Article2010

The impact of strategic orientation on corporate social responsibility

70 citations0/0 files storedInternational journal of organizational analysis

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Organizational Strategy and Culture

Abstract

Purpose Using the strategic orientation concept of Miles and Snow, the purpose of this paper is to test if differences in levels of corporate social responsibility (CSR) exist between prospectors, defenders, analyzers, and reactors. Design/methodology/approach The method included a purpose‐designed survey sent to CEOs. To explore differences in CSR and strategy types, one‐way ANOVA with contrast effect analysis was used. Findings The results suggest that differences in levels of CSR do exist between strategy types. Prospectors and defenders demonstrated higher levels of CSR than analyzers. As expected, reactors demonstrated the lowest levels of CSR. Research limitations/implications This paper suggests that while institutions appear to be placing increasing demands on firms to demonstrate socially responsible behavior, not all firms demonstrate CSR equally. How firms approach competitive markets and the characteristics that shape how they adapt to the environment – or strategic orientation – appears to be a factor that explains differing levels of CSR. Practical implications Firms' strategic orientation might be important to the demonstration of CSR; therefore, understanding the internal dynamics and characteristics of different strategy types will afford managers a better understanding of strategies that are needed to more effectively engage in CSR. Originality/value The value of the paper rests in exploring, for the first time, if differences in CSR exist between the Miles and Snow strategy typology. The current study puts forth statistical evidence that differences do exist, thus building on a rich body of research aimed at understanding the impact of strategic orientation on organizational outcomes.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 70 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives 2003Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.1983The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields 2004The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields 1990Comparative fit indexes in structural models.2010Strategic management a stakeholder approach 1977Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys 2007The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits

Cited by

2019Organizational Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Mediating Effect of Triple Bottom Line 2023Strategic orientation, risk‐taking, corporate life cycle and environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices: Evidence from ASEAN countries 2023Industry and Stakeholder Impacts on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Financial Performance: Consumer vs. Industrial Sectors 2017Where the eyes go, the body follows?: Understanding the impact of strategic orientation on corporate social performance

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.