innovation (SUSTAIN_NO_SUSTAIN).
3.3. CSR variables
Strategic and responsive CSR (Porter and Kramer, 2006) are our main independent
variables. To identify these two types of CSR, we use the method of Bocquet et al.
(2013).
With a cluster analysis, they differentiate firms according to their CSR policy
(strategic versus responsive). They use questions, available in the CSR survey,
about the implementation of CSR policies according to the five strategy dimensions
mentioned by Burke and Logsdon (1996). The first dimension, ‘centrality’, is taking
into account with two items: a document exists that describes the firm’s values and
whether the firm communicates about its CSR commitment on the Web or in a
report. For the second dimension, ‘proactivity’, Bocquet et al. (2013) examine the
existence of a CSR action plan and the existence of an agenda. One item measure
‘Voluntarism’: the identification by the firm of its stakeholders. ‘Visibility’ is captured
through the existence of a communication plan. Three items linked to value creation
for the firm measure ‘Specificity’: the capacity to attract clients, the capacity to
improve the firm’s image and the level of differentiation from the competition.
With the items presented above, Bocquet et al. (2013) conduct a principal
component analysis (PCA). The PCA identifies the uncorrelated factors which best
summarise the information contained in the theoretical dimensions. Next, a non-
hierarchical cluster analysis determines the final number of clusters.
Among our population of 286 firms, 8.7% adopt a strategic CSR policy
(STRATEGIC), whereas 24.8% have a responsive one (RESPONSIVE). We find that
the proportion of sustainability oriented innovation firms is higher among firms with a
strategic CSR policy (see Table 2): indeed, 40.0% of firms with strategic CSR have
adopted sustainability oriented innovation compared with 26.8% of firms with
responsive CSR7. A large proportion (65.8%) of firms without CSR policy doesn’t
adopt sustainability oriented innovation.
Table 2. Firms CSR and sustainability oriented innovation (number, percentage in
brackets)
Firms without
a CSR policy
Firms with a CSR policy Total
Strategic CSR Responsive CSR
Firms without
sustainability oriented
innovation
125
(65.8)
15
(60.0)
52
(73.2)
192
(67.1)
Firms with sustainability
oriented innovation
65
(34.2)
10
(40.0)
19
(26.8)
94
(32.9)
Total 190
(100.0)
25
(100.0)
71
(100.0)
286
(100.0)
Source: Community Innovation Survey 2010 and CSR 2008 survey (Luxembourg)
3.4. Other control variables
Due to the small number of observations in our final sample, we are unable to
introduce all the independent variables took into account in prior empirical research
like Nguyen Van et al. (2004); Tidd et al. (2005), Wagner and Schaltegger (2004) or
Ziegler and Rennings (2004). To identify the main factors we are going to include as
control variables in our empirical model, we referred to the evolutionary framework.
More specifically, because firm capabilities play a major role in innovative
performance (Teece and Pisano, 1994), we capture it by taking into account the
presence of employees with a higher education degree (dummy variable EMPHI).
The speed in which products and services become old-fashioned (dummy variable
PRODPER) measures technological opportunities which is another important
innovation driver (Dosi, 1997).
To take into account the effect of competitive intensity on firm innovation, we
included in our model a dummy variable (MARCONC), which takes the value 1 when
7 We obtain similar results with the weighted population.
the competition of the market in which the firm is operating in is very intense, and
otherwise a value of 0.
As usual in previous research, the size, the sector of activity and belonging to group
are taking into account. We follow the Commission Regulation N°1450/2004 of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the production and development
of Community statistics on innovation to introduce the size of the firms with three
dummy variables: SMALL, from 10 to 49 employees; MEDIUM, from 50 to 249
employees; and LARGE, more than 249 employees. According to Wagner (2010),
the innovation performance of the firms is linked to their size. Because the resources
of large firms are bigger then small firms, the latter are less innovative, except in
high-technology sectors (Cohen, 1995). With the dummy variable INDUS, we
distinguish two sectors of activities: industry versus services (Gallego-Alvarez et al.,
2011; Husted and Allen, 2007). We introduce the dummy variable GROUP that
indicates whether the firm belongs to a group because Mairesse and Mohnen (2010)
show that belonging to a group has an effect on the expenditures of RD.
We also take into account three independent variables to assess the impact of the
implementation of different type of innovation on the probability to follow
sustainability oriented innovation. The dummy variable PRODUCT is equal to 1
when the firm implements a product innovation; PROCESS is equal to 1 when the
firm implements a process innovation and ORGA is equal to 1 when the firm
implements an organizational innovation.
Appendix 2 lists descriptive statistics regarding the set of variables introduced into
our econometric analysis.
3.5. Method
In order to analyse the effect of strategic CSR on the adoption of sustainability
oriented innovation, we adopt multivariate models. Because our dependent variable
is binary (e.g. equal 1 if the firm adopted non sustainability oriented innovation and 0
if not), dichotomous models, such as logit and probit, are appropriate. Appeared in
the 1920s (Thurstone, 1927), more generally used since the work on innovation
diffusion by Davies (1979), they are currently very widespread (Hoetker, 2007).
Considering that the probit and logit models give similar results (Davidson and
MacKinnon, 1984; Morimune, 1979) we perform logit model. In this model, the
decision to adopt sustainability oriented innovation or not is defined by yi, where yi =
1 when the company adopted this practice and yi = 0 when it did not. The probability
of adoption of sustainability oriented innovation is conditional upon a series of
exogenous variables:
Prob(yi = 1) = F(β’xi) (1)
where F( ) indicates a cumulative distribution function, xi the explanatory variables
and β the vector of the parameters to be estimated.
4. Results and findings
With our estimations, we would like to know if strategic CSR conduct to adopt
sustainability oriented innovation. To test this idea, we build up two logit models.
Each model considers different innovative practices. In the first model (Model 1) we
analyze the probability for a firm to adopt only innovation without any sustainable
objective. Model 2 focuses on the probability for a firm to adopt innovation with both
sustainability objectives and non sustainability objectives. In each model, we
introduce the same independent variables.
The estimation results are set out in Table 3. To take into account the goodness of fit
of the models, we calculated the percentage of concordance and the Cox and Snell
pseudo R square. The results are rather similar and suggest that the models appear
to fit the data quite well.
Table 3. The determinants of sustainability oriented innovation (Logit model)
MODEL 1 MODEL 2
NO_SUSTAIN SUSTAIN_NO_SUSTAIN
Coefficient,
Standard error in
parentheses.
Odds ratio
Estimates
Coefficient,
Standard error in
parentheses.
Odds ratio
Estimates
CSR_STRA -1.2372***
(0.2833)
0.290 0.54948***
(0.1767)
1.732
CSR_RESPONS 0.0502
(0.1502)
1.052 -0.1582
(0.14884)
0.854
NO_CSR REF. / REF. /
PRODUCT 1.5949***
(0.1221)
4.928 1.8007***
(0.1098)
6.054
PROCESS 0.2021
(0.1247)
1.224 1.8220***
(0.1134)
6.184
ORGA -0.4604***
(0.1208)
0.631 0.5099***
(0.1166)
1.665
EMPHI 1.0314***
(0.1975)
2.805 -0.1333
(0.1582)
0.875
MARCONC 0.5311***
(0.1255)
1.701 -0.2588**
(0.1198)
0.772
PRODPER -0.3837*
(0.1988)
0.681 -0.2193
(0.2114)
0.803
SMALL -0.8060***
(0.1171)
0.447 0.3964***
(0.1117)
1.486
MEDIUM REF. / REF. /
MODEL 1 MODEL 2
NO_SUSTAIN SUSTAIN_NO_SUSTAIN
Coefficient,
Standard error in
parentheses.
Odds ratio
Estimates
Coefficient,
Standard error in
parentheses.
Odds ratio
Estimates
LARGE -0.8050***
(0.2946)
0.447 -0.1800
(0.2977)
0.835
INDUS 0.5698***
(0.1633)
1.768 -0.2985*
(0.1616)
0.742
GROUP 0.0337
(0.1293)
1.034 -0.0287
(0.1252)
0.972
Intercept -2.6964***
(0.2110)
/ -2.4714***
(0.1706)
/
Nb. of Obs. 286 286
-2 Log L 2322.250 2483.423
% Concordant 76.8 84.9
R Square 0.8264 0.9763
* Coef. significant at the threshold of 10%, ** 5%, *** 1%.
Source: Community Innovation Survey 2010 and CSR Survey (Luxembourg)
Regarding the effect of CSR strategy, the estimations give crucial results. The
coefficients estimated from Model 1 tell us that adopt strategic CSR has a negative
impact on the probability to be an innovative firm which follow only non sustainability
objectives. When the firms introduce sustainability objectives in their innovative
practices, the results from Model 2 show that strategic CSR has a positive effect on
the probability to implement this kind of innovation. We could appreciate the effect of
strategic CSR with the odds ratios; which is the ratio of the expected number of time
that an event will occur to the expected number of times it will not occur (Allison,
1999). In Model 1, the odds ratio of 0.290 tells us that the predicted odds to innovate
without any sustainability objectives for firms with strategic CSR are 0.29 times the
odds for non strategic CSR firms. In other words, the odds ratio to innovative without
any sustainability objectives for CSR strategic firms are 71% less than the odds for
non strategic CSR firms. In Model 2, the odds ratio of 1.732 tells us that the odds
ratio to innovative with sustainability objectives for CSR strategic firms are 73%
higher than the odds for non strategic CSR firms. These results underline the
positive effect of strategic CSR on the adoption of sustainability oriented innovation.
Our findings show that responsive CSR has no impact on both the probability to
innovate with sustainability objectives and the probability to innovate without
sustainability objectives.
With regard to the impact of innovation behavior of firms, the two models indicate
that the firms which innovate in product have a higher probability to innovate with
sustainable objectives (odds ratio = 6.054) than to only innovate without any
sustainability objectives (odds ratio =4.928). The effect is more settled when the firm
is a process innovator or an organizational innovator. We observe that a process
innovator has a higher probability to adopt sustainability oriented innovation and no
impact on the probability to adopt innovation without any sustainable objective.
Organizational innovator has a negative effect on the probability to innovate without
any sustainable objective on the one hand and on the other has significant and
positive effect on the implementation of sustainability oriented innovation.
In most cases, the signs of coefficients related to control variables clearly show
opposite effects, or at least different effects, when innovative firms follow sustainable
objectives or not.
Amazingly, the variable measuring firm technological capacity (EMPHI) has a
positive impact on the probability of undertaking innovation without sustainable
objectives and has no significant effect on the probability to adopt sustainability
oriented innovation.
The sign of coefficients of MARCONC is different in MODEL 1 and MODEL 2,
meaning that operate in a market where the competition is very intense increase the
propensity to adopt innovation without any sustainable objectives and impact
negatively the propensity to adopt both innovation without any sustainable objectives
and sustainability oriented innovation. The coefficient related to the speed in which
products and services become old-fashioned (PRODPER) is not significant in
MODEL 2 and significant at the threshold of 10% in Model 1. We could consider that
this feature has no effect on the adoption of innovation adoption whatever the
innovation’s objectives followed.
With respect to size impacts, in comparison with the medium firms, the coefficient of
the variable SMALL is negative in the MODEL 1 and positive in the MODEL 2. The
small firms have a lower propensity to adopt innovation without sustainable
objectives but they have a larger propensity to adopt sustainability oriented
innovation. As a consequence, the small firms appear to be more sustainable
friendly. Concerning large firms, we find a negative effect on the probability to
innovate without any sustainable innovation but no effect on the adoption of
sustainability oriented innovation. We cannot show evidence that large firms are
more sustainable friendly.
The variable INDUS has a significant positive coefficient in MODEL 1 and a negative
and weakly significant coefficient in MODEL 2 meaning that industrial firms have a
larger probability to implement innovation without sustainable objectives. Belonging
to a group (GROUP) does not improve its probability
To sum up, the decision to adopt sustainability oriented innovation is meanly driven
by small technological innovative firms which operate in a market where the
competition is not very intense and have implemented strategic CSR.
5. Conclusions
To the best of our knowledge, no previous research investigates the role of Strategic
Corporate Social Responsibility in the adoption of sustainable oriented innovation.
Our contribution tries to fill this gap and complete the strategic CSR framework. With
an empirical approach based on two survey carried on in Luxembourg, we show that
strategic CSR is a determinant of Sustainability Oriented Innovation.
Our results have implications in terms of public policy. We suggest that motivated
firms to implement strategic CSR may contribute to increase the adoption of
sustainable objectives through technological innovations
The limitations of our research are summarized as follows. As we said in the
methodological section, our sample is quite small in consequence we are unable to
introduce all the independent variables took into account in prior empirical research.
In addition, our analysis is limited to one country. A comparative analysis should be
conducted. A comparison with French data could be the solution (the National
Institute of Statistic INSEE collected CSR8 and CIS data). In addition further must
take into account other divers of sustainable innovation (taxes, complying regulation,
incentives to invest in green projects) because the drivers of sustainable innovation
are interactive (Dinda, 2004).
8 http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/sources/pdf/questionnaire_unite_EnDD.pdf
Appendix 1: Questionnaire items from the Corporate Social Responsibility Survey
used in the econometric model
Is your company active in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)?
Yes No, but it is scheduled No
within less than 2 years End of
End of questionnaire questionnaire
Glossary: corporate social responsibility is the voluntary integration of companies' social and
ecological considerations into their business operations and relations with their stakeholders.
Being socially responsible means not only fully meeting the legal obligations applicable, but
going still further, and investing "even more" in the human capital, the environment and
relations with stakeholders (employees, customers, suppliers, non-governmental
organisations, local authorities and shareholders).
Where is your CSR policy described? (several replies possible)
In your activity report
In a report dedicated to CSR
On your Web site
Nowhere
Other (give details): ______________________________
Do you have a document describing the values and priority concerns and/or
motivations of your company in social and environmental terms?
Yes No
Have you identified the stakeholders targeted by your CSR policy?
Yes No
Before initiating your CSR policy, did you enter into contact with your stakeholders?
Yes No
What are the three main effects you wish to achieve with your CSR policy?
Attracting new employees |__|
Attracting investors |__|
Attracting new customers |__|
Improving the company's image |__|
Standing out from the competition |__|
Anticipating changes in legislation |__|
Reducing your costs |__|
Satisfying your stakeholders |__|
Reducing your impact on the environment |__|
Increasing the well-being of your employees |__|
Other (give details): _______________________________
Before initiating your CSR policy, did you:
(several replies possible) Yes No
Make a list of the actions already carried out within your company □ □
Make a list of the actions that could be envisaged within your company □ □
Study the actions carried out by other companies □ □
Collect information from specialised bodies □ □
Collect information from the public authorities □ □
Find out about existing CSR standards and labels □ □
Assess the costs of implementing CSR □ □
Have you drawn up a schedule for the CSR actions you wish to carry out?
Yes No
Have you drawn up any communication plans on your CSR commitments?
In-house Yes No
External Yes No
Appendix 2. Description and summary statistics of the variables
Variables Definition Means
(standard
deviation)
NO_SUSTAIN Firms with only non sustainability oriented innovation 0.2412
(0.4285)
SUSTAIN_NO_SUSTAIN Firms with both sustainability and non sustainability
oriented innovation
0.3286
(0.4705)
CSR_STRA Firms with a strategic CSR profile 0.0874
(0.2829)
CSR_RESPONS Firms with a responsive CSR profile 0.2482
(0.4327)
NO_CSR Firms don’t adopt CSR 0.6643
(0.4730)
PRODUCT Firm implements a product innovation that is a new or
significantly improved product (good or service)
0.4545
(0.4988)
PROCESS Firm implements a process innovation that is a new or
significantly improved process, organizational method or
marketing method
0.3671
(0.4828)
ORGA Firm implements an organizational method that is a new
organizational method in their enterprise’s business
practices (including knowledge management), workplace
organization or external relations that has not been
previously used by your enterprise
0.5734
(0.4954)
MARCONC The competition of the market in which the firm is
operating in is very intense
0.4160
(0.4937)
PRODPER Products and services become rapidly old-fashioned 0.0804
(0.2724)
EMPHI The firm has employees with higher education (who have
either completed a master’s degree in a graduate school,
or a university degree, or who hold a doctorate / PHD
degree)
0.8496
(0.3580)
SMALL Total number of employees is between 10 and 49 0.3496
(0.4776)
MEDIUM Total number of employees is between 50 and 249 0.3951
(0.4897)
LARGE Total number of employees is more than 249 0.2552
(0.4367)
INDUS Belongs to the manufacturing sector 0.4755
(0.5002)
GROUP Firm is part of a group 0.5349
(0.4996)
Note: All variables are dummies and related to the period 2008–2010 (except CSR variables related
to 2008). The main independent variables are in bold
Appendix 3. Correlation matrix
Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 286
Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0
NO_SUSTAIN SUSTAIN_NO_SUSTAIN CSR_STRA CSR_RESPONS NO_CSR
NO_SUSTAIN 100.000 -0.39456 -0.05878 -0.05920 0.08931
<.0001 0.3219 0.3184 0.1319
SUSTAIN_NO_SUSTAIN 100.000 0.04700 -0.07471 0.04023
0.4285 0.2078 0.4980
CSR_STRA 100.000 -0.17785 -0.43540
0.0025 <.0001
CSR_RESPONS 100.000 -0.80845
<.0001
NO_CSR 100.000
Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 286
Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0
PRODUCT PROCESS ORGA PRODPER EMPHI MARCONC
NO_SUSTAIN 0.42076 0.13000 0.13935 0.01355 0.14575 0.17061
<.0001 0.0279 0.0184 0.8195 0.0136 0.0038
SUSTAIN_NO_SUSTAIN 0.40771 0.53260 0.25733 0.03943 0.08607 -0.00169
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.5066 0.1465 0.9773
CSR_STRA -0.03390 -0.00458 -0.00840 -0.09152 -0.00836 -0.01010
0.5680 0.9385 0.8875 0.1225 0.8881 0.8650
CSR_RESPONS -0.03694 -0.05149 -0.01167 0.00864 -0.03001 -0.14026
0.5338 0.3857 0.8442 0.8844 0.6133 0.0176
NO_CSR 0.05407 0.04984 0.01570 0.04684 0.03245 0.13436
0.3622 0.4011 0.7914 0.4301 0.5847 0.0231
PRODUCT 100.000 0.33904 0.30461 0.11737 0.20719 0.18391
<.0001 <.0001 0.0474 0.0004 0.0018
PROCESS 100.000 0.33426 -0.06519 0.11744 0.12231
<.0001 0.2718 0.0472 0.0387
ORGA 100.000 0.04709 0.17124 -0.00341
0.4276 0.0037 0.9542
PRODPER 100.000 0.01648 0.03730
0.7814 0.5298
EMPHI 100.000 0.13678
0.0207
MARCONC 100.000
Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 286
Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE INDUS GROUP
SMALL 100.000 -0.59260 -0.42925 -0.00811 0.02210
<.0001 <.0001 0.8914 0.7097
MEDIUM 100.000 -0.47314 -0.16805 0.02221
<.0001 0.0044 0.7084
LARGE 100.000 0.19730 -0.04908
0.0008 0.4083
INDUS 100.000 -0.02464
0.6782
GROUP 100.000
References
Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D. (2012), “The Environment and
Directed Technological Change”, American Economic Review, vol. 102, n°1, pp.
131-166.
Aghion, P., Dechezleprêtre, A., Hemous, D., Martin, R. and Van Reenen J. (2013)
Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: Evidence from the
auto industry. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Papers.
Aghion P., Hemous, Veugelers R. (2009), No green growth without innovation,
Bruegel Policy Brief, 2009/07, Bruegel, Brussels.
Allison P.D. (1999), “Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and
application”, Cary, NC: SAS institute Inc., 304 p.
Antonioli D., Mazzanti M. (2009), "Techno-organisational strategies, environmental
innovations and economic performances. Micro-evidence from an SME-based
industrial district", Journal of Innovation Economics, vol. 3, n°1, pp. 145-168.
Barcos L., Barroso A.,Surroca J.,Tribo J. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility and
inventory policy”, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 143, pp. 580–
588.
Baron D.P. (2001), “Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated
strategy”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, vol. 10, pp. 7-45.
Bocquet R., Le Bas C., Mothe C., Poussing N. (2013), “Are firms with different CSR
profiles equally innovative? An empirical analysis with survey data”, European
Management Journal, vol. 31, n°6, pp. 642-654.
Bohas A., Dagorn N., Poussing N. (2014), « Responsabilité Sociale de l’Entreprise :
quels impacts sur l’adoption de pratiques de Green IT ? », Système d’Information et
Management, Vol. 19, N°2, pp. 9-43.
Brammer S., Millington A. (2008), “Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the
relationship between corporate social and financial performance”, Strategic
Management Journal, vol. 29, n°12, pp. 1325-1343
Burke L, Logsdon M. (1996), “How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off”, Long
Range Planning, vol. 29, n°4, pp. 495–502.
Commission of the European Communities (2001), Green paper. Promoting a
European framework for corporate social responsibility. COM(2001), 366 final.
Demirel P, Kesidou E. (2011), “Stimulating Different Types of Eco-innovation in the
UK: Government Policies and Firm Motivations”, Ecological Economics, vol. 70, pp.
1546–1557.
Dinda S. (2004), “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey,” Ecological
Economics, vol. 49, n°4, pp. 431-455.
Dosi G. (1997) “Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological
change”, The Economic Journal, vol. 107, n°444, pp. 1530–1547.
Du S., Bhattacharya C.B., Sen S. (2007), “Reaping Relational Rewards from
Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Competitive Positioning’, International
Journal of Research Marketing, vol24, n°3, pp. 224-241.
Elkington J. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century
business, Capstone: Oxford.
Faucheux S, Hue C, Nicolaï I. (2010), TIC et développement durable: Les conditions
du succès. Éditions De Boeck Université, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Ghisetti, C. and Quatraro, F. (2014) Is green knowledge improving environmental
productivity? Sectoral evidence from Italian regions, Working Papers series 11/14.
Department of Economics and Statistics “Cognetti de Martiis”.
Glavič P., Lukman R. (2007), “Review of sustainability terms and their definitions”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, n°18, pp. 1875–1885.
Groza M.D., Pronschinske M.R., Walker M. (2011), “Perceived organizational
motives and consumers responses to proactive and reactive CSR”, Journal of
Business Ethics, vol. 102, pp. 639-652.
Hall J., Vredenburg H. (2003), “The challenges of innovating for sustainable
development”. MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 45, n°1, pp. 61–68.
Hansen E.G., Friedrich Grosse-Dunker F. (2012), Sustainability-Oriented Innovation,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2191679 (last access:
September 2015).
Hansen E.G., Goße-Dunker F., Reichwald R. (2009), “Sustainability innovation cube
– A framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations”, International Journal
of Innovation Management, vol. 13, n°4, pp. 683–713.
Hart S.L. (1995), “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 20, n°4, pp. 968-1014.
Hart, S.L., Milstein, M.B. & Caggiano, J., 2003, Creating Sustainable Value [and
Executive Commentary], The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), pp.
56-69.
Hockerts K., Morsing M. (2000), “A literature review on corporate social responsibility
in the innovation process”, Innovation, pp. 1-36.
Jaffe A.B., Palmer J. (1997), “Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel
study”, Review of Economics & Statistics, vol. 79, n°4, pp. 610-619.
Kemp R., Foxon T. (2007), “Typology of eco-innovation”, European Project
‘Measuring eco-innovation’ (Call FP6-2005-SSP-5A, Area B, 1.6, Task 1).
Kemp R., Soete L. (1992) ‘The Greening of Technological Progress: An Evolutionary
Perspective’, Futures, vol. 24, n°5, pp. 437-45.
Ketata I., Sofka W., Grimpe C. (2015), “The role of internal capabilities and firms’
environment for sustainable innovation: evidence for Germany”, R&D Management,
vol. 45, n°1, pp. 60-75.
Klewitz J., Hansen E.G. (2014), “Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a
systematic review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 65, pp. 57-75
Knot A.M. (2003), “Persistent Heterogeneity and sustainable Innovation”, Strategic
Management Journal, vol. 24, n°8, pp. 687-705.
Kölsch D, Saling P. (2008), “How to measure social impacts? A socio-eco-efficiency
analysis by the SEEBALANCE method”, International Journal of Sustainable
Development, vol. 11, n°1, pp. 1–23.
Lankoski L. (2009), “Differential economic impacts of corporate responsibility issues”,
Business & Society, vol. 48, n°2, pp. 206-224.
Lyon T.P., Maxwell J.W. (2008), “Corporate social responsibility and the
environment: A theoretical perspective”, Review of Environmental Economics and
Policy, vol. 2, n°2, pp. 240-260.
Maignan I., Ferrell O.C. (2000), “Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries:
The case of the United States and France”, Journal of Business Ethic, vol. 23, n°3,
pp. 283-297.
Maletič M., Maletič D., Dahlgaard J.J., Dahlgaard-Park S.M., Gomišček B. (2015),
“Effect of sustainability-oriented innovation practices on the overall organisational
performance: an empirical examination”, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, online first (last access: September 2015).
Mattingly J.E., Berman S.L. (2006), “Measurement of Corporate Social Action.
Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings Data”, Business &
Society, vol. 45, n°1, pp. 20-46.
McWilliams A., Siegel D.S. (2001), “corporate social responsibility: A theory of firm
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, n°1, pp. 117-127.
McElroy, Mark W. (2004). Sustainable Innovation and the Prometheus Effect: An
Epistemological Theory of Sustainability. Keynote presentation at Sustainable
Innovation: The Human Dimension Revisited, Culemborg, Holland. (June 18),
http://www.sustainableorganizations.org/SI_and_Prometheus_Effect.pdf (last access:
September 2015).
Mulgan G. (2007), Social Silicon Valleys. The Young Foundation. The Basingstoke
Press, London.
Nidumolu R., Prahalad C.K., Rangaswami M.R. (2009), Why sustainability is now the
key driver of innovation, Havard Business Review, pp. 56-64.
OECD (2011), Fostering Innovation to Address Social Challenges, Workshop
Proceedings, http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/47861327.pdf (last access: September
2015).
Paech N. (2007), “Directional certainty in sustainability-oriented innovation
management”, Innovations Towards Sustainability, pp. 121-39.
Paramanathan S., Farrukh C., Phaal R., Probert D. (2004), “Implementing industrial
sustainability: the research issues in technology management”. R&D Management,
vol. 34, n°5, pp. 527–537.
Porter M.E., Kramer M.R. (2006), Strategy and Society. Harvard Business Review,
December, 77–92.
Porter ME, Reinhardt FL. (2007), “Strategic Approach to Climate”. Harvard Business
Review, vol. 85, n°10, pp. 22–26.
Poussing N., Le Bas C. (2013), “Firm voluntary measures for environmental
changes, eco-innovations and CSR: Empirical analysis based on data surveys”,.
Economie Appliquée n°4 décembre, pp. 141-166.
Teece D.J., Pisano G. (1994), “The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction”,
Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 3, pp. 537-556.
Rennings K. (2000), “Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the
contribution from ecological economics”, Ecological Economics, vol. 32, n°2, pp.
319-332.
Renning K., Rammer C. (2011), “The impact of regulation-driven environmental
innovation on innovation success and firm performance”, Industry & Innovation, vol.
18, n°3, pp.255-283.
Rennings K, Zwick T. (2002), “Employment impact of cleaner production on the firm
level: Empirical evidence from a survey in five European countries”. International
Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 6, n°3, pp. 319–342.
Rogers E. (1995), Diffusion of Innovation (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Schiederig T., Tietze F., Herstatt C. (2012), “Green innovation in technology and
innovation management – an exploratory literature review”, R&D Management, vol.
42, pp. 180–192.
Surroca J., Tribo J.A., Waddock S. (2010), “Corporate responsibility and financial
performance. The role of intangible resources”, Strategic Management Journal,
vol. 31, n°5, pp. 463-490.
Veugelers R. (2012), “Which policy instruments to induce clean innovating?”,
Research Policy, vol. 41, n°10, pp. 1770-1778.
Vilanova, M., Lozano, J., Arenas, D. (2009), “Exploring the Nature of the
Relationship between CSR and Competitiveness”. Journal of Business Ethics,
vol. 87, pp. 57–69.
Waddock S.A., Graves S.B. (1997), “The corporate social performance-financial
performance link”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, pp. 303-319.
Wagner M., Llerena P. (2008), “Drivers for sustainability-related innovation: A
Qualitative analysis of renewable resources, industrial products and travel services”,
Working Papers (2008-22) of BETA, Strasbourg, France.
WCED (1987), Our Common Future, http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-
future.pdf (last access: September 2015).
Wheeler D., Elkington J. (2001), “The End of the Corporate Environmental Report?
Or Advent of Cybernetic Sustainability Reporting and Communication,” Business
Strategy and the Environment, vol. 10, pp. 1-14.
Wolfe, R., Aupperle, K. (1991), “Introduction to Corporate Social Performance:
Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct”; Research in Corporate Social
Performance and Policy, vol. 12, pp. 265-268.
Yoon E., Tello S. (2009), “Drivers of Sustainable Innovation: Exploratory Views and
Corporate Strategies”, Seoul Journal of Business, vol. 15, n°2, pp. 85-115.