Sustainable Strategies
Session 5 - Sustainability Staging | Climate Change
25 February 2020, 15:00-17:45
Bansal, P., Gao, J., & Qureshi, I. 2014. The extensiveness of corporate social and
environmental commitment over time. Organization Studies, 35(7): 949-966.
- Corporate social commitment and corporate environmental commitment are sometimes
combined under the rubric of corporate social responsibility. Despite that the two sets of
activities are similar, they are differ. Both respond to issues raised by stakeholders, but
corporate environmental commitment tends to be more technical. This technical characteristic
demands corporate environmental commitment fit with the organization, which exposes
greater economic opportunities than corporate social commitment. As a result, this article
argues that the extent to which these practices are implemented differs across firms over time.
- The implementation of corporate social commitment and corporate environmental
commitment is analysed across 266 firms from 1991 to 2003, using latent growth curve
modeling and one-way ANOVA.
- The findings suggest that firms moved towards at least a moderate level of corporate social
commitment over time, but tended to bifurcate in the extent to which they implemented
corporate environmental commitment practices, towards either the high or low end of the
scale, over time.
- This article contributes to literature by examining how the characteristics of different kinds of
practices shape the extensiveness of firm adoption patterns and also speaks to corporate
social responsibility researchers, pointing to the need to sometimes discriminate between
social and environmental practices.
- Corporate social responsibility (CSR) includes commitments to both social and
environmental practices.
• Social practices range from philanthropic donations in the local community to tackling
issues around diversity and executive compensation.
• Environmental practices require firms to reduce emissions or material inputs.
→ Both require technical skills to implement.
- Technical attributes usually require specific organizational resources and capabilities, such as
innovations in materials use and processing, so the practice must fit technically with the
organization. Besides that, the technical attributes often expose economic opportunities, so
both institutional and economic accounts shape the implementation process.
→ This paper argues that the technical attributes of practices affect the extent to which the
practices are implemented over time across a population of firms.
- Corporate social commitment (CSC) is the extent to which an organization allocates
resources to a variety of policies and programs in order to provide social benefits to
Page 1 of 18
, Sustainable Strategies
stakeholders, beyond its narrow economic obligations to shareholders.
• Examples of CSC in action include philanthropy, diversity, employee relations, human rights,
and product liability.
- Corporate environmental commitment (CEC) is the extent to which an organization
allocates resources to various policies and programs in order to, in general, protect and
preserve the natural environment, and, in particular, to minimize its own environmental
footprint and that of its products.
• Examples of CEC include environmentally beneficial products and services, pollution
prevention, recycling, clean energy, environmental management systems, and voluntary
environmental programs.
• CEC differs from CSC in its focus on environmental benefits, as opposed to social benefits.
- CSC and CEC are girded by four core principles:
1. The aim to improve the social welfare of stakeholders or the quality of the natural
environment beyond what is deemed profitable in the short run.
2. Emphasis on the active allocation of corporate resources for social and environmental
purpose.
3. Involvement of a variety of policies, programs, and embedded operational processes that
represent an organization’s concern for its stakeholders and the natural environment.
4. Emphasis of enduring involvement; occasional, discrete, in-kind contributions reflect weak
commitment.
- Key differences between CSC and CEC:
Page 2 of 18
, Sustainable Strategies
- Not all CSC and CEC practices are implemented equally.
• Most organizations have a broad range of stakeholders with a diverse, socially constructed
set of norms, values, beliefs, interests, and agendas. This diversity requires firms to identify
and respond to various stakeholder needs to demonstrate strong CSC and CEC.
• Not all practices are fully implemented, either because the practice may be contentiousness
within the field or does not fit with the organization.
• Firms may actively resist the practice, decouple the activities associated with it, manage
impressions, or actively try to shift stakeholder opinions.
- In this study, the hypotheses argue that CSC and CEC exhibit different degrees of
extensiveness over time, primarily because of the fifth principle: CEC is grounded in the
natural sciences and requires technical fit with the organization. These differences in the
extensiveness of implementation can help explain organizational-level mechanisms of
implementation that lead to the adaptation of practices.
• Note: extensiveness is the comprehensiveness of the principles implemented.
- Hypothesis 1 argues that, over time, firms aim to demonstrate at least a moderate (i.e. middle
to high) level of CSC. The primary mechanism is found in the social processes that ground
corporate social commitment, which require organizational-level cultural and political fit with
the wider institutional environment.
→ Firms that are deeply embedded in their community often exhibit corporate social
commitment and foster interactions with other field members.
→ There is a positive feedback mechanism that amplifies CSC within organizations. For
example: programs that encourage employees to volunteer in the local community or that
match employee donations with company donations, help build interpersonal relationships,
which in turn reinforce pro-social behavior.
→ Firms do not want to display weak CSC because of the potential negative consequences of
being seen as uncaring towards employees, the community, or other stakeholders. Firms tend
to implement at least a moderate level of CSC as insurance against social losses in order to
acquire or maintain their social license to operate.
→ Overall, corporations will implement moderate or strong CSC practices over time, avoiding
weak commitment.
- Hypothesis 2 focuses on CEC:
→ There is greater certainty about firms’ CEC progress because of the scientific and
technological foundations of CEC. Environmental measures of emissions, energy use, waste,
and recycling can sometimes be more reliable than corporate financial measures, which
makes it possible to track the costs and potential savings associated with CEC.
→ The technical attributes of CEC are attractive to firms because they offer firms greater
certainty and internal control. CEC focuses on internal changes to production processes and
product design, which are not as dependent as CSC on the actions of external stakeholders.
→ CEC requires high levels of learning and continuous innovation, which are often within the
Page 3 of 18
Session 5 - Sustainability Staging | Climate Change
25 February 2020, 15:00-17:45
Bansal, P., Gao, J., & Qureshi, I. 2014. The extensiveness of corporate social and
environmental commitment over time. Organization Studies, 35(7): 949-966.
- Corporate social commitment and corporate environmental commitment are sometimes
combined under the rubric of corporate social responsibility. Despite that the two sets of
activities are similar, they are differ. Both respond to issues raised by stakeholders, but
corporate environmental commitment tends to be more technical. This technical characteristic
demands corporate environmental commitment fit with the organization, which exposes
greater economic opportunities than corporate social commitment. As a result, this article
argues that the extent to which these practices are implemented differs across firms over time.
- The implementation of corporate social commitment and corporate environmental
commitment is analysed across 266 firms from 1991 to 2003, using latent growth curve
modeling and one-way ANOVA.
- The findings suggest that firms moved towards at least a moderate level of corporate social
commitment over time, but tended to bifurcate in the extent to which they implemented
corporate environmental commitment practices, towards either the high or low end of the
scale, over time.
- This article contributes to literature by examining how the characteristics of different kinds of
practices shape the extensiveness of firm adoption patterns and also speaks to corporate
social responsibility researchers, pointing to the need to sometimes discriminate between
social and environmental practices.
- Corporate social responsibility (CSR) includes commitments to both social and
environmental practices.
• Social practices range from philanthropic donations in the local community to tackling
issues around diversity and executive compensation.
• Environmental practices require firms to reduce emissions or material inputs.
→ Both require technical skills to implement.
- Technical attributes usually require specific organizational resources and capabilities, such as
innovations in materials use and processing, so the practice must fit technically with the
organization. Besides that, the technical attributes often expose economic opportunities, so
both institutional and economic accounts shape the implementation process.
→ This paper argues that the technical attributes of practices affect the extent to which the
practices are implemented over time across a population of firms.
- Corporate social commitment (CSC) is the extent to which an organization allocates
resources to a variety of policies and programs in order to provide social benefits to
Page 1 of 18
, Sustainable Strategies
stakeholders, beyond its narrow economic obligations to shareholders.
• Examples of CSC in action include philanthropy, diversity, employee relations, human rights,
and product liability.
- Corporate environmental commitment (CEC) is the extent to which an organization
allocates resources to various policies and programs in order to, in general, protect and
preserve the natural environment, and, in particular, to minimize its own environmental
footprint and that of its products.
• Examples of CEC include environmentally beneficial products and services, pollution
prevention, recycling, clean energy, environmental management systems, and voluntary
environmental programs.
• CEC differs from CSC in its focus on environmental benefits, as opposed to social benefits.
- CSC and CEC are girded by four core principles:
1. The aim to improve the social welfare of stakeholders or the quality of the natural
environment beyond what is deemed profitable in the short run.
2. Emphasis on the active allocation of corporate resources for social and environmental
purpose.
3. Involvement of a variety of policies, programs, and embedded operational processes that
represent an organization’s concern for its stakeholders and the natural environment.
4. Emphasis of enduring involvement; occasional, discrete, in-kind contributions reflect weak
commitment.
- Key differences between CSC and CEC:
Page 2 of 18
, Sustainable Strategies
- Not all CSC and CEC practices are implemented equally.
• Most organizations have a broad range of stakeholders with a diverse, socially constructed
set of norms, values, beliefs, interests, and agendas. This diversity requires firms to identify
and respond to various stakeholder needs to demonstrate strong CSC and CEC.
• Not all practices are fully implemented, either because the practice may be contentiousness
within the field or does not fit with the organization.
• Firms may actively resist the practice, decouple the activities associated with it, manage
impressions, or actively try to shift stakeholder opinions.
- In this study, the hypotheses argue that CSC and CEC exhibit different degrees of
extensiveness over time, primarily because of the fifth principle: CEC is grounded in the
natural sciences and requires technical fit with the organization. These differences in the
extensiveness of implementation can help explain organizational-level mechanisms of
implementation that lead to the adaptation of practices.
• Note: extensiveness is the comprehensiveness of the principles implemented.
- Hypothesis 1 argues that, over time, firms aim to demonstrate at least a moderate (i.e. middle
to high) level of CSC. The primary mechanism is found in the social processes that ground
corporate social commitment, which require organizational-level cultural and political fit with
the wider institutional environment.
→ Firms that are deeply embedded in their community often exhibit corporate social
commitment and foster interactions with other field members.
→ There is a positive feedback mechanism that amplifies CSC within organizations. For
example: programs that encourage employees to volunteer in the local community or that
match employee donations with company donations, help build interpersonal relationships,
which in turn reinforce pro-social behavior.
→ Firms do not want to display weak CSC because of the potential negative consequences of
being seen as uncaring towards employees, the community, or other stakeholders. Firms tend
to implement at least a moderate level of CSC as insurance against social losses in order to
acquire or maintain their social license to operate.
→ Overall, corporations will implement moderate or strong CSC practices over time, avoiding
weak commitment.
- Hypothesis 2 focuses on CEC:
→ There is greater certainty about firms’ CEC progress because of the scientific and
technological foundations of CEC. Environmental measures of emissions, energy use, waste,
and recycling can sometimes be more reliable than corporate financial measures, which
makes it possible to track the costs and potential savings associated with CEC.
→ The technical attributes of CEC are attractive to firms because they offer firms greater
certainty and internal control. CEC focuses on internal changes to production processes and
product design, which are not as dependent as CSC on the actions of external stakeholders.
→ CEC requires high levels of learning and continuous innovation, which are often within the
Page 3 of 18
