exploring the relationship between csr and innovation. systematic literature study
TRANSCRIPT
Working Papers
Faculty of International Business and Economics
Poznan University of Economics
WP/2014/04
Dawid Szutowski
Piotr Ratajczak
Exploring the Relationship between CSR and Innovation.
Systematic Literature Study
Poznań, October 29, 2014
2
Exploring the Relationship between CSR and Innovation. Systematic Literature Study
Dawid Szutowski, Piotr Ratajczak*
Abstract
The paper aims at summarising the state of knowledge on the relationship between a company’s
corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its innovation performance. The research relied on a
systematic literature review with the use of SALSA (Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis, Analysis)
and backwards-snowballing methods. Leading scientific journals (listed in the Journal Citation
Report by Thomson Reuter’s) published between January 2000 and August 2014 (inclusive)
were taken into consideration. Full texts were gathered through the Scopus database.
The results indicated the lack of scientific consensus on many aspects of the relationship
studied. CSR was assumed to influence innovation performance and inversely, innovations
were presumed to have an impact on the company’s CSR. However the relation’s determinants
were strongly diversified in the set of articles studied, which entails the need for more empirical
researches. The present research omitted articles published in languages other than English;
also it limited the papers studied to those published within a specified time frame in journals
listed on JCR.
The present research constitutes an up-to-date summary on the studied relationship, which
is important for practitioners in the management process. Also it contributes to the research by
highlighting the most important research gaps and implications for further research.
The paper attempts to summarize the existing knowledge on the relationship between
innovations and CRS. Thus it fulfils an important research gap. According to the authors’
knowledge, no such systematic reviews were made before.
Keywords: innovation, corporate social responsibility, CRS
JEL: O31, M14
Introduction
The growing importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its impact on a company’s
value is sometimes perceived as a shift in a management paradigm [Porter & Kramer 2011, p.
17]. Fatemi and Fooladi [2013] go further arguing that companies, which do not take into
account the needs of all stakeholders, will experience a gradual destruction of their market
value. Actually a thesis linking different companies financial performance with CSR has been
already introduced in the literature in the 1980’s and less explicitly even earlier [Carroll 1999,
p. 286]. Nevertheless the relation between CSR and innovation has gained academic attention
over the last decade only [Rexhepi, Kurtishi & Bexheti 2013] by making innovation a key to
understand the linkage between CSR and a company’s social and financial performance [Visser
2010]. Nidumolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami [2009] pointed out conclusively that CSR is a
* The authors appreciate greatly the comments from Tadeusz Kowalski, Ewa Cieślik and Mariusz Szuster. All
remaining errors are those of the authors. Dawid Szutowski is a PhD candidate at Poznań University of Economics,
Faculty of International Business and Economics, Department of Tourism; Piotr Ratajczak is a PhD candidate at
Poznań University of Economics, Faculty of Management, Department of Controlling, Financial Analysis and
Valuation; e-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].
3
fundamental driver of innovation. Others argue that CSR may contribute to sustainability
development and simultaneously increase corporate competitive potential by stimulating
innovation [European Commission 2006].
Companies described in case studies as the exemplars in terms of CSR compliance
[Chouinard, Ellison & Ridgeway 2010] have recently proved to be almost always innovative.
Some authors even argue that “nowadays CSR and innovation are the foundation of business
competencies” [Rexhepi, Kurtishi & Bexheti 2013]. The growing academic attention to the
relationship should have delivered better understanding but in fact there is still a lack of even
basic conclusions in the field. Although the positive impact of environmental mandatory
regulations on innovation was well studied and proved [Jaffe & Palmer 1997; Rennings &
Rammer 2011], the relation between CSR embracing all its aspects (not only environmental
and obligatory) and innovation hasn’t found a consensus yet [Lockett, Moon & Wayne 2006].
Wagner [2010] indicates that from a theoretical standpoint many academics accept the
existence of the relationship between CSR and innovation but empirical research is rare
available and if so only in one direction – from CSR to innovation. Other authors recognize the
relationship as a virtuous circle that eventually leads to the firm integration between CSR and
innovation in the path of a company’s maturity [MacGregor & Fontrodona 2008].
Corporate social responsibility has been transforming for at least several decades becoming
a multidimensional concept [Cochran 2007]. This is one of the reasons why the link between
CSR and a company’s value is so ambiguous. However the reason for the CSR success in some
companies (in terms of value creation) as well as the direction of the CSR concept’s evolution
indicate that CSR and innovation should be studied together. The relevance of the relation
between CSR and innovation may be derived also from official documents [European
Commission 2001; European Commission 2006; European Commission 2011; Norwegian
Ministry 2009; BIAC 2008] which correspond to the broader academic discussion about
interdependencies between sustainability performance, business competitiveness and economic
performance [Schaltegger & Wagner 2006].
There are theoretical as well as empirical papers concerning innovation and CSR although
to the best of our knowledge there is a lack of a mapping review concerning this link. This
publication is to give an overview of what is being explored on the subject of innovation and
CSR, including theoretical explanations of the assumed relationship, existence and direction of
the relationship as well as construction and statistics of the models tested. The mapping review
presented in the paper can lead to a broader perspective of the understanding of the relationship
by showing the dominant findings and research gaps. In accordance with the previous
affirmations in this paper a state of knowledge on the relationship between CSR and its
innovation performance is considered.
The research was based on a systematic literature review with the use of SALSA (Search,
AppraisaL, Synthesis, Analysis) and backwards-snowballing methods. Finally the set of papers
analysed amounted to 24 publications. The relationship between innovation and CSR reported
in these papers were synthesised in the form of a mapping review embracing the graph, tables
and descriptions.
The results of present research show that CSR was assumed to influence innovation
performance and inversely. Still there is a lack of scientific consensus on many aspects of the
relationship studied. Particularly the determinants of the relationship were strongly diversified
4
in the set of articles studied, which entails the need for more empirical research. Moreover
present research constitutes an up-to-date summary on the studied relationship highlighting
many existing gaps to be solved in future research.
The paper is structured as follows: section 2 describes CSR and innovation from a
theoretical perspective. In section 3 research methodology is introduced. Section 4 summarises
the results in a form of mapping review (divided into three sections: assumptions, methodology,
results). In section 5 discussion and conclusions are given.
1. Conceptual framework
Today’s companies operate in a rapidly changing environment [Gunday et al. 2011]. Such a
background forces companies to constantly seek new solutions guaranteeing gaining or
maintaining competitive advantage. In this light innovations are crucial and inevitable for every
company [Ciborowski 2003]. Also innovation represents a significant component of a
company’s strategy as they determine the directions of the firm’s evolution [Siguaw et al.
2009].
An important part of contemporary innovation research was built on the Schumpeterian
approach [1939]. In Schumpeter’s theory economic development is guided by innovation,
defined as a new combination for the means of production. The author initiated the scientific
approach towards innovation by describing them as one of the following: new good, new
method of production, opening of a new market, new source of supply or half-manufactured
goods, new form of organization [Schumpeter 1939]. The author postulated that changes occur
abruptly neglecting continuous development. Also Schumpeter distinguished innovation
clearly from invention, which refer more to the process encompassing the generation of new
ideas [Schumpeter 1939].
The notion of innovation evolved over time. Johnston [1966] concentrated on their technical
character. The novelties in the production process as well as their diffusion to other companies,
industries and countries are contained in his definition of innovation. Myers and Marquis [1969]
proposed a broad definition of innovation containing the whole process from the new concept,
through solving the problem, to exploiting of the social and economic advantages of the
novelty. Drucker [1968] postulates the separation of two distinct categories: changes in
products or services and changes in abilities necessary to implement innovation.
Innovation may occur in every field of business activity resulting in their strong diversity.
The most common approach of classifying them is perhaps the one proposed in the Oslo Manual
[OECD & Eurostat 2005]. It contains four types of innovations – product, process,
organisational and marketing. The second important feature of every innovation is the degree
of novelty involved which consists of three categories: incremental, new to the company and
radical innovations [Tidd, Bessant & Pavitt 2005].
The presence of innovation seems crucial in contemporary business, as Zenko and Mulej
[2011, p. 1258] state: “the development or existence of human society depends on innovations”.
Also Gunday supports this idea claiming that there is only one thing that is constant nowadays
– constant change [Gunday et al. 2011]. It seems that all companies operating on the market
expose themselves to innovations [Ciborowski 2003]. It is especially important whilst
considering the primary focus of every company – to increase its market value. Thus in order
5
to manage efficiently and increase market value, companies need to improve constantly [Rubera
& Kirca 2012].
The first references to CSR were mentioned prior to the 1950’s however the definitional
literature on this subject expanded considerably in the 1960’s [Carrol 1999]. The main
expansion of the corporate social responsibility as an academic idea took place in the 70’s when
the need for the inclusion of many stakeholders’ demands was proliferating [Ratajczak &
Stawicka 2011]. During that period definitions of CSR became proliferate and were also
divided into more specific terms such as corporate social performance or corporate social
responsiveness. In the 1980’s the main academic focus was laid on the empirical research
whereas the definitional perception of CSR was not changed. In the 1990’s the CSR concept
was merged with the other theories such as stakeholder theory, corporate social performance,
business ethics theory or corporate citizenship. This was the way to articulate new concepts that
in fact were consistent with CSR but put emphasis on different themes [Carrol 1999].
The most common definition of CSR nowadays originates from the Communicate of the
Commission of The European Communities published in 2001 mentioning that “most
definitions of corporate social responsibility describe it as a concept whereby companies
integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction
with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” [European Commission 2001, p. 6]. The document
underlines that social responsibility is connected with investing in human capital, the
environment and the relationships with stakeholders to a greater degree than is necessary to
fulfil legal requirements.
In the later Communicate published in 2011 [European Commission 2011, p. 6] the
definition of CSR was formulated broader as “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts
on society” with the aim of “maximising the creation of shared value for their
owners/shareholders and for their other stakeholders and society at large”. The most important
shift in the definition can be seen in the document of 2011 as compared to the one previously
lies in the purpose of CSR that appears to be value maximising and the proposal to achieve it
by the adoption a long-term attitude to CSR and the introduction of innovative products,
services and business models. This new definition rejects a philanthropic or marketing attitude
to CSR and follows the trend developed in recent years that CSR needs to be linked to the
modification of business models and concentration on innovations [Visser 2010]. In other
words, companies should implement innovative production to transform the impact of its
business activities on society [Vollebergh & Kemfert 2005].
Although the classification of CSR is often very different the tendency to highlight the
importance of innovation is easy to determine when studying many up-to-date papers. Halme
and Laurila [2008] conclude that there are three types of CSR: philanthropic, integration and
innovation. The philanthropic type of CSR puts the emphasis on sponsorships, charity and
employee voluntarism, the integration type concentrates on conducting existing business
operations more responsibly and finally the innovation type underlines the meaning of new
business models for solving social and environmental problems. Visser [2010] describes in turn
five stages of CSR: defensive, charitable, promotional, strategic and systemic. Other authors
make a twofold division pointing to a traditional and strategic CSR [Husted & Allen 2007] or
reactive and proactive CSR [Torugsa, O’Donohue & Hecker 2013]. The presence of innovation,
6
as a main driver of CSR, occurs in the majority of papers and is connected with the last or one
of the last stages of CSR, described as the most advanced and most suitable to use in companies.
On the one hand the growing importance of CSR is easy to identify, when looking at reports
on social and environmental activities that are more and more widely published [KPMG 2011;
Kolk & Pinks 2010]. On the other hand the relation between company’s corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and its innovation performance seems to be more visible in academic
literature of recent years. That is one of the reasons why the link between CSR and innovation
may be seen from the perspective of corporate strategy [Bansal 2005].
There is a lack of widespread ideas to demonstrate how the relationship should appear.
Although it is not difficult to get to learn about innovative activities that socially responsible
companies practice there is still a lack of a systematic classification of these activities. Finally
it is difficult to find an acceptable theory for the relationship between CSR and innovation.
There is also scarce empirical evidence of the existence of a relationship. That is why the
academic should focus on answering what theoretical explanations underlie the relationship
between CSR and innovation, what is the direction of the relationship, whether this relationship
exists in the majority of empirical research and also what are the main drivers of the
relationship. The mapping review presented in this article can be a first step in this direction.
2. Methodology
The present research aimed at determining the relationship between a company’s CSR policy
and its innovativeness. It was performed using the SALSA method [Booth, Papaioannou &
Sutton 2012] – a systematic literature review consisting of four stages – search, appraisal,
synthesis and analysis. The search encompassed one electronic database, i.e. Scopus. The
search terms were determined in a preliminary survey of the main publications on innovation
and social responsibility. The whole procedure is presented in Graph 1 accompanied by a
description.
7
Graph 1. The strategy of the review of the literature
Source: own development.
The strategy of the review of the literature presented in Graph 1 consisted of 11 steps
including preliminary study, search, technical exclusion, substantial exclusion, inclusion and
synthesis and analysis. Finally the set of analysed papers amounted to 24 publications.
2.1 Search
The database was searched using different combinations of the following terms: innovation,
novelty, improvement and social responsibility, CSR and sustain. Both English and American
spellings were compared. Search terms were researched in titles, keywords and abstracts. The
procedure resulted in 6,438 papers.
Preliminary study The choice of Scopus
database and search
terms
Search (1) Publication research. N=6438
Search (2) Publications research (January 2000 –
August 2014 & adequate subject areas).
N=2024
Appraisal
Synthesis and analysis The final set accounted for
N=24
Exclusion – technical (1) Elimination of duplicates (n=314) and non-
English (103) articles. N=1607
Inclusion (1) Performance of one step snowballing procedure.
N=24
Exclusion - substantial (1) Title sifting – elimination of papers which titles
didn’t indicate the concentration on CSR-
innovation relation. N=87
Exclusion – technical (2) Elimination of articles concerning superfluous
domains from the study’s point of view. N=765
Exclusion – technical (3) Elimination of papers other than articles published
in journals listed on JCR. N=154
Exclusion - substantial (2) Abstract sifting - elimination of papers which
abstracts didn’t indicate the concentration on
CSR-innovation relation. N=22
Exclusion - substantial (3) Full text sifting - elimination of papers which full
texts didn’t concentrate on CSR-innovation
relation. N=13
Comment At this level remaining papers concentrated fully
on CSR-innovation relation. It was assumed that
best quality and focus papers’ references will be a
valuable source of publications straightforward
from study’s point of view.
8
In order to refine the results two restrictions were set. The research was limited to papers
published between January 2000 and August 2014 (inclusive) to guarantee the timeliness of the
publications (this restriction do not apply to breakthrough and influential works). Also only the
subject area of social science was selected (omitting life, health and physical science) to
maintain the focus of the paper. Introducing these two limitations resulted in the pinpointing of
2,024 papers for further research. The precise results are shown in appendix 1.
2.2 Appraisal
2.2.1 Exclusion
The appraisal stage is used to ensure the particular value that individual studies hold for the
research [Booth, Papaioannou & Sutton 2012]. The appraisal exclusion procedure was divided
into two parts – technical and substantial.
The first step in the technical part was to eliminate the duplicates and non-English papers.
417 such publications (314 duplicates and 103 non-English) were found and eliminated,
resulting in 1,607 papers for further research. In the second all papers from the domains beyond
the authors’ area of interest were eliminated (computer science, medicine, engineering, etc.).
The remaining publications belonged to such domains as: business, management, accounting,
economics, econometrics, finance and general social science. 842 papers were eliminated, thus
the focused set amounted to 765 publications. In the whole set 527 articles published in
scientific journals were identified, however only the ones released in journals listed in the
Journal Citation Report by Thomson Reuter’s were taken into consideration. This step was
performed to guarantee the highest quality of publications analysed. There were 154 such
articles.
For the substantial part three siftings were performed – title sifting, abstract sifting and full
text sifting. In the first all titles were reviewed to eliminate publications which do not
concentrate on the relationship between CSR and innovation. 67 such publications were
identified leaving 87 for further analysis. Next the abstract sifting allowed the exclusion of
studies that are not relevant based on the abstracts. 22 such publications were identified. In the
third one the remaining papers were studied in detail. It resulted in both the elimination and
inclusion of papers into the set. The precise analysis of the full texts allowed 9 papers to be
eliminated, thus 13 publications remained. No papers were eliminated due to restricted access
(paid or no online version, etc.).
2.2.2 Inclusion
The procedure of one step backwards snowballing [Jalali & Wohin 2012] was than performed
on the remaining papers. In order to fully exploit the determined set of articles a check of
references was performed. It was assumed that these will be a valuable source of supplementary
publications as (1) the 13 texts concentrated on studied relation and (2) widely accepted
publications should include good quality references. It allowed for the incorporation of 11
supplementary publications described as breakthrough and influential works.
Finally the set of analysed papers amounted to 24 publications.
2.3 Synthesis and analysis
The relation between innovation and CSR reported in particular papers were synthesised in the
form of a table. Mapping review [Graham-Matheson et al. 2006] procedure including precise
9
key wording of chosen papers was than performed to characterise the included studies. A range
of criteria was used including bibliographic details and contextual ones such as the country in
which the study was performed. Key aspects of the papers were also coded and contained such
information as the focus of the study, its subject, research questions, findings, indicated research
gaps, etc.
The analysis of the research material identified the main differences and similarities
between particular studies. Different findings were compared and main research gaps
pinpointed. The last two steps in the SALSA method are described in detail in the next part of
the paper.
3. Results
The relation between innovation and CSR is scarcely recognized in the literature. In such a
situation the mapping review seems to be an appropriate tool to summarize the existing
evidence. The review presented in the article gives an overview of the discussed relationship,
particularly in terms of the assumptions adopted in the articles studied, the methods used in
research and the results obtained. The review is constructed with different elements including
graphs, tables and descriptions. The summary of the review is presented in Graph 2.
Graph 2. The summary of the literature review
Source: own development.
The analysed elements of the chosen articles were aggregated into three groups:
assumptions, methodology and results, which is presented in Graph 2. Type of paper as the
CSR &
Innovation Assumptions
Theoretical
background
Assumed direction
of the relationship
Research
questions Type of paper
Results
Existence of
the relationship
Research
gaps
Research
findings
Methodology
Research
approach Model types Variable
configuration
Methods of
data
analysing
Country of a
sample Population of
a sample
CSR proxy Innovation
proxy
10
element of the literature review is presented separately in the graph as it is not linked to those
three groups of elements selected.
In the present research 24 articles were analysed. Amongst all the articles 4 different types
were recognized, which are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Types of papers in the set of articles studied
Types of papers Number
Conceptual papers 11
Research papers 8
Case studies 4
General review 1
Source: own development.
Types of papers in the set of articles studied are presented in Table 1. Most of the articles
studied were conceptual (n=11). There were also research papers (n=8), case studies (n=4) and
general review (n=1) identified. No literature reviews were recognized.
3.1 Assumptions
This section presents: research questions, theoretical backgrounds, assumed directions of the
influence and innovation and CSR proxies adopted in the articles studied.
The research questions stated in the articles are either directly focused on the relationship
between CSR and innovation or they are focused on different subjects and the relationship is
studied only incidentally. Gonzalez-Padron, Hult and Calantone [2008] test the hypothesis
stating that the greater the value placed on ethics, the weaker the influence of entrepreneurial
innovation on relationship quality and cycle time of a supply process. The article of Halme and
Laurila [2009] explores the different conceptualizations of corporate responsibility and
investigates both the financial and the societal outcomes of different types of CSR. The aim
formulated in the Hanke and Stark’s [2009] article is to recognize CSR and its strategic drivers
on the levels of corporate culture, social innovation and civil society. Husted and Allen’s [2007]
main objective is to verify the existence of the correlation between social strategy and
innovative management practices such as continuous innovation and enhanced employee
participation. The next article analyses the motives of businesses in the Malawian agricultural
sector to introduce CSR policies. It studies also how companies and stakeholders form their
diverse partnerships [Kambalame & Cleene 2006]. Wagner [2010] examines the connection
between corporate social performance and innovation with high social benefits in family and
non-family companies. Alvarez, Lorenzo and Sanchez [2011] analyse the bidirectional
relationship between corporate social responsibility practices and innovation. Bocquet et al.
[2013] assess whether firm’s CSR profiles and practices relate to technological innovation
performance. McWilliams and Siegel [2000] estimate the effect of CSR on financial
performance by regressing it on corporate social performance and several control variables. In
another article Kim, Brodhag and Mebratu [2014] test the hypothesis stating the existence of a
significant relationship between CSR and innovative investment. In the Maxfield’s [2011]
article the following problem is examined: how to teach economics efficiently when the CSR-
11
innovation relation is studied only incidentally? Miles, Munila and Darroch [2008] study how
sustainability can be integrated into a corporate entrepreneurship framework. Mohr and Sarin
[2008] examine the existence of a linkage in Drucker's theories between CSR and innovation.
In the next paper the research problem is formulated as – what are the motives to contribute to
open source software? [Osterloh & Rota 2005]. Panǎ [2013] examined how to carry out an
effective innovative change in management. Tsai, Tsang and Cheng [2012] studied the
perception of different aspects of CSR by a hotel's employees. HØivik and Shankar [2010]
performed research on how can small and medium enterprises gathered in a cluster respond to
the global call for corporate responsibility. Midttun [2009] focused on the main possibilities
and constraints of CSR-driven innovation. The aim formulated in the work by Louche, Idowu
and Filho’s [2010] was to determine how CSR and innovation interact with each other. Lober
[1998] tried to understand corporate participation in pollution prevention. The aim of the next
article was to provide a description of the most important elements in the CSR-driven
innovation process [Hockerts et al. 2007]. The Business and Industry Advisory Committee to
the BIAC [2008] presented a paper summarising perspectives on combating global challenges
through innovation. Zenko and Mulej [2011] tried to understand how some concepts, important
for development of inventions into innovations, can better support required innovative
behaviours.
In order to perform their studies the authors built theoretical backgrounds which constituted
a basis for further analysis. However the theories, approaches and reasoning introduced were
strongly diversified. Hanke and Stark [2009] claim that employees involved in CSR projects
and collaborating with stakeholders transfer their experience into everyday work which results
in improvements and innovations. Wagner [2010] sees another reason for the innovation and
CSR relationship. The author claims that governments often support socially beneficial
innovations, thus companies report that CSR leads to the progress in innovation performance.
Alvarez, Lorenzo and Sanchez [2011] based their article on the resource-based view. Moreover
they argue that companies adopting CSR policies by nature are obligated to improve or change
their products, services or processes to make them more socially responsible. The authors
explain that CSR leads to innovation through R&D expenditures. They also assume an inverse
relation arguing that innovative companies try to implement CSR policies to improve their
perception by the market and to differentiate themselves from their competition. The spending
on social responsibility as a driver of innovation is a common idea in the articles studied.
Bocquet et al. [2013] claim that socially responsible companies seem to spend more on R&D
because they are focused on offering products of the highest quality. Also such companies
deploy differentiation strategy [McWilliams & Siegel 2000]. Kim, Brodhag and Mebratu
[2014] notice that CSR drives innovation through expenditure on R&D. Miles, Munila and
Darroch [2008] claim that on the one hand innovation helps companies to identify social and
environmental problems, on the other hand CSR principles stimulate innovation (which in turn
result in generating a competitive advantage). Mohr and Sarin [2008] explain the relationship
by the way that social policies attempt to solve social and environmental problems through
innovation. Thus companies integrate CSR with innovation policies. Other authors point out
the following: people contribute to open innovative initiatives due to individual motives of
helping others [Osterloh & Rota 2005]; CSR is a condition for efficient changes [Pana 2013];
innovation is just a part of CSR [Tsai, Tsang & Cheng 2012]; social responsibility activities
12
done together with other companies trigger innovation [HØivik & Shankar 2010]; a socially
responsible stance helps companies to find their market niche and obtain a competitive
advantage [Lober 1998]; innovations are tools for solving global social challenges [BIAC
2008]; CSR to be properly manage needs diffusion of innovation [Zenko & Mulej 2011]; CSR
results from the company’s mission [Midttun 2009].
The most important part of the conceptual backgrounds was the assumed direction of the
influence. Its four different forms are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Assumed directions of the influence in the set of articles studied
Direction of the relationship Number
CSR affects innovation 8
Innovations affect CSR 3
CSR and innovation affect each other 6
Functional relationship 7
Source: own development.
Table 2 presents that most commonly authors assumed that CSR policies affect innovation.
The functional relation occurred in the 7 articles, meaning that the relationship between the two
variables exists but nothing is established in terms of direction.
Innovation and CSR are general terms. However in order to study them a proxy is necessary.
The way of including innovation as a model’s variable differed depending on the author.
McWilliams and Siegel [2000] used R&D expenditures in the equations, treating them as a
representation of corporate innovation. The same concept was implemented in the article of
Kim, Brodhag and Mebratu [2014], where R&D expenditures along with CAPEX were used to
study innovation. Alvarez, Lorenzo and Sanchez [2011] constructed the innovation variable
which is determined by research and development intensity, represented by the ratio of R&D
expenditures to total revenues. Wagner [2010] whilst constructing an “innovation with high
social benefits” measure used three binary variables from the KLD database: environmental
innovation, a variable measuring whether a company’s products have noteworthy social
benefits and a variable recording whether the company’s mission includes selling products or
providing services to the poor. A number of articles relied on surveys [Gonzalez-Padron, Hult
& Calantone 2008; Husted & Allen 2007; Bocquet et al. 2013]. Their content allowed for the
measurement of innovations with certain features e.g. continuous and entrepreneurial
innovations. Also certain authors referred only to one aspect of innovation. Louche, Idowu,
Filho [2010] focused only on eco-innovations represented by the adoption of clean
technologies. In the next article the separate category of social innovation was defined as the
improvement in the CSR process [Louche, Idowu & Filho 2010].
Also when analysing innovations separate types were distinguished. In the article of Miles,
Munila and Darroch [2008] innovation was divided into 5 types: product, process, strategy,
domain and business model innovation. Bocquet, et al. [2013] distinguished only 2 types –
product and process innovation.
Corporate social responsibility variable (or its equivalent) had a very diversified proxy
in the articles studied. McWilliams and Siegel [2000] used Compustat data and Kinder
13
Lydenberg Domini Inc. (KLD) ratings of corporate social performance to operationalize the
CSR variable. In the article of Alvarez, Lorenzo & Sanchez [2011] CSR was represented by a
dummy variable depending on whether a company is listed on the DJSI index. Corporate social
performance used in the article of Wagner [2010] embraced the extent of all activities and
outcomes related to CSR and environmental management. It was done using suitable
information from the KLD database. Miles, Munila, Darroch [2008] used the multifaceted
proxy of: social accountability (firm’s commitment to labour and other stakeholder rights),
economic performance (market and reputational advantages that a firm enjoys), environmental
management (commitment to the prevention/minimization of a firm’s environmental impact
and commitment to the system of continuous improvement of environmental performance). The
CSR proxy contained also: NGO salience, employee salience, governmental salience, social
responsibility orientation [Husted and Allen 2007]; the ethical climate [Gonzalez-Padron, Hult
& Calantone 2008] or CSR profile [Bocquet et al. 2013]. Midttun [2009] recognised CSR as
the focus on burning political issues such as climate change, alleviation of poverty, pollution,
human rights, etc. In the article of Kim, Brodhag and Mebratu [2014] CSR was operationalized
using the Video database which provided the CSR performance of companies.
3.2 Methodologies
This section summarises the information from the articles reporting empirical research (n=12).
It presents the main information about the research and the models delivered.
Eleven articles from the set studied delivered a geographical specification of the
performed research. Three authors out of eleven used a multinational set of companies in their
study [Gonzalez-Padron, Hult & Calantone; Alvarez, Lorenzo & Sanchez 2011; McWilliams
& Siegel 2000]. Kim, Brodhag and Mebratu [2014] employed European Countries. Hockerts et
al. [2007] focused on the Nordic countries: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland.
The remaining 6 articles reported studies in which data from one country was analysed. These
countries were: Mexico, Malawi, USA, Luxemburg, Hong Kong and Norway.
The studies varied considerably in the size of the populations under investigation. Ten
researches took an enterprise as a unit of analysis. The average number of companies under
investigation equalled 248 and ranged from 3 [Kambalame & Cleene 2006] to 619 [Kim,
Brodhag & Mebratu 2014]. The median was 226. One research concentrated on staff and
investigated 123 employees of hotels in Hong Kong [Tsai, Tsang & Cheng 2012]. One research
was based on the analysis of publicly available documents. However the precise number of
documents was not mentioned [Weisenfeld 2012].
In the studied articles 12 delivered the results of empirical research (including four case
studies). Amongst them most authors performed qualitative research (n=5). Quantitative
research was chosen 4 times. Authors used triangulation three times (combined both qualitative
and quantitative research).
Models are widely used in social science and in economics in particular. They aim at
representing the real-world system in a simplified way. Different kinds of models are the
alternative ways to achieve such a goal. Numerous model types include verbal/logical, physical,
geometric and algebraic [Arrow & Intriligator 2000]. According to Kaewsuwan [2002] the main
model types cover flow charts (diagrams), graphs (planned drawings) and mathematical models
(equations). Different types of model are delivered by Evans [1997] who distinguishes visual
14
(pictures, graphs), mathematical (systems of simultaneous equations), empirical (mathematical
models designed to be used with data) and simulation models (which transfer mathematical
complexity to software). In their research the authors decided to divide models into: descriptive,
visual (charts and diagrams) and mathematical models. Not all the analysed papers included a
model, thus their number is 16. The data is contained in Table 3.
Table 3. Types of models delivered in the set of articles studied
Model type Number
Mathematical models 10
Visual models 4
Descriptive models 2
Source: own development.
As shown in Table 3 the models analysed were diversified in their form. Most of the models
were mathematical (n=10). There were also visual (n=4) and descriptive models (n=2)
identified.
As was mentioned before the articles studied delivered numerous models. In Table 4 eight
models are studied in detail breaking them down into dependent and independent variables.
Table 5 presents the five models remaining in which such a breakdown was not possible.
Table 4. Models with independent and dependent variables in the set of articles studied
Author (s) Model
type Independent variables
Dependent
variables
Husted
[2007]
Mathe-
matical
NGO salience, Government salience, Social
responsibility orientation, Progressive
decision-making orientation, Employee
numbers, Industry
Social strategic
positioning,
Social strategic
planning
Gonzalez-
Padron,
Hult,
Calantone
[2008]
Mathe-
matical Ethical climate
Entrepreneurial
innovation
Wagner
[2010]
Mathe-
matical
Corporate social performance, R&D,
Tobin’s Q, Sales, Quality management
system
Innovation with
high social
benefits
Alvarez,
Lorenzo,
Sanchez
[2011]
Mathe-
matical
CSR practices, Sector, Company’s size and
risk (1st model); Innovation, Sector,
Company’s size and risk (2nd model)
Innovation
(1st model);
CSR practises
(2nd model)
Bocquet, Le
Bas, Mothe,
Mathe-
matical
CSR profile, Plans to adopt CSR,
Organizational innovation, R&D activity;
Employee numbers and education level,
Product
innovation,
15
Poussing
[2013]
Product length of the life cycle, Market
competition, Sector, Presence in the group
Process
innovation
McWilliams,
Siegel
[2000]
Mathe-
matical Financial performance
CSR, Size, Risk,
Industry, R&D
expenditures,
Advertising
intensity in the
industry
Kim,
Brodhag,
Mebratu
[2014]
Mathe-
matical
CSR dimensions, Company’s age,
Employee numbers, Sales, EBITDA,
Enterprise value, Stakeholder effect,
Industry, Region (1st & 2nd model); Capex,
R&D, Company’s age, Employee numbers,
Sales, EBITDA, Enterprise value,
Stakeholder effect, Industry, Region (3rd
model)
Capex (1st
model); R&D
(2nd model); CSR
(3rd model)
Miles,
Munila,
Darroch,
[2008]
Visual Product, Process, Strategy, Domain and
Business Model innovations
Social
accountability,
Economic
performance,
Environmental
management
Source: own development.
Table 4 reveals that independent variables were strongly diversified. It signifies a lack of
scientific consensus in identifying the factors determining the innovation-CSR relationship.
The dependent variables were concentrated mostly around the diverse forms of innovation
performance.
Besides the models the breakdown into dependent and independent variables was possible.
The others need a description. These models are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Models without the breakdown into dependent and independent variables in the set of articles studied
Author (s) Model
type Model description
Hockerts et.
al [2007] Visual
Deliver a CSR driven innovation process-oriented model
consisting of 5 phases.
Zenko,
Mulej
[2011] Visual
Presents a model representing the whole process from the
idea itself, by invention and innovation leading to profits from
innovation and creating free humans in harmony with nature
in their knowledge (values/culture/ethics/norms).
Midttun
[2009] Descriptive
Introduces a simple descriptive model in which innovations
result from a company’s concerns on burning political issues.
16
Louche,
Idowu,
Filho [2010]
Visual
Presents a response sustainable innovation model that is
constructed from four spheres: process, organisational,
relationship and social.
Kambalame,
Cleene
[2006]
Descriptive Shows a model of a partnership in the sustainable business
area using the example of African agriculture.
Source: own development.
Table 5 reveals that models’ descriptions reflected different research questions and
theoretical background presented by the particular authors. As far as Table 4 and Table 5 is
considered it is worth to notice that all the models analysed were strongly diversified in both
their form and content.
Methods used to analyse data in set of articles studied are presented in Table 6 using the
breakdown consisted of 4 methods.
Table 6. Methods used to analyse data in set of articles studied
Method Number
Regression models 6
Importance-performance analysis 1
Structural equation modelling 1
Cross case comparison 1
Source: own development.
As shown in Table 6 amongst all the papers studied only 9 offered a specified method of
data analysis. Predominantly used method was a regression model. This lack of widely
recognised methods implies methodological issues. Especially that the methods were not well
defined which accounted for many weaknesses.
3.3 Results
Amongst all the 24 articles studied 23 confirmed the existence of the relationship between CSR
and innovation either based on conceptual reasoning, or on empirical research. Only one article
reported research indicating the lack of such relationship [Alvarez, Lorenzo and Sanchez 2011].
The specific results delivered in the articles from the studied set are summarised below.
Husted and Allen [2007] prove that a company’s possibilities for continuous innovation are
significantly related to its strategic social positioning. Gonzalez-Padron, Hult and Calantone
[2008] find that the firm's entrepreneurial innovation was positively and significantly related to
both relationship quality and time cycle of the supply process. Wagner [2010] finds a significant
positive relationship between innovation and social performance. However the results confirm
also that family businesses are not the leaders in performing actions that are socially beneficial.
The results reported by Bocquet et al. [2013] show that firms, which take a strategic orientation
towards CSR, are more innovative in terms of their products and processes. Kim, Brodhag and
Mebratu [2014], claim that CSR is relatively more related with short-term CAPEX than with
17
R&D investment. Lober [1998] claims that companies do not perceive pollution prevention as
an opportunity due to the rare recognition of its potential. Miles, Munila, Darroch [2008]
discovered that sustainable corporate entrepreneurship can lead to innovative outcomes. Mohr,
Sarin [2008] proved that in every company there are significant effects of CSR in every field
of activity, thus also in innovation performance. HØivik, Shankar [2010] proved that CSR
introduction in a cluster can stimulate a will to innovate. Tsai, Tsang, Cheng [2012] report that
CSR does not promote innovations in a company’s products and services. On one hand
McWilliams and Siegel [2000] confirm that CSR and R&D are highly correlated. On the other
hand in the article of Alvarez, Lorenzo and Sanchez [2011] the results showed that the
bidirectional relationship between CSR practices and innovation did not exist.
In the set of articles studied several indicated research gaps and directions for further
research. Halme and Laurila [2009] claim that future research should recognize the different
outcomes of different CSR strategies. The use of social strategy for the creation of competitive
advantage needs to be examined according to Husted and Allen [2007]. Another research gap
is the determinants of organizational engagement in CSR [Hanke & Stark 2009]. Wagner
[2010] assumes the strength of family firms in developing innovations with high social benefits.
The author postulates that future research should attempt to verify if it is generally the case in
small and medium enterprises. Bocquet et al. [2013] state the need to assess whether strategic
CSR behaviour is connected to technological innovation. Other research gaps were also
identified: ways of using innovation to deal with major global challenges [BIAC 2008] and
synergies helping to create innovation and the holistic approach towards them [Zenko & Mulej
2011]. Lober [1998] indicates the need for understanding why pollution prevention has not
received bigger attention by companies.
4. Discussion
The study of the relationship between CSR and innovation is a complex one. This article offers
a wide overview of this research field and is a contribution to the scientific investigation of the
relationships studied. The data were collected and analysed to summarise the state of
knowledge on the relationship between a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
its innovation performance. The paper relies on a systematic literature review – SALSA and
builds on 24 precisely chosen articles. The main argument is that the amount of research on the
studied relationship is insufficient and that existing research delivers differentiated (or even
contradictory) conclusions and is characterised by numerous limitations. Thus there is a need
for further empirical investigation. The main similarities and differences between the researches
presented in the articles studied are completed by the interpretation and explanations.
In the set of articles studied the research questions rarely concerned directly the studied
relationship (n=17), which is consistent with MacGregor and Fontrodona [2008] who notice
that very few papers consider explicitly the relationship between CSR and innovation. Still
there were 7 papers dedicated directly to this [Wagner 2010; Alvarez, Lorenzo & Sanchez 2011;
Bocquet et al. 2013; Kim, Brodhag & Mebratu 2014; Mohr & Sarin 2008; Midttun 2009;
Louche, Idowu & Filho 2010]. Such a situation is in line with Bocquet et al. [2013] who
emphasize that there are hardly any “empirical tests or cluster analyses describing the direct
effect of CSR strategies on innovation”. At the same time the authors impose a precise
definition of “strategy”. Although the main research questions in the analysed set of articles
18
were mostly indirectly connected to the relationship studied, this could be found in secondary
threads. Such a situation is consistent with MacGregor and Fontrodona [2008], who claim that
the relationship between CSR and innovation is often discussed indirectly in the research
dedicated separately to CSR or innovation. This phenomenon is due to the fact that (1) social
responsibility activities concern many different aspects of a company’s performance and (2)
innovations are often focused on the environment and other socially important matters at the
present time. It is worth noticing that some researchers [Jaffe & Palmer 1997; Rennings &
Rammer 2011; Rennings et al. 2006], include in their research questions only one aspect of
CSR which is the environment. Such an approach is in line with Bocquet et al. [2013] claiming
that the impact of CSR on innovation through the adoption of environmental practices was
studied previously.
Although most authors deliver a theoretical background in the articles studied it was
difficult to find any dominant theories. The authors mention many different explanations and
determinants of the examined relationship. They rely mostly on literature studies, sometimes
delivering a logical explanation of their own. Only one article has a theoretical background in
the strict sense of theory [Alvarez, Lorenzo & Sanchez 2011]. The reason for such diversity is
the lack of a widely accepted theoretical background. Davinney [2008] argues that the linkage
between CSR and innovation is an additional field within the relationship between CSR and
corporate performance. Moreover there is a lot of controversy and complexity in the approach
to CSR [Cochran 2007] as well as uncertainty in the understanding of precisely what CSR
means. A few explanations linked CSR with innovation thorough R&D expenditure. Surroca,
Tribo, Waddock [2010] and Bansal [2005] investigated interdependencies between corporate
social performance and corporate social responsibility, giving the definitive role to innovation
and R&D. Bos-Brouwers [2010] and Lopez et al. [2008] treated R&D as an innovation
indicator. Still there is too much inconsistency to presume this to be the only link.
In the articles studied the authors assumed that either innovation influences CSR, or the
opposite, or that the relationship is reciprocal. No dominant approach was found thus the
considerable complexity of the relationship examined was confirmed. Some authors claim that
there is a feedback between CSR and innovation, others mention only one direction or just study
the relationship without assuming a cause and effect relationship. However the assertion that
innovation affects CSR seems to be far less common as it occurs only in 3 articles. It is
consistent with Alvarez, Lorenzo and Sanchez [2011] claiming that “scarce empirical literature
is available and only in the first direction, from CSR to innovation”. In the research no credible
evidence rejecting or confirming any direction of the relationship were found. The direction of
the relationship is not settled, even in official documents. The assumption of CSR as an
innovation driver seems to be standard in documents of the European Union authorities
[European Commission 2006; European Commission 2011] and innovation as a key condition
for CSR implementation is also presumed [Norwegian Ministry 2009].
Innovation proxy was diverse. Mostly innovation was identified by R&D spending
[McWilliams & Siegel 2000; Kim, Brodhag & Mebratu 2014]. Such an approach seems to
emphasise the process of innovation development instead of the real outcome (quantity and
quality of the novelties implemented) and leaves a significant area for further research.
Moreover in the set of articles studied the authors tended to concentrate on one area, e.g. eco-
innovations. Such an approach results in the limitation of a broader view but allows the findings
19
to be more specific. Also there seems to be a lack of consensus on the innovation types.
Bocquet, et al. [2013] distinguished their 2 types – product and process, whilst Miles, Munila
and Darroch [2008] distinguished 5; in the fields of product, process, strategy, domain and
business model. Such disagreement is an important issue in the research on innovation
[Szutowski 2014]. The situation hampers the comparison of any such consecutive studies.
There seems to be a consensus between researchers on the proxy of CSR. The focus only
on the environment is left aside, leaving space for social issues, which is consistent with the
broader concept of CSR relying on 3P – triple bottom line framework – emphasizing the equal
importance of People, Profits and the Planet [Jeucken 2004; Savitz 2006]. Also most authors
relied on existing companies’ CSR ratings instead of studying CSR policies on their own
[Alvarez, Lorenzo & Sanchez 2011; Kim, Brodhag & Mebratu 2014]. Such a situation results
from the accessibility of such rating and the relative ease of use in research.
Despite 9 articles the rest did not offer a clear method specification. Also the samples used
in consecutive studies were highly diversified, ranging from 3 objects under investigation to
619. In the set studied 13 articles delivered a model representing the relationship studied. All
the models analysed were strongly diversified in both their form and content. Most of the
models were mathematical [e.g. Husted 2007; Gonzalez-Padron, Hult & Calantone 2008] which
results in several consequences. By nature such representations assume some structure in the
world. Thus they impose a rigid reasoning. Mathematical models may ignore qualitative
variables because they may not be amenable to such analysis. Also they may make explicit
mathematical assumptions leaving the economic assumptions hidden [Ramanthan 2002]. The
study revealed that independent variables were strongly diversified. It signifies a lack of
scientific consensus in identifying the factors determining the innovation-CSR relationship.
Such differentiation seems to make further investigation necessary. In the research studied the
dependent variables concentrated mostly around the diverse forms of innovation performance.
The methods used in research studied varied considerably. Quantitative research relied on
regression models (n=6) and structural equation modelling [Gonzalez-Padron, Hult &
Calantone], whilst the methods used in qualitative studies were based on IPA [Tsai 2012] and
cross comparisons [Hockerts et al. 2007]. Thus a bias occurred and regression models were
over-represented. Such a situation led to several consequences [Ramanthan 2002]. On the one
hand, by nature regressions are unable to underline causal mechanisms and to determine if CSR
causes innovation or the opposite. Also linear regression is sensitive to the assumption of
linearity, therefore the relationship between variables can only be linear. On the other hand the
under-representation of qualitative research hinders or prevents an in-depth examination of
phenomena, studying high-complexity relations and building new theories.
The relation between CSR and innovation was stated in almost all the articles analysed.
However only a little evidence came from the empirical research. Most authors determined the
relationship through conceptual work. Only one article reported the absence of a CRS-
innovation relationship which was proved by regression model [Alvarez, Lorenzo & Sanchez
2011]. This dissimilarity results from the specific time period and variables proxies as there is
no revolutionary difference in the model construction. It is also worth mentioning that this
article has the biggest sample of 619 companies. Moreover the authors treat the CSR variable
comprehensively whereas other articles often take into account only the environmental
dimensions of CSR. Still the majority of articles [Rexhepi, Kurtishi & Bexheti 2013;
20
MacGregor & Fontrodona 2008; Nordic Innovation Centre 2010; Nidumolu, Prahalad &
Rangaswami 2009] confirm the relationship, thus the conclusion can be made that there truly
is a relationship between CRS and innovation.
Research gaps articulated in the articles analysed are mainly focused on aspects other than
the examined relationship. Only in 4 articles do authors suggest continuing study in the field of
CSR and innovation either by indicating new trails [BIAC 2008; Wagner 2010] or by choosing
different features of the samples (time and geographical differentiation) [Alvarez, Lorenzo &
Sanchez 2011; Bocquet et al. 2013]. The decomposition of research gaps, seems to be a follow-
up of research questions stated earlier by some authors. In addition to the research gaps
identified in the analysed articles Mairesse and Mohnen [2010] suggest that future research
should adopt the broad perspective of innovation (not represented only by R&D spending).
The above-mentioned results derived from the articles studied need to be analysed from the
viewpoint of the limitations of the methods used by particular authors. The dissimilarity in
results delivered may come from CSR or innovation proxies often based on ratings or from
binary instead of continuous variables. Also making general conclusions in the area of CSR is
not possible whilst gathering the research data from single country. Especially when the country
has a specific economy i.e. Luxemburg [Bocquet et al. 2013] or Hong Kong [Tsai, Tsang &
Cheng 2012].
Also several limitations exist in the current systematic review of the literature. The present
research omitted articles published in languages other than English. Also it limited the papers
studied to those published between January 2000 and August 2014 (inclusive) in journals listed
on the JCR. No grey literature [Booth, Papaioannou & Sutton 2012] was included.
In the wider context the results pinpoint the insufficient scientific interest in the CSR-
innovation relationship even though both domains remain crucial in present-day economics. It
is highlighted by the low number of studies (biased by the number of quantitative ones). After
summarising the assumptions, methods and results contained in articles studied several fields
still remain blurred. Thus this study was able to identify some research gaps. Firstly there is no
dominant theory or widely accepted model concerning the relationship between innovation and
CSR. Secondly no consistent method for the study of the CSR-innovation relationship was
developed. Thirdly qualitative, in-depth research is under-represented, thus there is a lack of
deeper insights. Fourthly there is no scientific consensus on the factors determining the CSR-
innovation relationship.
Therefore the analysis of the research material gathered revealed several fields requiring
further investigation. Firstly in the set of articles studied there were more conceptual than
research papers. Further empirical evidence is crucial to ensure the increase in knowledge and
to develop methods appropriate for studying the CSR-innovation relationship. Secondly there
were only 5 studies based on data from several countries. The possibilities of pinpointing
country specifications in respect of innovation and the CSR relationship were limited. Also
amongst all studies conducted in Europe not one included its central and eastern areas. Thirdly
only three authors reported studies using triangulation, most studies were qualitative. The joint
use of both quantitative and qualitative researches seems beneficial due to its multifaceted
character.
21
Bibliography
1. Arrow, K., Intriligator, M. (ed.), 2000, Handbook of Mathematical Economics,
ed. 4, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
2. Bansal, P., 2005, Evolving Sustainably: a Longitudinal Study of Corporate
Sustainable Development, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 26, pp. 197-218.
3. BIAC, Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD, 2008, Addressing
Global Challenges through Innovation: the Importance of Competitiveness,
Partnerships and International Cooperation, BIAC, Tokyo.
4. Bocquet, R., Le Bas, Ch., Mothe, C., Poussing, N., 2013, Are Firms with Different
CSR Profiles Equally Innovative? Empirical Analysis with Survey Data, European
Management Jorunal, vol. 31, pp. 642-654.
5. Booth, A., Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., 2012, Systematic Approaches to a
Successful Literature Review, Sage, London.
6. Bos-Brouwers, H.E., 2010, Corporate Sustainability and Innovation in SMEs:
Evidence of Themes and Activities in Practice, Business Strategy and the
Environment, vol. 19, pp. 417-435.
7. Carroll, A., 1999, Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of a Definitional
Construct, Business & Society, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 268-295.
8. Chouinard, Y., Ellison, J., Ridgeway, R., 2010, Gospodarka zrównoważonego
rozwoju, Harvard Business Review Polska, September 2010, pp. 126-139.
9. Ciborowski, R., 2003, Procesy innowacyjne w warunkach globalizacji, in: Bocian,
A. (ed.), Ekonomia, polityka, etyka, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku,
Białystok.
10. Cochran, P., 2007, The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility, Business
Horizons, vol. 50, pp. 449-454.
11. Devinney, T., 2008, Is the Socially Responsible Corporation a Myth? The Good, the
Bad, and the Ugly of Corporate Social Responsibility, Academy of Management
Perspectives, May, pp. 44-56.
12. Drucker, P., 1968, The Practice Of Management, Harper Collins, London.
13. European Commission, 2006, Green Paper. A European Strategy for Sustainable,
Competitive and Secure Energy, COM (2006) 105, Brussels.
14. European Commission, 2001, Green Paper. Promoting a European Framework for
Corporate Social Responsibility, COM (2001) 366, Brussels.
15. European Commission, 2011, A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-14 for Corporate
Social Responsibility, COM (2011) 681, Brussels.
16. Evans, G., 2001, Learning and Expectations in Macroeconomics, Priceton
University Press.
17. Fattemi, A., Fooladi, I., 2013, Sustainable Finance a New Paradigm, Global
Finance Journal, vol. 24, pp. 101-113.
18. Gallego-Alvarez, I., Prado-Lorenzo, J.M., Garcia-Sanchez, I.M., 2011, Corporate
Social Responsibility and Innovation: a Resource-Based Theory, Management
Decision, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1709-1727.
22
19. Gonzalez-Padron, T., Hult, T., Calantone, R., 2008, Exploiting Innovative
Opportunities in Global Purchasing: an Assessment of Ethical Climate and
Relationship Performance, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 37, pp. 69-82.
20. Graham-Matheson, L., Connolly, T., Robson, S., Stow, W., 2006, A Systematic Map
into Approaches to Making Initial Teacher Training Flexible and Responsive to the
Needs of Trainee Teachers, In: Research Evidence in Education Library, EPPI-
Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London,
London.
21. Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., Alpkan, L., 2011, Effects of Innovation Types on
Firm Performance, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 133, no. 2,
pp. 662–676.
22. Halme, M., Laurila, J., 2009, Philanthropy, Integration or Innovation? Exploring
the Financial and Societal Outcomes of Different Types of Corporate
Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 84, pp. 325–339.
23. Hanke, T., Stark, W., 2009, Strategy Development: Conceptual Framework on
Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 85, pp. 507-516.
24. Hockerts, K., CSR-driven innovation, Towards the Social Purpose Business,
http://www.academia.edu/2837447/CSR-
driven_Innovation_Towards_the_Social_Purpose_Business [access: 1.8.2014].
25. Hoivik, H., Shankar, D., 2011, How Can SMEs in a Cluster Respond to Global
Demands for Corporate Responsibility?, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 101, pp.
175-195.
26. Husted, B., Allen, D., Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Value Creation
among Large Firms. Lessons from the Spanish Experience, Long Range Planning,
vol. 40, pp. 594-610.
27. Jaffe, A., Palmer, J., 1997, Environmental Regulation and Innovation: a Panel
Study, Review of Economics & Statistics, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 610-619.
28. Jalali, S., Wohlin, C., 2012, Systematic Literature Studies: Database Searches vs.
Backward Snowballing, International Conference on Empirical Software
Engineering and Measurement, ESEM’12, September 19-20, Lund, Sweden.
29. Jeucken, M., 2004, Sustainability in Finance, Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon
Academic Publishers.
30. Johnston, R., 1966, Technical Progress and Innovation, Oxford Economic Papers,
vol. 18, no. 2, p. 160.
31. Kaesuwan, S., 2002, Importance of Models in Econometrics,
http://www.gaoshan.de/university/tp/Importance_of_Models_in_Economics.pdf
[access: 1.8.2014].
32. Kambalame, D., Cleene, S., 2006, Partnership Building as an Approach to
Addressing Corporate Social Responsibility in the Agriculture Sector in Malawi,
Development Southern Africa, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 281-287.
33. Kim, Y., Brodhag, Ch., Mebratu, D., 2014, Corporate Social Responsibility Driven
Innovation, The European Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp.
175-196.
23
34. Kolk, A., Pinkse, J., 2010, The Integration of Corporate Governance in Corporate
Social Responsibility Disclosures, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 15 - 26.
35. KPMG, 2011, International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting.
36. Lober, D., 1998, Pollution Prevention as Corporate Entrepreneurship, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 26-37.
37. Lockett, A., Moon, J., Wayne, V., 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility in
Management Research: Focus, Nature, Salience and Sources of Influence, Journal
of Management Studies, vol. 43, 114–136.
38. Lopez, M., Perez, M., Rodriguez, L., 2008, Strategy, Corporate Social
Responsibility and R&D Expenditure: Empirical Evidence of European
Convergence, Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association,
Rotterdam.
39. Louche, C., Idowu, O., Filho, W., 2010, Innovative CSR, Greenleaf Publishing,
Sheffield.
40. MacGregor, S., Fontrodona, J., 2008, Exploring the Fit Between CSR and
Innovation, Working Paper, no. WP-759, IESE Business School – University of
Navarra.
41. Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P., 2010, Using Innovation Surveys for Econometric Analysis,
Working Paper, United Nations University, Maastricht Economic and Social
Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology.
42. Maxfield, S., 2011, Teaching Economics to Business Students through the Lens of
Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability, The Journal of Economic
Education, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 60-69.
43. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 2000, Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial
Performance: Correlation or Misspecification?, Strategic Management Journal,
vol. 21, pp. 603-609.
44. Midttun, A., 2009, Strategic CSR Innovation. Serving Societal and Individual
Needs, Norwegian School of Management, Oslo.
45. Miles, M., Munila, L., Darroch, J., 2009, Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship,
International Enterprise Management Journal, vol. 5, pp. 65-76.
46. Mohr, J., Sarin, S., 2009, Drucker’s insights on market orientation and innovation:
implications for emerging areas in high-technology marketing, Journal of the
Academic Marketing Science, vol. 37, pp. 85-96.
47. Myers, S., Marquis, D., 1969, Successful Industrial Innovation, National Science
Foundation, Washington.
48. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C., Rangaswami, M., 2009, Why Sustainability Is Now the
Key Driver of Innovation, September, Harvard Business Review.
49. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2009, Corporate social responsibility in a
global economy, report no. 10.
50. OECD & Eurostat, 2005, Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting
Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological
Activities, OECD Publishing.
51. Osteroth, M., Rota, S., 2005, Open Source Software Development – Just Another
Case of Collective Invention?, Center for Research in Economics, Management and
the Arts, vol. 8.
24
52. Pana, L., 2013, Social Efficacy by Responsible Change Management, Systematic
Practice and Action Reseach, vol. 26, pp. 579-588.
53. Porter, M., Kramer, M., 2011, Creating Shared Value, Harvard Business Review,
January - February 2011.
54. Ramanathan, R., 2002, Introductory Econometrics with Applications, 5th edition,
Harcourt College Publishers, Orlando.
55. Ratajczak, M., Stawicka, E., 2011, Historyczne uwarunkowania rozwoju społecznej
odpowiedzialności biznesu, in: Pisz, Z., Rojek-Nowosielska, M. (eds.), Społeczna
odpowiedzialność organizacji, Metodyka, narzędzia, ocena, Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, Wrocław, pp. 96-102.
56. Rennings, K., Rammer, C., 2011, The Impact of Regulation-Driven Environmental
Innovation on Innovation Success and Firm Performance, Industry & Innovation,
vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 255-283.
57. Rennings, K., Ziegler, A., Ankele, K., Hoffmann, E., 2006, The Influence of
Different Characteristics of the EU Environmental Management and Auditing
Scheme on Technical Environmental Innovations and Economic Performance,
Ecological Economics vol. 57, pp. 45-60.
58. Rexhepi, G., Kurtishi, S., Bexheti, G., 2013, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
and Innovation the Drivers of Business Growth?, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, vol. 75, pp. 532-541.
59. Rubera, G., Kirca, A., 2012, Firm Innovativeness and its Performance Outcomes: a
Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration, Journal of Marketing, vol. 76,
May, pp. 130-147.
60. Savitz, A., Weber, K., 2006, The Triple Bottom Line, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
61. Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2006, Managing the Business Case for Sustainability.
Capturing the Relationship between Sustainability Performance, Business
Competitiveness and Economic Performance, Greenleaf Publishing.
62. Schumpeter, J., 1939, Business Cycles a Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical
Analysis of the Capitalist Process, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York-
Toronto-London.
63. Siguaw, J., Enz, C., Kimes, S., Verma, R., Walsh, 2009, Cases in Innovative
Practices in Hospitality and Related Services, Cornell Hospitality Report, vol. 9,
no. 17.
64. Surroca, J., Tribo, J., Waddock, S., 2010, Corporate Responsibility and Financial
Performance: the Role of Intangible Resources, Strategic Management Journal, vol.
31, pp. 463-490.
65. Szutowski, D., 2014, Classification of Innovations in Tourism Companies -
Systematic Literature Review, conference proceedings of Dynamika przemian rynku
turystycznego, Warsaw, 16-17 October 2014.
66. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., Pavitt, K., 2005, Managing Innovation. Integrating
Technological, Market and Organizational Change, Third Edition, Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
67. Torugsa, N., O’Donohue, W., Hecker, R., 2013, Proactive CSR an Empirical
25
Analysis of the Role of its Economic, Social and Environmental Dimensions on the
Association between Capabilities and Performance, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.
115, pp. 383-402.
68. Tsai, H., Tsang, N., Cheng, S., 2012, Hotel Employees’ Perceptions on Corporate
Social Responsibility: the Case of Hong Kong, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1143-1154.
69. Visser, W., The Age of Responsibility CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business,
Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, vol. 5, no. 3.
70. Vollebergh, H., Kemfert, C., 2005, The Role of Technological Change for a
Sustainable Development, Ecological Economics, vol. 54, no. 2-3, pp. 133-147.
71. Wagner, M., 2010, Corporate Social Performance and Innovation with High Social
Benefits: A Quantitative Analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 94, pp. 581-594.
72. Weisenfeld, U., 2012, Corporate Social Responsibility in Innovation: Insights from
two Cases of Syngenta’s Activities in Genetically Modified Organisms, Creativity &
Innovation Management, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 199-2011.
73. Zenko, Z., Mulej, M., 2011, Diffusion of Innovative Behavior with Social
Responsibility, Kybernets, vol. 40, no. 9-10, pp. 1258-1272.
Appendix 1
Numbers in brackets in Table 7 refer to the number of publication in non-restricted queries.
Table 7. Number of publications in consecutive queries in “search” step
Social responsibility CSR Sustain
Innovation 412 (924) 169 (226) 599 (1345)
Novelty 11 (14) 7 (12) 22 (71)
Improvement 277 (743) 122 (411) 405 (2692)
Source: own development.