Strategy for social impact
Business Relationship Management for Social Impact: CSR Reporting Perspective
Abstract
The paper presents a study of CSR reporting focused on how companies compose organizational aspiration with business relationships management into strategy for social impact and value sharing. Starting from literature review we evolved three hypotheses based on resource-based view of company, stakeholder theory and disclosure and legitimacy theory. The study presents the interplay between business relationship management and partners engagement for social impact harmonized with business goals. We utilized latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) for theme detection in mission statements and CEO’s letters. We identified eight major themes and associated wording which can differentiate sector’s approach to sustainability. We applied qualitative content analysis to illustrate conclusions concerning companies’ strategical pillars for sustainability. We present the motivational role of CSR for organizational social aspirations. Based on citations from company rhetoric we deliver practical inside for managers. The study contributes to academia with new knowledge in several areas and promising framework for future investigation.
Keywords: corporate social responsibility, value co-creation, social impact, business relationship management
1. Introduction
There is a significant academic interest in business relationship management (BRM) which together with concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) occurs a strategic framework to obtain significant social impact (Rawhouser et al. 2019; Baraibar-Diez et al. 2020; Belyaeva et al. 2020; Carroll 2021). However, some researchers are questioning whether the organizations can manage their relationships in a long-term and sustainable way (Friedman 1970; Sharma 2020; Vesal et al. 2020) the majority of academics deliver confirmations that organizations strive towards shaping relationship in the spirit of responsibility for environment, social well-being, and socially appreciated role. Those organizations are publishing their sustainability/CSR reports in order to demonstrate their approach and achievements as we can read in one of the reports studied here: “We recognized that our sustainability reporting needs to be much more than mere disclosure as it is a true insight into how we do business. Most importantly, we approach sustainability as a long-term, collaborative effort. No single company or industry can tackle these challenges alone. Working together, however, we can create sustainable solutions for the world’s future generations” (Retail company 2020). Thus, we recognize the source of socially impactive initiatives in company aspiration to play the valuable role in the society. This led to the aim of the study as the knowledge extension in the field of organization management for purpose of social impact disclosed in CSR reporting. Therefore, in order to do that we formulate following objectives of the study: (a) investigate disclosure of corporate strategy as the place where the organization’s aspirations are presented, (b) analyse presentation of company relations with stakeholders, and (c) investigate achievements as the results of value cocreation and value sharing processes. Based on this we are going to formulate a conclusion concerning the social role of the company through their ambitions, BRM and material results provided to society.
Presented research contributes to existing literature from four angels. First, we present the interplay between BRM and the social orientation in the organizational strategy which delivers a better understanding of the integration processes where the BRM is used to involve all parties into socially impactive activity. The literature has just begun to explore non-financial goals of stakeholder engagement and social impact aspiration based on CSR reporting review. Second, taking into account the global scale of business operation in current years the study also contributes to searching for solutions to complex social problems, e.g., sustainable sourcing and value sharing in global partnership. This comes in line with a survey done by Lee and Tang (2017), in which they found that social responsibility receives far less scientific attention than business sustainability overall. Third, the study, as based on CSR reporting delivers a new knowledge on organizational motivation to drive sustainable business with all players involved. Finally, on a practical level, our research provides suggestions for managerial considerations of how organizations include social orientation to business logic.
2. Theory and Hypothesis
2.1. Social Impact
The issue of the social impact is understood as a set of beneficial outcomes resulting from the organization’s prosocial behavior (Stephan et al. 2016) that are fitting society expectations. The reason why companies are increasing attention to social impact is the idea of searching for acceptance, appreciation, admiration, purpose, and new resources in commitment with society (Epstein and Yuthas 2014). Researchers of social impact focus their interest on social performance (Kurniawati et al. 2017), social return (Krlev et al. 2013), social return on investment (Hall et al. 2015), and social accounting (Nicholls 2009), but they ignore sources and causes of such intensive prosocial activity.
Social impact has been conceptualized in the literature using such terms as social value, social performance, and social return on investment (SROI) (Yates 2017; Nason et al. 2018). The essence of social impact lies in a set of beneficial outcomes (Stephan et al. 2016). This definition covers the most of current approaches in academic studies encompass also different social phenomena as benefit-sharing, community development, engagement and resilience, cultural heritage, gender issues, grievance redress, human rights, indigenous peoples, in-migration, livelihood restoration, local content, and local procurement (e.g., Rawhouser et al. 2019; Vanclay 2020). Recent study also plays increasing attention to interactions of all local cooperants in context of their direct involvement into locally expected social achievements through business relationship management, which has been previously focused particularly on routines of collaborative relations (Soltani and Navimipour 2016; Dubey et al. 2019; Ojansivu et al. 2020).
2.2. Business Relationships Management
BRM has been established in the 1990s, with the publication of multiple theoretical studies (e.g., Heide and John 1992; Möllner and Wilson 1992). They focused on behavioural effects and intentional results from the company commitment to relationship between the company and customers or suppliers (Singh et al. 2017). Mitrega and Pfajfar (2015) defined BRM as a set of organizational routines implemented or learned internally in order to leverage company skills required to manage business relationships in its changing nature. BRM is also referred to as the “linkage between parties involved in business processes in formal or informal ways” (Yiu et al. 2007). BRM covers a company’s existing relationships, the development of deficient relationships and ending unprofitable relationships (so-called internal BRM), and finally initiating relationships with new partners (so-called external BRM). Thus, BRM can be positioned as a management tool aimed to build alliances with external partners (Mitrega 2012). BRM strengthens customer loyalty, reduces costs of sales, and finally supports operational performance (Reichheld and Markey 2012). In context of strategy issues three forms of BRM can be established: decoupled, coupled, and combinatory (Pullman et al. 2018). In decoupled form, the profit orientation prevails. Therefore, managers realize BRM in terms of power-dependence determined by the resource ownership. They identify business opportunities in emerging markets and design products and services to address the needs of the people living in these areas by establishing new enterprises or brands. Locals are seen as final customers in the commercial logic. When socio-oriented organizations start to act as intermediaries between local communities and the company, the company start to manage BRM in decoupled form but if company combine profit and social orientation through engagement of relevant groups of stakeholders, they work in combinatory forms. Following Jones et al. (2018), if a company, as market player, identifies and includes people and other organizations into cooperation it enables them economic activity. Each of them obtains a specific role in business logic. Therefore, economic and altruistic ties arise. Lastly, the coupled form occurs when organizations focus on social impact while profit orientation is on the secondary scene. The main goal of this approach is to meet social needs through economic activity not as the main objective but as the supportive to the organization mission for social impact.
The social impact as a result of BRM can be derived from a variety of theories, where three are the most interesting in the context of CSR reporting. The first one is resource-based company view (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 2001; San and Salim 2017), the second is stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984; Freeman et al. 2010; De Gooyert et al. 2017; Jones 1995; Jones et al. 2018), and the third is disclosure and legitimacy theory (Verbeeten et al. 2016, Hummel and Schlick 2016; Zelditch 2018).
The resource-based theory suggests that company creates relationships with business partners and society for the purpose of external resources generation (San and Salim 2017). It assumes a bilateral nature of relationships where organization and stakeholder groups influence each other or influence others in order to obtain the best possible ability to compete on the market through resource extension. Thus, resource-based theory and further mutations (Bromiley and Rau 2016).) explain financial perspective of BRM for social impact.
Stakeholder theory pertains to the relationships with multiple stakeholders (Freeman 1984; Freeman, Harrison, and Wicks 2007). Despite the debate on the subject whether the stakeholder theory is really a theory (Barney and Harrison 2020), it defines models for identifying the stakeholders that can be involved in relationship management and the extent viewed as channels of multiple impact. Stakeholder theory describes: (a) human actors cooperatively engaged in value creation, (b) align values, norms, and ethics as mechanisms to produce both efficient and effective flourishing within and among organizations, and (c) encompass a worldview of business that reflects a higher state of consciousness about its short- and long-term role in and impact on society (Freeman, et al. 2020). Stakeholder theory combines value co-creation, distribution, and influence on society. In this view, powerful stakeholders have the ability to constrain the firm’s choice to only these options which they accept. For example, stakeholders can use their power to influence benefits allocations to themselves or other stakeholders, enforce dedicate some part of material outcomes to be addressed to fulfil human needs in certain society or moderate management latitude of stakeholder management strategy, in order to influence BRM style and partnership portfolio for the best social impact.
Disclosure and legitimacy theory describes what and why organizations are disclosing as social initiatives or as a PR. Legitimacy is a process by which an organization seeks society’s acceptance for their actions. Legitimacy can be defined as a generalized perception or assumption that the activity provided by a company is desirable and appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (Suchman 1995, p.574). Legitimacy management is a cultural process through which organizations try to gain, maintain, and regain stakeholders in order to support organizations in their activity. Therefore, it depends heavily on proper communication with various audiences (Peng et al. 2021). Legitimacy theory aims to explain the behavior of organizations when they implement voluntary social disclosure to obtain broad recognition of their objectives in a jumpy and turbulent environment. In order to obtain high appreciation, all initiatives are reported in accordance with the expectations of society. If a company does not respect social and moral values, the organization could be severely sanctioned by society (Schiopoiu and Popa 2013). By disclosing social information, a company conveys a social image of responsibility that legitimizes its behaviors (da Conceição Tavares and Dias 2018). Well-performing companies highlight their distinguish from underperformers. They disclose more CSR information in order to benefit from financial markets while low performers disclose less to prevent the negative effects (Xu et al. 2020). The legitimacy theory also argues that low performers could disclose more to legitimate themselves (Cho et al. 2012). From this point of view, social pressure is considered as the main determinant of CSR disclosure. Disclosure theory explains the volume of CSR disclosure, but legitimacy theory highlights recipient of disclosure (Fernando and Lawrence 2014).
One more concept is worth mentioning – the shared value and its relationship to financial performance (CFP). Socio oriented researchers confirm that there is a positive association between CSR and CFP (Orlitzky 2008; Kim at al. 2018). This provokes a management idea of “strategic CSR” (Carroll & Hoy, 1984) which employs CSR strategically to obtain maximum impact on financial performance. Based on that (at least partially) a concept of shared value (CSV) appeared from Porter and Kramer (2006) which builds a link between business performance and benefits delivered to society. However, some debate appeared (Crane at al. 2014) the concept of both CSR and CSV working together for business and society is still discussed in context of stakeholder engagement for purpose of business and social impact (Porter and Kramer 2011).
2.3. Social Orientation in Business Strategy
Social orientation, as the issue of the business strategy is progressively growing in academic study and management considerations. The Business Roundtable (BR, Aug 19, 2019) has emphasised that investing in employees and communities is what they see as the only way to long-term success. They suggest a broader approach to profit distribution among stakeholders and society. Also, most (93%) of CEOs surveyed by the United Nations Global Compact said that acting in a sustainable, socially responsible manner is the only way for the success of their companies (United Nations Global Compact and Accenture, 2010). Similarly, consulting company Aflac (2020), in a recent report concluded that 77% of consumers and 73% investors would be more likely to buy products or services if the company openly demonstrates responsiveness to social issues. These conclusions are also confirmed in numbers of scientific investigations what can be seen from reviews made by Birindelli et al. (2015). Therefore, it is widely observed business transformation to sustainable way of development where social issues are increasingly embedded in company strategies (Hamidu et al. 2016). Naturally, it also requires a risks management to be adjusted (Wagner 2004) but the rationale behind that opportunity to improve overall performance based on operating more trustworthy for new groups of stakeholders including global sourcing and financial markets (Li et al. 2019; Crisan-Mitra et al. 2020; Dentchev 2004; Gazzola & Colombo 2014; Peters & Simaens 2020).
In order to understand why organizations, make strategic effort for social impact it is necessary to investigate the concept of strategic aspiration. According to Bowen (2018) strategic aspiration is the bunch of forces that drive a collective sense of actions that reflects the purpose for which the organization has been established. The three groups of organizations according to their strategic aspiration can be distinguished. The first one communicates social aspiration in the same way and intensity as economic goals (Xu, Zeng 2020), the second, focuses primarily on the economic performance while social goals are being maintained as a supplementary. The third group focuses only of financial goals (Orlitzky et al. 2003). Literature of management research often associates aspiration with strategy (Senf et al. 2015). Therefore, company aspiration can be investigated through analytical approach to strategy (McLoughlin et al. 2009; Kaul and Luo 2017; Rawhouser et al. 2019). In context of CSR reporting, it is the matter of strategy communication, sometimes even before they do any action (Schoeneborn 2020). Fowler et al. (2019) illustrates that strategy enforces social initiatives (a model of “Transforming Good Intentions into Social Impact”). Boni et al. (2021) reports financial argument, that investors adopt much easily strategies which presents high social aspirations.
Sobkowiak (2020) conclude three research papers set out to better understanding if and how aspirational talk of CEOs is presented in CSR reporting. Within these papers, she defines CSR aspirational talk as organisational communication about social intentions and ideals that might not be fully reflected in organisational behaviour. Feix and Philippe (2018) highlight some ambivalences within the CSR narratives, which include: social duty vs self-interest, firm as problem solver vs problem creator, praise vs acknowledgement, continuity vs discontinuity, emphasising vs downplaying and urgency vs deferral. These ambivalences call for serious and necessary reflections on the meaning of CSR content in communication of the corporation role and true intention for social impact. Winkler et al. (2019) set out to better understanding the dynamics of aspirational talk in context of its consequences for engagement. They propose that organisations shift towards a more agonistic narrative in communicating social aspirations in order to deal with tension between company and society goals. Penttilä (2019) analyse how aspirational talk is intertwined with strategic episodes and texts and how it is utilized in communication processes. Based on the presented literature review, we expect that organizations will communicate their aspirations for social impact in CSR reporting in sample. These managers that demonstrate a high aspiration for social impact should clearly communicate appropriate mission statements and associated action plans in company strategy. In contrast, the organizations focused on the financial results should present social impact as supportive. That is why we should see a variety of presentation styles and interplay between aspirations and achievement. Thus, we can propose
Stakeholder engagement should be associated with CSR strategy (Belyaeva et al. 2020). Stakeholder engagement, as management process establishes a broader framework to collective acting in the relational network for contribution of all parties to organizational and social goals (Tate and Bals 2016, Hurst and Ihlen 2018). They posit that commitment to common goals is a fundamental aspect CSR strategy because it refers to the state where all parties feel that it is worth spending energy to maintain the relationship. Stakeholders can influence others to socio-oriented initiatives. They also can add multiple perspectives to decision making process, can moderate company activity, reduce potential conflicts, and finally promote social learning (Blackstock et al. 2007; Huzzard 2021). Fe Jasanoff (2006) suggests that stakeholder engagement is even a necessary condition to achieve social impact. A well-managed stakeholder engagement can reduce social constraints on business adding value to the organisation in form of “social licence” to operate (Dare et al. 2014). Similarly, Lumpkin and Bacq (2019) indicate three areas where stakeholders could make important contributions to the social impact: as the community, as the regime of support, and as the enterprise operating for social impact. Based on dialogues stakeholders can create opportunities for the products and services to be better adjusted for society and that is what eventually improve competitiveness of the company (Lauesen 2013), increase market share, and pre-empt social issues (Ardiana 2019). This is in line with estimation made by Shahzad et al. (2016). They suggest that strengthening stakeholders’ role by 1% company can increase corporate social performance by 0.4%. Similar conclusions also present Lee et al (2021) confirming that direct and indirect relationships between social orientation and social performance is significant.
One more engagement is worth mentioning, that is supplier relationships management. Based on data from 33,886 firms Qorri et al, (2021) shows that sustainable supply chain management positively and significantly correlate with firm’s social, operational, economic, and environmental performance. Understanding of sustainable supply chain management refers to aspects of worker job environment, safety, child labour and poverty alleviation (Agrawal & Sharma, 2015). Social performance can be measured as overall stakeholder welfare, community health, and safety of workers (Paulrajet al. 2017). Focusing on the buyer-seller relationship Awan et al. (2018) reports that supplier commitment to the company’s CSR strategy is essential to obtain social impact. Based on results from study of 383 procurement executives Luzzini et al. (2015) provide strong support for linking social performance and intra-firm collaborative capabilities and commitment to sustainable development. Thus, a strong commitment of all stakeholders to the sustainable development supports the ecosystem of cooperation which may act as an antecedent to the social impacts. In the light of above we can propose
Hypothesis 2. Stakeholder engagement is an essential part to obtain social impact generated by the organization to the society what should be emphasized in CSR reporting.
There is common consent between researchers that social activity of the firm produce benefits for organization and the society (Vanclay 2017a, 2017b). It can be conceptualized in terms of monetary rents and non-monetary outcomes (Kohtamäki et al. 2018). The concept includes organizational values (e.g., Ulaga and Eggert 2002), benefits from relationship safeguarding, scouting, and easier market access (e.g., Ritter and Geműnden 2004). The source of those benefits is perceived in vertical and horizontal relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994) where the quality of relationships indicates the ability to value co-creation (Fyrberg and Jüriado 2009; Diffley and McCole 2015; Möller and Halinen 2017). Society partners benefit from relationships in material and non-material form. Material benefits occurs as economic opportunity generated for local communities e.g., not affordable availability of goods and services with market trends, easy supply and proximity, workplaces, opportunity for entrepreneurship, access to trustworthy suppliers and logistic services. Nonmaterial benefits comprise e.g., building playgrounds, renovating public places, products adjusted to customer expectation, and innovation capability (Jayachandran et al. 2005; Alghababsheh and Gallear 2020).
Responding to above means for the company creating shared value distributed to both, the internal and external stakeholders. Therefore, BRM generates the potential to create shared value and by that social impact (Husted et al. 2012; Szabo and Kratki 2018). Porter and Kramer (2019) propounds that creation a shared value, the economic and the societal arise simultaneously. It become through reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain, and building supportive industry clusters. BRM can serve a strategic bridge between the company and society with the duty to bring the shared value for all parties. Thus, we propose
Hypothesis 3. Business Relationship Management supports creation of the shared value what should be clearly visible in CSR reporting.
3. Methodology and Sample
The sample data for the research was composed of 30 CSR reports selected from the Global Sustainability Disclosure Database (https://database.globalreporting.org/). We selected companies operating in three sectors: retailers (Ret), textiles and apparel (Tex), and food and beverages (F&B). Our intention was to investigate reports of large companies, published in English, in attractive form, and from most recent period of time 2018-2020. The reason behind the sectors selection was to study different strategy of social influence: (a) Ret perceived as supplying society with product selection for everyday purchase, Tex – producing a stylish assortment for seasonal purchase, and F&B – promoting event live style. Abbreviated names of companies included to the sample is presented in Table 2. In rest of the paper, we will refer only to sector and year.
Table 2. The sample: CRS reports taken for investigation.
Market segment | Company | Number of sentences | Number of phrases |
Textiles/Apparel (Tex) | Björn Borg, CCC, Ellos, Filippa, Gina, H&M, Hugo Boss, Inditex, LPP, Mango | 9 203 | 38 787 |
Retailer (Ret) | Aldi, Ao, Axfood, Carrefour, Dustin, John Lewis, Kesko, Pauling, Pets, Walmart | 7 835 | 39 903 |
Food and Beverage (F&B) | Carlsberg, Cloetta, Corbion, Cranswick, Dairy, Fazer, Ferrero, Lant, Nomad, Organix | 7 688 | 38 270 |
Total | 24 726 | 116 960 | |
Avg. dev. 681,5 (1,75%) |
In order to combine statistical and human analysis, we applied two methods: machine learning algorithm – latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) (Blei et al. 2003) and qualitative content analysis (QCA) (Assarroudi at al. 2018). Our approach is partially modelled on Liao, et al. (2017 and 2018), Lock and Seele (2016), Yeh and Liao (2015), Michaels and Grüning (2018), Calabrese et al. (2015), Torelli et. al. (2020). The research framework is presented in Figure 1. We start with content selection and statistical analysis. After that we processed LDA to obtain main themes (topics) of the content. In the second phase, we utilized QCA to investigate CSR reporting as the content mirroring business realities which is possible to be categorized. Finally, we verified research hypothesis and formulated conclusions.
Figure 1. Research framework
LDA-topic modelling is a method of theme searching in text content. Algorithm creates a probabilistic model based on associations between words and phrases in sentences or paragraphs. These associations are interpreted as topics of conversation. Every topic summarises some aspect of the certain part of the document. Based on this we can deduct what is the content about, what is the leading idea and what associated words and phrases have bee used to express that. During processing, CSR reports have been converted to plain text and filtered for stop words, numbers, punctuation, and short words. After that LDA procedure produced a set of topics as an output.
QCA method is divided into two phases. The first one is deductive phase where content is selected as related to subject of investigation. The second phase is summative where content is classified and categorised according to association with certain aspect of hypothesis (Vaismoradi and Snelgrove 2019). In both phases a questionnaire presented in Table 1 had been utilized.
Table 1. Questionary for QCA.
Area Codes | The area of report to be checked / the keyword to be found | |||
H1 – Strategy ambitions and the linkage to business objectives for social impact | ||||
H1.1 | Report presets strategy ambitions related to social impact | Mission statement includes social aspirations | Sustainability is integral part of strategy and business operations | Value creation is based on sustainability pillars and principles |
H1.2 | Company transforms products and processes for social impact | Comp. emphasizes culture of cooperation for sustainability | Rep highlights management processes for sustainability | Communicates role of external partners in business development |
H2. Stakeholder engagement as a framework for cooperation for collective social impact | ||||
H2.1 | Present market trends as stakeholder groups characteristics | Recognize customer groups and its challenges | Present supplier relationship management | Describe local communities and relationships |
H2.2 | Present example of opportunity created for stakeholder groups | Describe examples of customer engagement for social impact | Present stakeholders’ forums and involvement for feedback | Social challenge and initiatives realized with local partners |
H3. Shared value | ||||
H3.1 | Report presents materiality matrix | List of achievements and value in money | List of social initiatives of general influence | List of achievements directed to locals |
H3.2 | Report presents examples of achievement | with customers | with suppliers | with local community |
4. Findings
4.1. Lexical Analysis
The dataset contains 116,960 phrases where 38,869 are unique. Most phrases (34.146; 88%) are sector specific, means they occurred once or several times in reports from only one sector, 3.008 phrases (8%) appeared in data of two sectors, and 1.715 (4%) are common phrases, occurred in content for all sectors. Common phrases cover 50% of total occurrence, what means that every second word belong to set of common phrases. This suggest that they pose a significant content in every company to explain their ideas. For illustration, a top 10% (17) of common phrases are presented in Table 2 followed by position in all and every individual sector. We also classify phrases as R-relational phrases, S-related to strategy, and V-value related
Table 2. Top 10% of common phrases.
All sectors | Type | Rank | F&B (rank) | Retail (rank) | Textile (rank) | |
Customer | R | 1 | board (8) | customer (1) | supplier (4) | |
Product | S, V | 2 | business (5) | group (3) | group (3) | |
Group | S | 3 | product (2) | product (2) | product (2) | |
Supplier | R | 4 | group (3) | supplier (4) | employee (6) | |
Business | S | 5 | company (7) | board (8) | customer (1) | |
Employee | V, R | 6 | employee (6) | store (9) | company (7) | |
Company | S | 7 | consumer (15) | business (5) | business (5) | |
Board | S | 8 | market (21) | company (7) | worker (25) | |
Store | V | 9 | committee (50) | risk (10) | store (9) | |
Risk | S | 10 | food (26) | employee (6) | supply chain (12) | |
People | V, R | 11 | risk (10) | country (16) | brand (14) | |
Supply chain | R, V, S | 12 | people (11) | service (37) | production (29) | |
Work | V | 13 | customer (1) | work (13) | people (11) | |
Brand | S | 14 | management (39) | partner (43) | factory (49) | |
Consumer | R | 15 | sup. board (72) | supply chain (12) | material (62) | |
Country | S | 16 | shareholder (63) | operation (19) | code of conduct (36) | |
Area | S | 17 | supplier (4) | people (11) | work (13) |
Note: R-relational phrases: “customer”, “consumer”, “supplier”, “supply chain”; S-strategy related: “business”, “company”, “board”; V‑value related: “products”, “store”, “supply chain”, “employee”, “people”
Sometimes phrase meaning depends on context, and this is marked as multitype. Based on this illustration, one can note that F&B uses more frequently organization and strategy related terminology (“board”, “business”) while Ret and Tex more on relationship (“customer”, “group”, “supplier”). This could suggest that sustainability reports disclosure sector profile in terms of strategy, relationship management, value sharing. We will study it deeper in LDA analysis and subsequent sections of this paper.
As mentioned, LDA detects topics in selected content. In the first step we calculated coherence score to establish reasonable numbers of topics. The coherence plateau appeared at the point of 8 unique topics (out of 15 total). We can recognize strategy-related wording in topics numbered 2, 4, and 6, relational wording in 1, 3, 5, and value-related wording in 7 and 8, what can be seen in Figure 2 in form of clouds of words.
Figure 2. Clouds of words for 8 most unique topics.
Deeper analysis of sector’s wording shows that F&B clearly prioritize strategy related wording (“business”, “product”, “market”), while Ret and Tex customer-oriented wording (“product”, “customer”, “supplier”). Tex emphasises a mixture of supply strategy and market impact through production and lifestyle. The top 3 major topics for every sector is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Three major topics for each sector.
Sector | Topic | Topic terms |
F&B | 0 | business, product, market, employee, consumer, supplier, growth, sale, brand, change |
1 | board, group, committee, company, executive, director, management, member, audit | |
2 | food, risk, customer, production, area, material, impact, development, number, safety | |
Ret | 0 | customer, group, store, food, partner, time, brand, waste, opportunity |
1 | product, supplier, service, chain, country, operation, supply, change, sustainable | |
2 | business, board, risk, company, committee, employee, work, director, area, people | |
Tex | 0 | product, customer, store, material, impact, brand, sustainability, industry, fashion, quality |
1 | supplier, production, year, order, people, management, risk, country, water, sale | |
2 | group, employee, business, chain, company, worker, supply, process, work, development |
Based on presented investigation, we can summarize that CSR reports could be considered as a source of content for analyses sector’s profile as the approach to business goals, stakeholder strategy, relationships, value creation, and value distribution.
4.2. Strategy Aspiration for Social Impact
Companies present their aspiration for social impact in strategy section of CSR reporting. We can see at least three major approaches: (a) business as usual which create opportunity for society, (b) impact through product availability, and (c) sustainability as innovations in product and processes including business culture, atmosphere, and market trends influence. Most companies publish their mission statement, CEO letter, values, and social initiatives. Based on that we present several examples of mentioned approaches. Some companies (e.g., Ret 2019) defines sustainability as daily work, daily commitment, and daily responsibility for society and the surrounding environment. They emphasize business relationships as the responsibility of thousands of people cooperating with them. Similarly, another company (Ret 2020) communicate financial value creation for customer through securing supply, new product lines and cost reduction. They define sustainability as the business goal to serve society and strengthen society, which they see also as strengthening their business. Tex company (2018) refers to “the sustainability model” as the structure of the company. They extend business goals along the entire value chain by implanting the model of responsible management. A retailer (2020) presents a vision to be the leader in the sustainable food supply. They define sustainability as the industry response to society expectation for food production respecting our planet and health. Another two Tex companies (2019) compose sustainability understanding from two parts: (a) sustainable material and (b) sustainable process from production to recycling. F&B company (2019) expresses their approach poetically. They communicate sustainability as “being people, planet and profit positive”. They focus on three areas: leading in sustainability, create meaningful opportunities, and strengthen communities. Tex company (2019) focuses their strategy on positive impact generated by innovation and creativity addressed to teenagers.
A special place where CEO’s can present their keywords for strategic aspiration is a mission statement. In mission statement they can communicate aspiration for social impact in synthetic and symbolic way. Selected examples are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Selected mission statement focused on sustainability.
Company | Mission statement |
F&B | Aur business model makes farming thrive through constant renewal. |
F&B | Food you can trust. Our high standards and No Junk Promise mean we make great food that parents know they can trust. |
F&B | We want to do good for people and the planet. This is part of our strategy, our heritage, and our future. |
F&B | Our company has always been engaged in making solid commitments and paying the most attention to People and the Planet, prioritizing its financial goals. This tendency is inherent to the Company’s DNA. Our approach to sustainability is now based on our social responsibility strategy: “Sharing values to create value”. |
F&B | Our purpose is brewing for a better today and tomorrow. We contribute to a better tomorrow by investing in our sustainability programs, Together Towards ZERO. |
Ret | Our commitment to sustainability is based on clear strategies, ethically correct and compliant behavior, and efficient organizations. We aim to enable safe and responsible consumption with a clear conscience. |
Ret | Our purpose, serving the world with better food, defines our role as a company. It is our compass but also a call to action. |
Ret | We aim to focus on innovation to deliver sustainable products, and waste-smart solutions. |
Ret | We continue to integrate social and environmental aspects into its business strategy and operations. This allows the company to identify risks and opportunities, understand and manage its impact on people and the environment, and live up to external expectations. |
Ret | Our mission is to provide our customers with quality services, products, and food accessible to all distribution channels. Our ambition is to be the leader of the food transition for all. |
Ret | We recognize our responsibility to create a sustainable business that thrives both today and in the future. Our strategy is comprised of 14 pledges which aim to improve the sustainability of our business and its role within the broader community. |
Tex | We believe the Partnership is a better way of doing business. We put the happiness of our Partners at the center of everything we do. |
Tex | Mission for sustainability work – to put it at the heart of how we operate. Our vision is to lead the change towards circular and climate-positive fashion while being a fair and equal company |
Tex | We create value for customers by offering them an integrated customer experience. The integrated shopping experience, either at our stores or when shopping online, allows our customers to express themselves through their clothes. |
Tex | Our goal and promise are to inspire a movement of mindful consumption by showing that simplicity is the purest form of luxury. For us, “mindful consumption” means the responsible creation of timeless, high-quality, practical fashion for a complete wardrobe that promotes a lifestyle of buying and using fewer pieces for longer and giving them a second life after. By connecting with our community and customers, we continue to develop a greater understanding of what they need and how our purpose can impact their lives. |
We can recognize three category of mission statement: (a) expressing modern business as usual with an aspiration to be a strong opportunity creator for society, (b) emphasizing pillars of sustainability or sustainable business model, and (c) highlighting innovativeness, atmosphere, and market trends. Most companies approach to change customer behaviour based on new products, new processes and involving their business partners to realize this aspiration.
A lot of mission statements start with “We” or “Our” what demonstrate a big company/CEO ego. We can find a world saving statements like: “we aim to enable safe and responsible consumption with a clear conscience”, “we put the happiness of our Partners at the center”, “our purpose, serving the world with better food”, “we want to do good for people and the planet”, “our purpose is brewing for a better today and tomorrow”. On other side we can see more conservative approach like: “efficient organizations”, “a better way of doing business”, “focus on innovation to deliver sustainable products”, “integrate social and environmental aspects into its business strategy and operations”, “responsibility to create a sustainable business”. As the conclusion we can note that managers present aspiration for social impact on high level of emotional communication. I many cases it is in line with strategy initiatives but sometimes not. It is also important to noter that some companies built already organization, the operational structure, and the management, for sustainable development including cooperation with business partners and local society but others did not yet. It is clearly visible that some companies are advance in many areas but other are only interested in satisfying minimum of SDG[1] standards but main effort concentrate on financial performance.
Company aspirations for social impact is clearly visible in CSR reporting together with different level of social orientation in execution. The description of both parts are usually detailed and attractive graphically. Companies also present a kind of proudness of their role in society and strategy adjustment to social purpose of the company existence. Based on all above we can state that Hypothesis 1. The higher the organization’s aspirations toward social impact are, the broader communication of external and internal initiatives related to social impact and stakeholder engagement is visible is company strategy presented in CSR reporting is supported.
4.3. Business Relationship Management
CSR reports disclosure how companies are searching for opportunity to improve their social impact through relationships management, as presented in following example: “To extend our impact beyond our immediate supply chain, we work in collaboration with other businesses, industry associations and with advocacy organisations [..]; We also participate in networks and pacts and initiatives to support everyone in Britain to eat an extra portion of veg a day”, (F&B 2019). Some companies are looking around to join existing possibilities to act but other are starting they own impactful projects as in this example: “This year’s report we re-confirm Ferrero’s dedication to positively contribute to different areas of the community through impactful social projects. These projects include …”, (F&B 2018). In relationship-oriented projects companies refers to customer experience on the first scene. Tex company (2019) communicate the sense of of customer care as “the ability to deliver products in line with current trends, the confidence of tailoring them, sustainable materials and processes, and the superb environment offered in stores and digital platforms, with eco-efficient management”. Other Tex company (2018) emphasise “emotions and interaction while ensuring a high level of satisfaction and quality of service”. Their ambition is to provide “a memorable experience”. Second, companies highlight partnerships with culture influencers as pop-culture artists, sport stars, bloggers, customer specific groups, e.g., students. They do address not only marketing but also the design that better express the customer-fan’s personality, their uniqueness, and environmental awareness. This approach demonstrates especially highlight textile companies. Third, companies involve customers into working groups for product design and product testing. They engage them as the partners of circular economy issues, like collection of recycling material or waste reduction. Mango (2018) promote circular economy in the textile industry through initiative “give a second chance to used clothing and footwear”. In similar way also retailers engage their customers. Companies also react changes in sales channels towards mobility, delivering new way of doing purchase (Ret 2018; 2019).
Companies trying to act as a catalyst for changes in supply chain. They can directly influence their supply chain to incentivise the production of sustainable products (Ret 2019). They also seek and adapt suggestions and tests from customers into design and processes (Tex 2019). Therefore, they increasingly utilize social media, customer hotlines, charity events such as World Children’s Day and surveys conducted by market research departments to better understand customers (Ret 2019). Some companies present statistics of the use of social media for practicing unique contact with customers (Tex 2019), as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. The use of social media use for dialogue with the customer (LPP 2019).
Although customer relationship management plays a different role in every sector, three major highlights can be seen in CSR reporting: (a) engagement and customer delight through unique products and superb quality of service, (b) involvement for codesign and cocreation, and (c) involvement for general activity for feedback and brand awareness devoted to intensifying interactions between brand and customer society.
Companies also manage relationship with suppliers in several areas seen their roles: (a) as advocates to industry for obtaining a joint effort in sustainability issues, (b) as players on local market and (c) as innovator transforming business for sustainable production and social impact. As the example of join efforts, companies of fashion and retail sectors declare commitment to human rights. Despite the fact, that most of them provide standards based on code of conduct and audits to their suppliers they also signalling a limited power of their initiatives especially when they are operating in high-risk countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Myanmar) because issues are remaining locally. As the company they cooperate with supplier’s organizations located formally in China what limit their influence on these firms. Thus, they try to utilize ACCORD[2] agreement as signatory. As the example of actions on local markets retailers try to reduce a food waste as joint initiatives of cooperating farmers, small enterprises, service providers and institutional and private customers. As example of business transformation interesting concept presented Tex company (2019). They promote the concept of culture of sustainability sharing. They explain that shared culture of sustainability begins from traceability based on common, dedicated platform where suppliers can manage their part of supply chain with high level of transparency, which catches a raising awareness of international community, especially where products are sourced from global markets. Therefore, highly aspirated industry players engage their suppliers to deliver purposes for clearly positive impact to the communities through products and services (Ret 2019; 2020, Tex 2019). In order to highlight care of transparency, most companies present their partners portfolio what can be se on illustration shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Portfolio of co-operating partners presented by Walmart (2020).
A large number of cooperating business partners requires and effective system of relationship management. It especially matters when parent’s company business is situated in huge tangible assets (as e.g., Ret). These assets create an opportunity for the entire partners for sustainable development utilising partnership ecosystem. A big market player also supports their local partners directly, as Ret company (2018) did by starting a nutrition transformation program where they funded grants for farmers in order to convert their process to organic production.
An analysis of companies’ approaches to relations with society and stakeholders has provided a lot of evidence that companies have accumulated extensive knowledge that allows them not only to discover expectations of customer groups but also to adapt the supply chain, strategic programs, and action plans. They emphasize that “company recognises that a balanced and committed approach to all aspects of sustainability will bring benefits to each of its stakeholders and strengthen its business position and credentials to facilitate sustainable growth and development” (F&B 2018). The company works with customersand suppliers to improve products and support achieving their goals in new way. It is visible in joint activities for process changing, which not only generate a wider contribution to surrounding communities but also improve their social performances. Social impact is therefore a consequence of stakeholder involvement and commitment to company aspiration materialized in activities and cooperation in the framework of BRM, what companies demonstrate in CSR reporting. Thus, in light of that we can conclude that Hypothesis 2. Stakeholder engagement is an essential part to obtain social impact generated by the organization to the society what should be emphasized in CSR reporting is supported
4.4. Shared Value Creation and Distribution
Most companies present their social role as opportunity creators and a loyal taxpayer. They create value from business development projects and social initiatives. Ret company (2020) emphasizes its belief in maximizing value for shareholders “helping to meet important needs in society and vice versa, we can help transform society through our business. Better service can enhance customer trust, catalyse new product lines, increase productivity, reduce costs, and secure future supply, while improving livelihoods, increasing economic mobility and opportunity, reducing emissions and waste, and restoring natural capital”. Similar approach present F&B and Tex companies. In order to deliver proper opportunity, they manage issues important to stakeholders through materiality matrix, revised yearly based on annual stakeholder surveys, consultations, and involvement of expert partners (Ret 2020; Tex 2019; F&B 2019). Tex company (2019) not only presents a contribution to sustainable value creation based on business development but also beyond purely economic value. To achieve social influence, they rebuilt business model to be more flexible, responsive, sustainable, and innovative.
If we assume that materiality matrix is an evidence of the company’s systematic approach to addressing stockholder’s needs, then we should find it in every CSR report. The fact is that we find materiality in four Tex and F&B companies and three in Ret. Despite the possibility that it could be the result of our small sample we can see evaluation of value sharing in initiatives and activity description that companies present in the form of product delivery principles, proximity to local community, opportunity sharing in their stores or other channels, and finally, all other programs that are beneficial for all stakeholders. In many cases they highlight the role of suppliers, especially when they are local or customer groups they operate for. Summarizing all elements in the form of additional description which companies delivered in CSR reports we can conclude that Hypothesis 3. Business Relationship Management supports creation of the shared value what should be clearly visible in CSR reporting is supported.
5. Conclusion
The analysis identifies a number of outcomes, which arise as a result of perceived role of BRM in business management for social success. We have analysed literature approach as background and CSR reporting sample to detect company social aspiration, socially impactive initiatives, stakeholder engagement, and shared value delivered to society. Most analysed companies relate mission statement to sustainable development. They clearly see company purpose for society. This includes customers, suppliers, employees, and the planet. The social purpose of the company varies from financial orientation where social issues exist as supportive to balanced approach with the clear aspiration to be appreciated by society. We identified examples of activity supporting society in their challenges on different levels and with different approach. We can therefore make the following conclusion:
- However, companies present different levels of social orientation in their strategy, all companies in sample present high aspiration to social impact. They define sustainable development for their own use and approach to social impact with respect to the sector’s economic realities. Thus, CSR reporting as the tool summarising company activity for communication could play a motivational role for firms in harmonisation business and social issues.
- Some companies create innovative programs that leverage social role of the company to the position of market trends creator, innovator of sustainability, and organizational culture vanguard. They are proud of it. They implement eco-friendly, socially supportive solutions trying to not only answer customer expectation but also develop market trends and aspiration for better future an many aspects. They are looking for new products and new row materials, transforming supply chain and use resources to transform and then delight customer preferences. They initiate changes in customer behaviours towards new habits, new consumption, new way of product or service use. CRS reporting could be a place where they are looking for brand awareness and/or PR.
- Some companies rise public debate on sustainable production, on reducing food wase, new packaging, recycling challenges, eco-logistics, and other socially important issues. They try to create value on feedback and highlight harmony coexistence with society. They can use CSR reporting as PR tube.
- Companies verify supply partners through code of conduct, external audits, and sustainability programs for production. But they also communicate limited influence on subcontractors and their communities in countries where products come from. They try to balance financial benefits and PR risk. CSR reporting could be a source of information how they manage these issues on public scene.
During the study we identified different form of linking stakeholders’ expectation with social initiatives and different scale of planned or realized activities: materiality matrix, text description or infographics. Some companies highlight achievements in the past year(s) as a result of long-term direction. Some others emphasise revision in strategy and highlight new, sustainable direction based on new pillars they developed. Same reports show a strong motivation to transform selected business areas for purpose of social impact while others underline economic reality where financial result is the prime requirements from stakeholders. Therefore, overall strong our impression is that CSR reports can be valuable source of content describing how companies strive to realize social impact, relationships management, and value distribution.
Our research contributes to the literature of organizational science by extending the studies in field of linking financial performance with social aspiration towards social impact. This research contributes to the body of knowledge on business relationships management by demonstrating how variety of organizational relations contribute to social impacts in harmony with financial goals. We suggest that relationships management can act as a driving factor of beneficial outcome for society and business of all partners. The study provides some ideas to practical management of sustainable business models. Presented knowledge could inspire managers how to balance social impact aspiration and business goals. In particular, our investigation confirm that the social impact aspiration is not in conflict to the financial performance. Furthermore, our results confirm the motivational role of stakeholder’s engagement for positive social results. Based on commitment to sustainable development of the firm bilateral benefits are obtained. From this perspective, we also realized our small mission to promote relationships management as the opportunity to dialogue with all stakeholders followed by engagement to act directly for society and specific stakeholder groups.
There are some limitations to this study. Our research had a limited sample and in principle, a static nature. Therefore, this paper is unable to compare findings across a longer period, but as a pilot is a good prognostic for broader investigations covering also observing the evolving trends especially in near future. Then, the time frame of analysis could be extended for several years in order to identify dynamics of changes in social impact. Especially in the cases when companies communicate new pillars implemented in recent year. Furthermore, content quantitative analysis of sustainability reports refers to the GRI guidelines, as it is globally recognised. However, there are other popular standards such as the Sustainability Accounting Board (SASB), Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), and the Integrated Reporting (IIRC), which concentrate on integrating an organisation’s strategy with its governance, performance, leading to value creation. In the future, as more companies adopt advanced guidelines such as Integrated Reporting (IR), new content analysis frameworks would be needed. These considerations may constitute a starting point for further research. Future studies can continue this line of research and investigate the interactions between social impact and financial aspirations of the organization, a positive or negative social impact, business relationships stimulating orientation at social impact, and value co-creation by BRM.
Nowadays, some authors point out the dilemma between the enhancement of social involvement and the weakening of CSR activities during economic downturns (Bae et. al 2021). Hence, the investigation of CSR reporting in these aspects should be continued.
References
Aflac 2020. Corporate citizenship report. https://www.aflac.com/about-aflac/corporate-citizenship/default.aspx, access 13.11.2020
Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2015). Social sustainability practices in the supply chain of Indian manufacturing industries. International Journal of Automation and Logistics, 1(August). doi:10.1504/IJAL.2015.071721
Agrawal, R., & Sharma, V. (2015). Social sustainability practices in the supply chain of Indian manufacturing industries. International Journal of Automation and Logistics, 1(August). doi:10.1504/IJAL.2015.071721
Alghababsheh M., Gallear D. (2020). Social capital in buyer-supplier relationships: A review of antecedents, benefits, risks, and boundary conditions. Industrial Marketing Management, 91, 338-361.
Anbarasan, P. (2018). Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Enterprise: Evolving a Conceptual Framework, and a Case Study of ITC, Business Strategy & Environment, 27(3), 282-299.
Ardiana, P.A. (2019). Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainability Reporting: Evidence of Reputation Risk Management in Large Australian Companies. Australian Accounting Review, 29(4), 726–747.
Assarroudi, A., Heshmati Nabavi, F., Armat, M. R., Ebadi, A., & Vaismoradi, M. (2018). Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(1), 42-55.
Bae, K. H., El Ghoul, S., Gong, Z., & Guedhami, O. Does CSR matter in times of crisis? Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Corporate Finance, 101876.
Baraibar-Diez, E., Luna, M., Odriozola, M.D., Llorente, I. (2020). Mapping Social Impact: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 12, 9389.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1).
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of management, 27(6), 643-650.
Barney, J. B., & Harrison, J. S. (2020). Stakeholder theory at the crossroads. Business & Society, vol. 59, 2: pp. 203-212.
Belyaeva, Z., Shams, S. R., Santoro, G., & Grandhi, B. (2020). Unpacking stakeholder relationship management in the public and private sectors: the comparative insights. EuroMed Journal of Business.
Belyaeva, Z., Shams, S.M.R., Santoro, G. and Grandhi, B. (2020), “Unpacking stakeholder relationship management in the public and private sectors: the comparative insights”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 269-281.
Birindelli, G., Ferretti, P., Intonti, M., & Iannuzzi, A. P. (2015). On the drivers of corporate social responsibility in banks: evidence from an ethical rating model. Journal of Management & Governance, 19(2), 303-340.
Biraghi, S., Gambetti, R., & Romenti, S. (2017). Stakeholder engagement beyond the tension between idealism and practical concerns. International Journal of Business and Management, 12(2), 14-26.
Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726– 742.
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. the Journal of machine Learning research, 3, 993-1022.
Boni, L.; Toschi, L.; Fini, R. Investors’ Aspirations toward Social Impact: A Portfolio-Based Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5293.
Bowen, S.A. Mission and vision. InThe International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA 2018; pp. 1–9
Bromiley, P., & Rau, D. (2016). Operations management and the resource-based view: Another view. Journal of Operations Management, 41, 95-106.
Calabrese, A., Costa, R., & Rosati, F. (2015, December). A feedback-based model for CSR assessment and materiality analysis. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 312-327). No longer published by Elsevier.
Carroll, A. B. (2021). Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives on the CSR Construct’s Development and Future. Business & Society, 00076503211001765.
Carroll, A. B., Adler, N. J., Mintzberg, H., Cooren, F., Suddaby, R., Freeman, R. E., & Laasch, O. (2020). What ‘are’ responsible management? A conceptual potluck. In O. Laasch, R. Suddaby, R. E. Freeman, & D. Jamali (Eds.), The Research Handbook of Responsible Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Carroll, Hoy. (1984). Integrating corporate social policy into strategic management. Journal of Business Strategy 4(3):48-57.
Cho, C. H., Freedman, M., and Patten, D.M. (2012), “Corporate disclosure of environmental capital expenditures: A test of alternative theories”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 486-507.
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of creating shared value. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153.
Crisan-Mitra C.S., Stanca L., Dabija D.C. (2020). Corporate Social Performance: An Assessment Model on an Emerging Market. Sustainability 12, 4077.
da Conceição Tavares M., Dias A.P. (2018). Theoretical Perspectives on Sustainability Reporting: A Literature Review. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.76951
Dare, M., Schirmer, J., & Vanclay, F. (2014). Community engagement and social licence to operate. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 32(3), 188-197.
De Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., Van Kranenburg, H., & Freeman, E. (2017). Reviewing the role of stakeholders in operational research: A stakeholder theory perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 402-410.
Dentchev N.A. Corporate Social Performance as a Business Strategy, Journal of Business Ethics volume 55, 395–410.
Diffley, S., & McCole, P. (2015). Extending Customer Relationship Management into a Social Context. Service Industries Journal, 35(11-12), 591-610
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., & Helo, P. (2019). Supplier relationship management for circular economy. Management Decision.
Elroy C., 6 Steps to Build a Business with Positive Social Impact [+ Examples], https://www.training.com.au/ed/business-social-impact-examples/, access 18.10.2020
Epstein, M.J.; Yuthas, K. (2014). Measuring and Improving Social Impacts A Guide for Nonprofits, Companies, and Impact Investors; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA.
Erdiaw-Kwasie, M. O., Alam, K., & Shahiduzzaman, M. (2015). Towards understanding stakeholder salience transition and relational approach to “better” corporate social responsibility: A case for a proposed model in practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-17.
Feix, A. and Philipe, D. (2019). Unpacking the Narrative Decontestation of CSR: Aspiration for Change or Defense of the Status Quo? Business and Society, 59 (1): 129–174
Fernando, S., & Lawrence, S. (2014). A theoretical framework for CSR practices: Integrating legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and institutional theory. Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research, 10(1), 149-178.
Fowler, Elizabeth & Coffey, Betty & Dixon-Fowler, Heather. (2019). Transforming Good Intentions into Social Impact: A Case on the Creation and Evolution of a Social Enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics. 159.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R. E., Phillips, R., & Sisodia, R. (2020). Tensions in stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 59(2), 213-231.
Freeman, R.E. 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pittman, Marshfield, MA.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine (13 September), 32(33), 122–126.
Fyrberg, A., & Jüriado, R. (2009). What about interaction? Networks and brands as integrators within service-dominant logic. Journal of Service Management 20(4), 420-432.
Gallardo-Vázquez, D., & Sanchez-Hernandez, M. I. (2014). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility for competitive success at a regional level. Journal of Cleaner Production, 72, 14-22.
Gamble, E.N.; Parker, S.C.; Moroz, P.W. Measuring the integration of social and environmental missions in hybrid organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 1–14
Gazzola, P., & Colombo, G. (2014). CSR integration into the corporate strategy. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 16(2).
Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E.A.J.A., van Kranenburg, H., Freeman, R.E. (2017). Reviewing the role of stakeholders in Operational Research; A stakeholder theory perspective, European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2).
Grüning, M. (2011). Artificial intelligence measurement of disclosure (AIMD). European Accounting Review 20(3), 485–519
Hall, M., Millo, Y., Barman, E. (2015) Who and what really counts? Stakeholder prioritization and accounting for social value. Journal of Management Studies 52(7): 907–934.
Hamidu, Ahmad & Haron, Harashid & Amran, Azlan. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility Stages of Transformation, Drivers and Dimensional Models: A Review. Conference: International Postgraduate Research Conference (IPRC) 2016. Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Malaysia.
Heide, J. B., & John, G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationships? Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 32–44.
Hummel, K., & Schlick, C. (2016). The relationship between sustainability performance and sustainability disclosure–Reconciling voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 35(5), 455-476.
Hurst B., Ihlen O. (2018). Corporate Social Responsibility and Engagement. In, Johnston K.A., (Ed.), Taylor M. (Ed.), The Handbook of Communication Engagement. Wiley-Blackwell, 133-148.
Husted B.W. Allen D.B., Kock N. (2012). Value Creation Through Social Strategy. Business & Society 54(2):147-186.
Jayachandran, S., Sharma, S., Kaufman, P., & Raman, P. (2005). The role of relational information processes and technology use in customer relationship management. The Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 177-192.
Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of management review 20(2), 404-437.
Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371-391.
Kaul, Aseem & Luo, Jiao. (2017). Strategies of Social Impact. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2017. 10896.
Kim, K. H., Kim, M., & Qian, C. (2018). Effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial performance: A competitive-action perspective. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1097-1118.
Kohtamäki M., Rabetino R., Möller K., (2018). Alliance capabilities: A systematic review and future research directions. Industrial Marketing Management, 68, pp. 188-201
Krlev G., Münscher R., Mülbert, K. (2013). Social Return on Investment (SROI): state-of-the-art and perspectives – a meta-analysis of practice in Social Return on Investment (SROI) studies published 2002-2012. Centre for Social Investment, Heidelberg University.
Kurniawati A., Rizana A.F., Ari Samadhi T.M.A., Wiratmadja I.I., Sunaryo I. (2017). The Impacts of Corporate Social Performance: a Systematic Literature Review. International Multidisciplinary Conferences on Productivity and Sustainability, Jakarta.
Lapina I., Borkus I., Leontjeva O. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility and Creating Shared Value: Case of Latvia. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering; Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 2012, Issue 68, pp.1886-1892.
Lee, C. M. J., Che-Ha, N., & Alwi, S. F. S. (2021). Service customer orientation and social sustainability: The case of small medium enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 122, 751-760.
Lee, H.L., & Tang, C.S. (2017). Socially and environmentally responsible value chain innovations: new operations management research opportunities. Management Science.
Lee, T. H. (2017). The status of corporate social responsibility research in public relations: A content analysis of published articles in eleven scholarly journals from 1980 to 2015. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 211-218.
Li, M., Minor, D.B.; Wang, J.; Yu, C. A (2019). Learning Curve of the Market: Chasing Alpha of Socially Responsible Firms. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 109(C).
Liao, P. C., Shih, Y. N., Wu, C. L., Zhang, X. L., & Wang, Y. (2018). Does corporate social performance pay back quickly? A longitudinal content analysis on international contractors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1328-1337.
Liao, P. C., Xia, N. N., Wu, C. L., Zhang, X. L., & Yeh, J. L. (2017). Communicating the corporate social responsibility (CSR) of international contractors: Content analysis of CSR reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 327-336.
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). The credibility of CSR (corporate social responsibility) reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 186-200.
Lumpkin, G.T., Bacq, S. (2019). Civic Wealth Creation: A New View of Stakeholder Engagement and Societal Impact, Academy of Management Perspectives, 33 (4).
Luzzini, D., Brandon-Jones, E., Brandon-Jones, A., & Spina, G. (2015). From sustainability commitment to performance: The role of intra-and inter-firm collaborative capabilities in the upstream supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 165, 51–63.
McLoughlin, Jim & Kaminski, Jaime & Sodagar, Babak & Khan, Sabina & Harris, Robin & Arnaudo, Gustavo & Brearty, Sinéad. (2009). A strategic approach to social impact measurement of social enterprises: The SIMPLE methodology. Social Enterprise Journal. 5. 154-178.
Michaels, A., & Grüning, M. (2018). The impact of corporate identity on corporate social responsibility disclosure. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 3(1), 3.
Missimer, Merlina & Robèrt, Karl-Henrik & Broman, Göran. (2016). A Strategic Approach to Social Sustainability – Part 1: Exploring the Social System. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140
Mitrega M. (2012). Network partner knowledge and internal relationships influencing customer relationship quality and company performance Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27 (6) (2012), pp. 486-496
Mitrega, M., & Pfajfar, G. (2015). Business relationship process management as company dynamic capability improving relationship portfolio. Industrial marketing management, 46, 193-203.
Möller K., Halinen A. (2017). Managing business and innovation networks – From strategic nets to business fields and ecosystems Industrial Marketing Management, 67, pp. 5-22
Möllner, K., & Wilson, D. T. (1992). Interaction and network approach to business marketing—A review and evaluation. State College, PA: Institute for the Study of Business Markets, Penn State University.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of marketing, 58(3) 20-38.
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323–338.
Nason R. S., Bacq S., and Gras D. 2018. A Behavioral Theory of Social Performance: Social Identity and Stakeholder Expectations, Academy of Management ReviewVol. 43, No. 2
Nicholls, A. (2009). We do good things, don’t we? Blended Value Accounting” in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34(6–7): 755– 769.
Ojansivu, I., Hermes, J., & Laari-Salmela, S. (2020). Business relationships in the industrial network literature: Three approaches and their underlying assumptions. Industrial Marketing Management.
Orlitzky, M. (2008). Corporate social performance and financial performance: A research synthesis. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 113–134). Oxford University Press
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis.Organization Studies, 24(3): 403–441.
Paulraj, A., Chen, I. J., & Blome, C. (2017). Motives and performance out-comes of sustainable supply chain management practices: A multi-theoretical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 239–258.
Peng, C., Liu, S. & Lu, Y. (2021). The discursive strategy of legitimacy management: A comparative case study of Google and Apple’s crisis communication statements. Asia Pac J Manag 38, 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09667-z
Penttilä, V. (2019). Aspirational Talk in Strategy Texts: A Longitudinal Case Study of Strategic Episodes in Corporate Social Responsibility Communication. Business and Society, 59 (1): 67–97
Peters, J., & Simaens, A. (2020). Integrating sustainability into corporate strategy: A case study of the textile and clothing industry. Sustainability, 12(15), 6125.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2019). Creating shared value. In Managing sustainable business (pp. 323-346). Springer, Dordrecht.
Pullman M., Longoni A., & Luzzini D., (2018) The roles of institutional complexity and hybridity in social impact supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol 54, Issue 2.
Qorri, A., Gashi, S., & Kraslawski, A. (2021). Performance outcomes of supply chain practices for sustainable development: A meta‐analysis of moderators. Sustainable Development, 29(1), 194-216.
Rawhouser H., Cummings M., and Scott L. Newbert, Social Impact Measurement: Current Approaches and Future Directions for Social Entrepreneurship Research, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2019, Vol. 43(1) 82–115.
Rawhouser, Hans & Cummings, Michael & Newbert, Scott. (2019). Social Impact Measurement: Current Approaches and Future Directions for Social Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 43. 82-115.
Reichheld, F.F., & Markey, R., (2013). The economics of loyalty. Retrieved 10.02.2016 from http://www.bain.com.
Ritter T., Geműnden H.G. (2004). The impact of a company’s business strategy on its technological competence, network competence and innovation success. Journal of Business Research, 57, pp. 548-556
San, S., & Salim, N. J. (2017). CSR Disclosure in the Context of Resource-Based View Theory. Terengganu International Finance and Economics Journal (TIFEJ), 3(1), 50-55.
Schiopoiu Burlea A., Popa I. (2013) Legitimacy Theory. In: Idowu S.O., Capaldi N., Zu L., Gupta A.D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_471
Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., & Crane, A. (2020). Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and CSR practices: Pathways for walking, talking, and t (w) alking. Business & Society, 59(1), 5-33.
Senf, Natalie & Audia, Pino & Bromiley, Philip & Gaba, Vibha & Greve, Henrich & Joseph, John & Lant, T. & Shinkle, George. (2015). Organizational Aspirations and Strategic Action: Open Questions and Avenues for Future Research. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2015. 14081-14081.
Shahzad A. M., Rutherford M. A., Sharfman M., P. 2016. Stakeholder-centric governance and corporate social performance: a cross-national study, Corporate social responsibility, and environmental management. – 23, 2, p. 100-112
Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainability research in business-to-business markets: An agenda for inquiry. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 323-329.
Singh P.K., Sharma S.K., Samuel C., Verma S. (2017). Supplier Relationship Management and Selection Strategies – A Literature Review. Conference: 4th International Conference on Industrial Engineering, India.
Sobkowiak, M. (2020) Unpacking the Narrative Decontestation of CSR: Aspiration for Change or Defense of the Status Quo? / Vicious and Virtuous Circles of Aspirational Talk: From Self-Persuasive to Agonistic CSR Rhetoric / Aspirational Talk in Strategy Texts: A Longitudinal Case Study of Strategic Episodes in Corporate Social Responsibility Communication, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 40:1, 95-97, DOI: 10.1080/0969160X.2020.1711333
Sodhi M. S. (2015). Conceptualizing Social Responsibility in Operations Via Stakeholder Resource-Based View. Production and Operations Management, 24(9), 1375–1389.
Soltani Z., & Navimipour, N. J. (2016). Customer relationship management mechanisms: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art literature and recommendations for future research. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 667-688.
Stephan U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C., & Mair, J. (2016). Organizations driving positive social change a review and an integrative framework of change processes. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1250–1281.
Suchman M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3), 57l–610.
Sulkowski A., Edwards M., Freeman R.E. 2018. Shake Your Stakeholder: Firms Leading Engagement to Cocreate Sustainable Value, Organization & Environment, 31(3), 223-241.
Szabo, Roland & Krátki, Noémi. (2018). Social Value Creation and Impact Measurement. Theory, Methodology, Practice. 14. 15-25.
Tate, W. L., & Bals, L. (2016). Achieving Shared Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Value Creation: Toward a Social Resource-Based View (SRBV) of the Firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 1- 24.
Tony Huzzard (2021) Achieving impact: exploring the challenge of stakeholder engagement, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30:3, 379-389,
Torelli, R., Balluchi, F., & Furlotti, K. (2020). The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 470-484.
Ulaga A., Eggert W. (2002). Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17 (2/3), pp. 107-118
United Nations Global Compact, Accenture. 2010. A new era of sustainability: UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO study 2010. UNGC-Accenture.
Usama A., Kraslawski A., and Huiskonen J., Liu S., (Reviewing Editor) (2018) Buyer-supplier relationship on social sustainability: Moderation analysis of cultural intelligence, Cogent Business & Management, 5:1, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2018.1429346
Usama Awan, Andrzej Kraslawski & Janne Huiskonen | Shaofeng Liu (Reviewing Editor) (2018) Buyer-supplier relationship on social sustainability: Moderation analysis of cultural intelligence, Cogent Business & Management, 5:1, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2018.1429346
Vaismoradi, M., & Snelgrove, S. (2019). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 20, No. 3).
Vanclay F. (2020) Reflections on Social Impact Assessment in the 21st century, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38:2, 126-131.
Vanclay F. 2017a. Project induced displacement and resettlement: from impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? Imp Assess Proj Apprais. 35(1):3–21
Vanclay F. 2017b. Principles to assist in gaining a social licence to operate for green initiatives and biodiversity projects. Current Opi Environ Sustain. 29:48–56.
Verbeeten, F. H., Gamerschlag, R., & Möller, K. (2016). Are CSR disclosures relevant for investors? Empirical evidence from Germany. Management Decision.
Vesal, M., Siahtiri, V., & O’Cass, A. (2020). Strengthening B2B brands by signalling environmental sustainability and managing customer relationships. Industrial Marketing Management.
Wagner S.M., Johnson J.L. (2004). Configuring and managing strategic supplier portfolios Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (8), pp. 717-730.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-180.
Winkler, P., Etter, M. and Castelló, I. (2019). Vicious and Virtuous Circles of Aspirational Talk: From Self-Persuasive to Agonistic CSR Rhetoric. Business and Society, 59 (1): 98–128
Xu, S., Chen, X., Li, A., & Xia, X. (2020). Disclosure for whom? Government involvement, CSR disclosure and firm value. Emerging Markets Review, 44, 100717.
Yeh, J. L., & Liao, P. C. (2015, August). Benchmarking social responsibility perceptions: A text-based approach. In 2015 12th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD) (pp. 1377-1381). IEEE.
Yiu D.W., Lau C., Bruton G.D. International venturing by emerging economy firms: The effects of firm capabilities, home country networks, and corporate entrepreneurship.
Zelditch Jr, M. (2018). Legitimacy theory. Stanford University Press.
[1] https://www.unsdsn.org/sdg-index-and-monitoring
[2] https://bangladeshaccord.org/