CSR-Based Positioning Strategies, National Competitiveness, and the Role of

Innovation*

Ioanna Boulouta
Judge Business School
University of Cambridge, UK
Email: [email protected]

Christos N. Pitelis
Director, Centre for International Business and Management
Reader in International Business and Competitiveness
Judge Business School
University of Cambridge, UK
Email: [email protected]

*An earlier version of this paper has been presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Academy
of Management. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and participants for useful
comments and discussions. We are especially thankful to Roger Sugden and Stelios
Zyglidopoulos. Errors are ours.

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449
CSR-Based Positioning Strategies, National Competitiveness, and the Role of

Innovation

ABSTRACT

The link between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and competitiveness has been

examined mainly at the business level. The purpose of this paper is to improve theoretical

understanding and provide empirical evidence on the link between CSR and competitiveness at

the national level. We draw on an eclectic-synthetic framework of international business

economics, strategic management and CSR literatures to explore conceptually whether and how

CSR can impact on the competitiveness of nations and test our hypotheses empirically with a

sample of 19 developed countries over a 6 year period. Our evidence suggests that CSR can

make a significant contribution to national competitiveness, as measured by national living

standards. We also find that countries with a relative low innovative standing can benefit even

more, as compared to highly innovative countries, by implementing nation-wide CSR-based

positioning strategies.

KEYWORDS

Competitiveness, Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR strategies, Innovation, National Living

Standards.

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449
1. INTRODUCTION

The business world today faces increasing pressure from governments and international

organizations to adopt, or improve, corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. This pressure

has both a moral and a strategic imperative. The moral imperative has been widely discussed in

the literature and is mainly based on the argument that businesses should address some of the

‘ills of globalization’ (Dunning 2003; Logsdon and Wood 2002). The strategic imperative has

not been adequately discussed. To date, the implicit assumption appears to be that CSR affects

positively the competitiveness of nations. However, this assumption has remained largely

unexamined both conceptually and empirically although it seems that CSR has been a priority

issue on many governments’ agendas (Albareda et al. 2007).

With few notable exceptions (e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2003; MacGillivray et al. 2007;

Zadek 2006; Zadek et al. 2005), the arguments linking CSR and national competitiveness draw

mostly on the ‘business case’ for CSR. This is problematic, not only because of the skepticism

that remains around the said case, but also because the micro-level case may not be scalable to

the national level (Swift and Zadek 2002). In addition, most national competitiveness literature

emphasizes the importance of macro rather than micro-level factors to explain national

competitiveness (Aiginger 2006; Schwab 2009). Accordingly, we lack an agreed-upon

comprehensive conceptual framework within which to examine the impact of CSR beyond the

firm level, in particular on national competitiveness.

Unless we appreciate better the strategic role of CSR and amass adequate empirical

evidence of its impact, the potential of CSR to deliver real positive social change may fail to

realize. Accordingly, in addition to the moral imperatives for promoting CSR, the success and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

diffusion of the CSR concept also depends on its contribution to the wider competitiveness goals

of nations.

The aim of this paper is to improve our understanding on the impact of CSR, at the

broader nation-wide environment. In particular, we try to answer the following questions: Does

CSR affect national competitiveness at all, and if so, how? How can nations benefit more from

adopting CSR?

We take a step in this direction by first examining the link between CSR and national

competitiveness conceptually, drawing and building upon extant literature in international

economics, strategic management and CSR. In this context, we also discuss the issue of the

competitive positioning of countries, and the interactions between CSR and countries’ strength in

innovation. We then proceed with an empirical analysis, by focusing on a sample of developed

countries. This is because the literature on the determinants of competitiveness suggests different

factors affecting competitiveness at different stages of development (Aiginger 2006; Schwab

2009), as well as for data availability reasons. Our empirical analysis adds value on extant

literature examining the impact of CSR (e.g. Porter and Kramer 2006; Mc Willimas and Siegel 2001;

Margolis and Walsh 2003; Garcia-Castro et al. 2010) by focusing on measuring the impact of CSR

behavior at the national level and by using longitudinal data (19 countries over a period of 6

years), which improves confidence in causal inference compared to cross-sectional analysis. Our

findings support the idea that CSR has a positive impact on national competitiveness. Also, we

focus on the moderating role of a country’s innovation record-standing and find that through

appropriate competitive positioning strategies, countries with low innovative standing may

benefit even more from CSR-based strategies than countries with a stronger innovation record.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

2. THE MEANINGS OF CSR AND COMPETITIVENESS

2.1 What is CSR?

Both the concepts of competitiveness and CSR when applied at the macro level, are elusive and

controversial (see, for example, Krugman 1994; Porter 1990, for criticisms of national

competitiveness, and Carroll 1999; Frynas 2008; Lantos 2001; Schwartz and Carroll 2003, for

criticisms of CSR). This leads to the challenge of empirical work since it is difficult to

operationalize a concept when a clear definition does not exist. Consistent with McWilliams et

al. we define CSR as “situations where the firm goes beyond compliance and engages in actions

that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is

required by law” (2006, p.1). Since in this study we also focus on the impact of CSR at the

macro level, we also draw on Hopkins’ definition who has specified the aim of CSR at the macro

level as “to create higher and higher standards of living” (2003, p.1).

2.2 What is Competitiveness?

The concept of competitiveness and its use at the national level, has been regarded as

meaningless or even dangerous (Krugman 1994). Nevertheless, more recently, authors such as

Aiginger after reviewing a number of diverse approaches to the concept, notices a convergence

towards a definition as “the ability of a country or location to create welfare” (2006, p.161). This

broad definition of competitiveness contains an ‘outcome evaluation’ of competitiveness (e.g.

welfare) which can be measured by a number of indicators (e.g. per capita income, Human

Development Index, happiness, etc.), and a ‘process evaluation’ of competitiveness which relates

to the analysis of the factors that produce the outcome (e.g. welfare). It is arguable that a

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

definition of competitiveness as superior performance vis-à-vis a peer group that shares a

common objective (Pitelis 2009), is not restricted to ‘welfare’, but also incorporates a required

benchmark, against which to compare performance. In this context, a country can be defined as

being more ‘competitive’, if it outperforms other countries, on the basis of its capability to

improve over time the shared indicator(s).

In this paper, we focus on outcome competitiveness approximated with national living

standards and measured by per capita GDP at purchasing power parities. While this is not the

only, or best, measure of outcome competitiveness, it seems to be closely correlated with many

other indicators (see, Porter and Schwab 2008; Ram 1992) and the data on GDP per capita is

more readily available and arguably more reliable.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 CSR at the national level

The bulk of the empirical literature has focused on the impact of CSR on firm-level

competitiveness (for an overview, see, Margolis and Walsh 2001; 2003). Beside this literature
[1]
being inconclusive , grounding national competitiveness on the business competitiveness case

can be problematic. The benefits of CSR at the micro level do not necessarily scale up to the

macro level. This has been emphasized by Swift and Zadek (2002), who investigated a number

of factors that prevent micro-level CSR having an impact on the national economy. Examples are

the possibility of CSR benefiting one company but harming the economy, or the possibility of

CSR being good for large companies but detrimental to small and medium sized enterprises

(SMEs) (Pitelis 2009). Another dimension is the possibility of CSR harming the trading potential

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

of some countries that are not able to meet the market’s CSR standards, by creating ‘non tariff’

barriers to trade (Swift and Zadek 2002).

These tensions can only be addressed by aligning CSR with national competitiveness

goals, hence embedding it into the wider economy (MacGillivray et al. 2003). This is also what

the concept of ‘responsible competitiveness’, defined as “an economy’s productivity being

enhanced by businesses taking explicit account of their social, economic, and environmental

performance” (MacGillivray et al. 2003, p. 13), aims to achieve. The view of embedding CSR

into the wider economy has also been supported by the European Union (EU). The EU has

examined theoretically the impact of CSR on national competitiveness and has suggested a

positive link, mainly through its indirect impact on factors of competitiveness such as social

capital, innovation and human capital (European Commission 2008a, b).

Despite the plausibility of these theoretical arguments, there has been very little empirical

research on whether the aggregate CSR practices of individual companies do actually have a

measurable effect on national competitiveness. An exception along these lines is the work by the

AccountAbility organization and its partner organizations, focusing on the development of a

‘National Corporate Responsibility Index’ (NCRI), which captures “the extent to which there is

an enabling national environment for corporate responsibility, and the resulting outcomes of

corporate responsibility practice” (MacGillivray et al. 2003, p.6). After plotting this index

against the World Economic Forum’s Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI) and against per

capita Gross National Income (GNI), they found a positive correlation. However, this index

attempts to “measure the overall ecology of responsibility not merely what business do, or do not

do” (Zadek et al. 2005, p.104). Hence, it does not focus on actual CSR performance, per se.

Despite several data weaknesses and other difficulties in the calculation of these indices, that can

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

prohibit causal inference, we believe this line of research to have been a major step forward

towards the empirical investigation in the area of CSR at the macro level (see Peng and Beamish

2008). However, the fact that this index combines the actual socially responsible activities of

corporations with the enabling environment for such activities does not help to decipher whether

it is the actual business social performance or the enabling environment for such activities, that

contributes to national competitiveness.

Therefore, definitional and data measurement problems of CSR performance at the

national level have forced some researchers to focus only on specific areas/dimensions of CSR

e.g. environmental performance and its impact on national competitiveness (Esty et al. 2005;

Porter and Van der Linde 1995), or the impact of the gender gap on national competitiveness

(Hausman et al. 2008). Although these studies have found a positive link to national

competitiveness, they do not address the multidimensionality of the concept of CSR

performance, as defined by Wood (1991). Hence, they do not adequately answer the question on

whether the overall CSR activities of individual companies have an impact on national

competitiveness.

To summarize, current literature so far has not yet explicitly examined the impact of

national CSR performance on outcome competitiveness. In addition, current theoretical

frameworks in this line of research do not adequately examine other major factors of

competitiveness and their interactions. As a result, questions on whether some important

institutional/macro-economic factors (e.g. innovative culture) moderate the impact of CSR on

national competitiveness cannot be addressed. Finally, potential competitive positioning

strategies by nations through CSR are still not adequately examined in current literature. These

are an important limitation.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

4. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

4.1 Determinants of national competitiveness

In extant literature, there are four main approaches to national competitiveness: the economic

theory-based ‘Washington Consensus’, the more pragmatic East-Asian approach, the national

innovation systems approach-varieties of capitalism, and the ‘Diamond’ approach of Michael

Porter (Porter, 1990; Pitelis, 2009). The first three approaches mainly emphasize macro-level

factors of competitiveness while Porter’s ‘Diamond’ approach is distinct for its emphasis on the

role of micro-level factors of competitiveness such as firm strategy (Snowdon and Stonehouse

2006). Within this literature there is a long list of potential factors/causes of national

competitiveness, and very little consensus on what factors matter most for each country at each

time.

In fact, during the last few decades the issue of national competitiveness has been highly

contentious. Since the 1980s the global economy has been largely transformed by the fall of

international barriers to the flow of goods, services, capital, labour, and rapid technological

progress. Under such rapid changes and growing empirical data, there have been many shifts in

the importance of critical factors to competitiveness and the key policies that underpin it.

Nevertheless, what seems to be reaching an agreement between scholars and policy makers is

that competitiveness should aim at increasing welfare (e.g. national standards of living)

(Aiginger 2006) but the means to reach this goal should be context/country specific (Rodrik

2004).

From the various perspectives on nationwide competitiveness mentioned, four major

factors seem to enjoy very wide acceptability. These are innovation (Schumpeter 1942; Penrose

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

1959; Hall and Soskice 2001), human resources, notably entrepreneurial managers (Penrose

1959; Teece 2011), unit cost economics, such as economies of scale and scope (Chandler

1962)[2], and firm-level strategy and structure (Porter 1990). Demand factors and agglomeration

effects (Porter 1990), as well as the institutional macroeconomic and policy environments can

also play an important role. While we do not aim to contribute to this extensive literature here,

we submit that firm, region and country level CRS-based strategy can impact on all

aforementioned factors, thereby fostering nationwide competitiveness. CSR-based strategies can

improve the quality of human resources (for example through diversity, improved relationships

and worker satisfaction), and they can foster CSR-promoting innovations. They can also

engender unit costs economies, through learning, pluralism and diversity. In addition, CSR can

function as a firm-region-nation-wide (positioning) strategy, see below. Our aim in this paper is

to focus on the direct impact of CSR-based positioning strategy on national competitiveness

holding other major determinants (which are potentially affected by CSR) constant. We therefore

explore the impact of CSR-based strategies on national competitiveness. Following on from this,

we explore the potentially moderating role of a country’s innovation record-standing.

4.2 CSR-based Competitiveness Strategies: from micro to macro level

It is important to note that all other major determinants of competitiveness, except business

strategy, can foster productivity (or value creation), but not necessarily ‘outcome

competitiveness’. Only when appropriate strategies for value-capture are used at the national

level to capture the value created from productivity improvements, can these factors lead to

‘outcome competitiveness’. Hence, within this framework it is important to examine how CSR,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

as a process embedded into the value-capturing strategies of firms and nations, can be used to

capture value at the national level and hence contribute to national competitiveness.

To date, there has been very limited discussion about value-capturing strategies at the national

level that may lead to competitiveness and consequently very little discussion on CSR-based

strategies (McWilliams et al 2006). Therefore, we aim to make a contribution to the national

competitiveness and CSR literatures by discussing CSR-based value-capturing strategies which

may lead to national competitiveness. Porter (1980, 1985) has examined numerous strategies

employed by firms to appropriate value, such as ‘positioning’ strategies (cost-leadership,

differentiation, niche strategies) and ‘entry deterrence’ strategies (barriers to entry strategies).

Such ideas are relevant for nations too, but have not yet been leveraged towards this purpose in

extant literature. Here we do so, by focusing in particular on CSR-based strategies.

4.2.1 CSR-based positioning strategies

Cost leadership strategies. CSR embedded in a cost leadership strategy can be used at the

national level in ways that lead to cost reductions, and thus directly affect national productivity.

For example, many CSR practices related to the environment contribute to a more efficient and

effective utilization of resources such as raw materials and energy, or even more productive use

of labor, and hence contribute directly to cost reductions (see for example, Esty et al. 2005;

Porter and van der Linde 1995). Moreover, CSR practices that promote open communications

with stakeholders and transparency can help society improve trust in business and increase social

capital; hence facilitate the self-regulation of the industry. Self-regulation significantly reduces

the costs of state-enforced regulation (European Comission 2008b; Zadek 2006). The link

between trust/social capital and competitiveness has been discussed extensively in the

competitiveness literature (see Pollitt 2002). Finally, CSR policies can promote a more flexible

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

macroeconomic and institutional structure through partnerships with stakeholders or new forms

of joint governance (e.g. the UN Global Compact), or by contributing to the wider societal

education and learning by fostering economies of learning and growth (Zadek 2006). All these

policies directly impact on ‘unit cost economies’, hence reducing costs and improving

competitiveness. The contribution of CSR policies to innovation in regulatory practices,

shareholder activism and social dialogue has also been supported by Deakin and Whittaker

(2007).

Differentiation strategies. Another positioning strategy is differentiation strategy. CSR

embedded in a national differentiation strategy can be used to enhance the reputation of the

country, boost exports and attract investments. In particular, countries that use CSR as a

differentiation strategy can strengthen and promote a responsible reputation and hence engender

and promote a comparative or competitive advantage. For example, countries like Denmark have

already started building their competitiveness along these lines in order to increase the perceived

value of their products and services and boost exports. This view is reinforced by Boehe and

Cruz (2010) who have found that CSR product differentiation can improve export performance.

In addition, Dowell et al. (2000), have found that developing countries that use lax

environmental regulations to attract FDI may end up attracting poorer quality and perhaps less

competitive firms. Hence, national strategies who support higher CSR standards and aim at

developing a reputation as being ‘responsible’, at the country level, can positively affect trade

and investment opportunities (Peng and Beamish 2008; Boehe and Cruz 2010).

Niche Strategies. Like firms, nations can employ a niche strategy and focus on increasing

their market share in specific market segments. For example, low carbon technologies alone will

be worth US$ 500 billion by 2050, according to the Stern Report (Zenghelis and Stern 2007).

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

However, McWilliams and Siegel (2001) have argued that the level of CSR depends on the

demand for it. Therefore, companies and countries who manage to increase the level of demand

and supply for such products faster than other countries may benefit even more from such niche

strategies.

Towards this purpose can assist a number of factors. For example, government policies

who promote CSR or even support the exceptional performance of a few companies. As has been

argued by Zadek (2006), even the CSR leadership of a few companies can change the nature of

demand to more sophisticated and ‘responsible’, by creating consumers who learn to demand

more ‘responsible’ products and services. Therefore, such CSR leadership by a few companies

and promoted by governments can increase faster the level of sophisticated demand and benefit

the nations that focus on becoming leaders in certain responsible industries through niche

strategies.

The potential of some multinational companies becoming agents of change for local

institutions or structures has been widely discussed in the international business literature (see

Westney 1993; Dacin et al. 1999; Kwok and Tadesse 2006). Hence, along the same lines, a few

leading CSR companies in one country can change the institutional environment for CSR and

increase the demand for more responsible products and processes at a national or at a more

global level.

4.2.2 CSR-based entry deterrence strategies

MacGillivray et al. (2003) argue that CSR might be used as a strategic trade policy and create

non-tariff barriers to trade, as in Bain (1956), Krugman (1992). For example, countries

promoting a responsible reputation might raise their CSR levels so high that they act as non-tariff

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

barriers to trade with other less responsible countries, while boosting their exports within equally

responsible countries. Moreover, McWilliams et al. (2002) have demonstrated how political

strategies based on CSR can raise regulatory barriers and impose additional costs to foreign firms

by preventing foreign competitors from using substitute (e.g. low cost) technology.

However, it is important to note here that the effectiveness of strategic trade policies

driving national competitiveness have been largely debated in both academic and political

circles. In this study we do not wish to enter this debate but to highlight the possibility of

countries using such CSR-based strategies within their overall national competitiveness strategy.

On the basis of our discussion so far, we propose that nationwide CSR-based strategies

serving as national positioning strategies can have a positive impact on national competitiveness,

once we control for the major direct and indirect factors of competitiveness, as identified in the

previous section. Therefore, our first hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1: CSR positioning strategies impact positively on national competitiveness

4.3 The Moderating Role of a Country’s Innovation Record-Standing

Although CSR can help countries capture value at the national level and positively impact on

national competitiveness, each strategy and its impact can be different for each country,

depending on factors such as the stage of development. This is because the factors defining

‘process competitiveness’ differ for low and high wage countries and can change over time

(Aiginger 2006). However, for the most developed countries that are the focus of this study, their

innovation system is critical for defining their competitive edge (Aiginger 2006; Schwab 2009).

Countries at the ‘technology frontier’ can keep ahead of ‘rivals’ through innovations at all levels

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

(Porter 1990). Accordingly, differentiation strategies, through innovation and/or CSR practices,

are particularly important for developed/high income countries.

It is arguable that CSR-based national value capturing strategies will have a weaker effect

on the competitiveness of highly innovative countries. This is because countries with high

differentiation/ innovation record may not benefit as much by further differentiating through

CSR since the image of their products/services and their country is already of a very high

standard. CSR may still have a positive impact for them, mainly to the extent that it helps to

avoid negative criticism from NGOs or deter regulation. However, less innovative countries that

lack the ability to differentiate through a high innovative culture/capability, may gain

competitive advantage by boosting their country’s image through CSR differentiation. This is

because CSR-based differentiation doesn’t necessarily require a strong innovation infrastructure

with associated costs. For example, CSR-based differentiation may increase the appeal of

products/services through compliance with CSR principles. For example, compliance with

‘Fair-Trade’ doesn’t necessarily require costly product or process innovation, since it only

requires to increase the proportion of revenue that goes to poor farmers. Hence, ‘Fair Trade’

compliance means paying farmers higher prices for the same crops. Therefore, ‘Fair-Trade’

differentiation can boost exports in countries that cannot differentiate by adding value to their

products/services through innovation. Similarly, ‘One Water’ achieves differentiation not

through the product, but by donating profits to charity.

Along the same lines, some low innovative countries may also be in a good position to

exploit cultural or historical factors to publicize compliance with CSR principles and add a

premium in their products/services. For example, a country with a culture that is characterised

by high gender inequalities, or has managed to overcome historical conditions such as the

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

apartheid in South Africa, may extract a premium in foreign markets for products/services that

promote the empowerment of women or minorities in local communities.

Finally, countries may use CSR-based differentiation and develop a responsible

reputation by simply banning ‘irresponsible’ products. For example a country which bans

genetically modified crops may boost its responsible image for its own products. Its policy can

be perceived as a signal of higher quality national food standards or as one which cares for the

balance of the eco-system and hence may stimulate demand for its own ‘responsible’ products as

well as being able to charge a premium for ‘safer’ non genetically modified food products

despite the lack of any additional value in such products.

Therefore, less innovative countries using CSR-based differentiation may gain a

competitive edge which wouldn’t be possible otherwise. Therefore, we can argue that in the

absence of a strong innovation record, CSR-based differentiation strategies can have a stronger

impact on increasing the national standards of living of less innovative countries.

Our arguments regarding positioning strategies are summarized in Figures 1 and 2. In

Figure 1, countries found in box 1 (competitors) are those with strong national innovation

systems but relatively low national CSR, such as Japan or the USA (see CSR rankings in Figure

1). These countries may not need CSR as a differentiation strategy to extract a premium for their

products in current markets, but CSR can still have a (weaker) positive impact on their

competitiveness through safeguarding their reputation from adverse criticisms. Higher levels of

CSR can ensure their longer-term competitiveness in future markets. Countries in box 3 (stars)

are countries like Denmark, with strong innovation culture but also strong CSR culture. CSR in

these countries is positively impacting on their competitiveness, through safeguarding their

longer-term competitiveness. Countries in box 2 (laggards) are likely to be less competitive,

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

producing low differentiation products and have very low levels of CSR (see Figure 2). These

countries, although developed, need to differentiate more to sustain their high standard of living.

Countries in this box include many South European countries. These countries need to decide

how to differentiate: through enhanced national innovation systems, and/or through compliance

with CSR. Countries in box 4 (Question marks) are countries like the UK, which fail to

appropriate the benefits from their competitive advantages but have good standards of CSR. In

such cases the requisite strategy is more complex (as it may involve a plethora of possible

factors), thus the question mark. It follows that CSR as a differentiation strategy embedded in the

national competitiveness strategies is likely to bring greatest benefit to countries in box 2, which

have relatively low differentiation/innovation record and are in need of differentiation in order to

compete in the international arena. Therefore, our second hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 2: CSR has a stronger positive impact on the competitiveness of countries

with lower differentiation/innovation standings.

---------------------------------------------
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------

5. DATA AND METHODS

We used a new macro level dataset that allows estimation through panel data techniques. Panel

estimation has not been used before in this line of research. It makes it possible to control for

omitted variable bias and other sources of endogeneity (Halaby 2004), thereby producing

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

superior results than cross sectional analysis (Baltagi 2008). There are a variety of techniques

that can be used to estimate a panel data model. The two standard methods are ‘fixed-effects’ or

‘random-effects’. However, the appropriate method depends on the nature of observational data

and its potential biases. Although fixed/random effects estimators can control for one common

type of bias/endogeneity, such as the omitted variable bias, they cannot control for other sources

of endogeneity such as simultaneity, self-selection or measurement error biases. One has to use

Instrumental Variables (IV) estimation techniques to control for such sources of

bias/endogeneity (Halaby 2004). This is the approach followed in this study.

The problem of omitted variable/unobserved heterogeneity is quite common in the

macroeconomic competitiveness literature, since the number of potential determinants of

competitiveness can be very large. Also, the macroeconomic environment, or the institutional

environment, covers a wide range of factors, many of which cannot be accurately measured or

observed. Panel data analysis can control for potential country specific unobservable effects,

such as ‘culture’ which differ between countries but are fairly constant over time. In fact, many

variables are time-invariant because of researchers’ deliberate choice to limit the observational

data in a small number of periods. For example, data on political institutions usually includes

constitutional variables that rarely and slowly change. Similar cases are cultural variables or

macroeconomic policies such as the level of the openness of an economy. Hence, in our 6-year

study period, we treat such variables as time-invariant.

Also, self-selection and simultaneity/reverse causality issues are additional sources of

endogeneity bias. For example, our sample of developed countries may be self-selecting to use

CSR strategically and increase the social performance of their companies because they are

already developed economies with high living standards. Finally, a last source of endogeneity is

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

due to the fact that our sample is drawn from international datasets, suggesting the inclusion of a

number of variables whose measurement is prone to errors, due to differing national standards

and conventions. By employing IV estimation techniques that use at least one instrument that

correlates highly with the variable but not with the error term, one can control for such

endogeneity biases. Overall, with panel data, if all sources of endogeneity are appropriately

accounted for, it is possible to identify the causal effect, even in the presence of all the above

bias (Halaby 2004).

5.1 Sample

Our sample consists of 19 countries (all developed)[3] over a 6-year period (2001-2006). We

obtained data from online macroeconomic databases as well as from the Zurich-based fund

management firm Sustainable Asset Management (SAM), which is responsible for administering

the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) selection criteria. Panel data is currently very hard to

find for most countries, so our sample is further reduced due to data availability to 108

observations and is the first macro-panel in this line of research.

For a list of countries and the number of firms evaluated in each country as well as

corresponding percentage coverage of publicly traded firms, see Tables 1 and 2.

---------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

5.2 Variables

5.2.2 Dependent Variable

GDP per capita. GDP per capita is a widely accepted measure for use in national

economic performance, welfare, productivity and growth analyses (Baumol 1986; Barro 1991,

1997; Barro and Sala-i-Martin 2003; Jones 2006) and, as discussed at the beginning of this

paper, an appropriate measure of ‘outcome competitiveness’ in the context of CSR research at

the macro level. Since we are making comparisons between nations, we used per capita GDP

measured at purchasing power parities.

5.2.3 Independent variable

National Corporate Social Performance (NCSP). One means of operationalizing the

concept of CSR at the business level has been to measure the performance of firms across three

dimensions: economic, social and environmental. This is the path followed by various

organizations such as Sustainable Asset Management (SAM), a Zurich-based fund management

[4]
firm which is responsible for issuing the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). The criteria

SAM selects to measure CSR performance of many companies operating around the world are

similar to those proposed by the most frequently used guidelines such as the Global Reporting

Initiative (GRI) and the screenings used by fund managers in their Socially Responsible

Investment (SRI) decisions. We used this metric due to its early availability (1999), its

widespread adoption in the market and the credibility of the Dow Jones brand, as well as its

global reach. Moreover, these ratings have been examined by academics and have been found to

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

demonstrate the desirable traits of consistency, verifiability, logicality and predictability (Fowler

and Hope 2007).

However, SAM does not issue an aggregate-level measure of CSR performance at the

national level. Therefore, our independent variable is not directly observed but constructed as the

aggregate social performance of a sample of firms per country. This treatment is justified since

the variance within a country is less than the variance across countries, for most countries in our

sample. However, the sample of firms is not random; it includes only large firms that have been

evaluated by SAM for potential inclusion in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). All

firms rated by SAM are included in our sample whether or not they qualified for inclusion.

However, SAM selects firms from the largest 3000 companies (by free float market

capitalization) included in the Dow Jones Global Index (DJGI). This index covers 95% of the

underlying free float market capitalization at the country level and includes only companies with

easily traded stocks (based on liquidity and share class). Based on the above selection criteria,

our measure of aggregate social performance is the average social performance of ‘CSR leaders’

in the country. Hence, it reflects the best possible CSR performance per country, assuming only

the most socially responsible companies in the country would be willing to reply to SAM’s

surveys.

Our NCSP variable covers 19 countries and focuses on developed countries only, where

good quality economic data exist since 2001. NCSP averages were calculated from a sample of a

minimum of 25 firms per country (see Table 2). Multinational firms with operations in many

countries are evaluated separately in each country. For example, Coca-Cola in the United States

is contributing to the United States aggregate social performance while Coca-Cola in Greece is

contributing to the Greek aggregate social performance. No weights were applied as all firms are

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

at comparable size by selection. Industry weights are already applied by SAM when calculating

CSR performance at business level.

Unfortunately, there are no other appropriate indices available to measure CSR

performance at the national level. Even the most promising one, developed by AccountAbility

(NCRI) and covering a wide range of countries around the world, does not measure actual

business CSR performance, but a mixture of CSR performance as well as the enabling

environment for such performance. Besides, this index is not available for panel analysis because

it exists for two years only with varying content in each year.

5.2.4 Control variables

Innovation. Innovation was measured as the number of patents granted to each country by

the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Other measures of innovation such as

average national company expenditures on Research and Development were also used for

sensitivity tests.

Unit cost economies. We use the Real Unit Labor Costs (RULC) as a proxy for unit cost

economies. RULC represents price competitiveness and we hypothesize that the presence of unit

cost economies would result in reduced unit costs. Data was taken from the European

Commission’s Annual Macroeconomic database (AMECO).

Human capital. The most common measure of human capital has been the Barro and Lee

(2001) database, which covers school enrolment rates up to 2000. Since our panel covers a

different period, it was not possible to use it in our analysis. Therefore, we used two different

variables as a measure of human capital: tertiary education enrolment rates and company

expenditures on staff training.

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

 A description of all variables and sources of information is shown in Table 3.

----------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
----------------------------------------------

5.3 Data Analysis and Testing

Prior to testing, we visually analyzed the data to test for anomalies and transformed all our

variables into standardized form (z-scores). Table 4 reports the descriptive statistics for all

variables.

----------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
----------------------------------------------

Our econometric analysis draws on the empirical literature on economic growth, where

there is increasing use of relatively sophisticated panel data methods to control for endogeneity.

One common IV-estimation method involves the generalized method of moments (GMM). The

GMM approach was initially introduced into the growth literature by Caselli et al. (1996) but

since then, similar techniques have been applied by many other scholars such as Benhabib and

Spiegel (2000), and Banerjee and Duflo (2003). The GMM estimation usually produces more

reasonable results in the growth literature compared to Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimation

and has the potential to obtain consistent parameter estimates, even in the presence of

measurement error and endogenous right-hand-side variables.

There are two available GMM panel estimators, both based on the use of lagged

observations of the explanatory variables as instruments. The first is the ‘difference GMM’

estimator developed by Arellano and Bond (1991) and the second is the ‘system GMM’

estimator developed by Arellano and Bover (1995). The second estimator ‘system GMM’

22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

improves upon the difference estimator insofar as the quality of the instruments is concerned and

hence has been shown to produce better results in the context of empirical growth research

(Bond et al., 2001). We therefore used this one in our analysis.

We estimated the following dynamic panel data model based on Hsiao (2003, p. 69):

Yit= γ Yi, t-1 + β Xi t + αi + λt+ uit , i= 1,…,N t=1,…,T ( 1)

Where Yit is the dependent variable, measured in per capita GDP, Yi, t-1 is the lagged dependent

variable , Xit is a vector of all observable regressors , β is a vector of constants , αi, λt are

unobserved individual and time specific effects that are assumed constant for given i over t and

for given t over i respectively, uit represents the effects of those variables that vary over i and t.

Time dummies were also included in the model in order to control for global shocks, which

might affect GDP per capita in all countries in any time but are not otherwise captured by the

explanatory variables. Also, we corrected the estimated errors for heteroskedasticity as described

in Roodman (2009).

6. RESULTS

For estimation, we used the statistical software STATA10, following Roodman’s (2009) GMM

estimation approach. Table 5 shows the two models used for testing both our hypotheses and our

results. We found a positive and significant correlation between NCSP and competitiveness

(Model 1: b= 0.16, p = 0.07), so our results confirmed Hypothesis 1. From the control variables,

only Unit Cost Economies (e.g. Real Unit Labor Costs) were found significant (b= -0.05, p=

23

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

0.05). The rest of the right hand side control variables, were found to be insignificant. Various

empirical reasons could explain this, ranging from measurement errors in the proxies used or

small sample size to model specification issues. For example, the inclusion of the lagged

dependent variable can sometimes dominate the rest of the regressors and suppress the

explanatory power of other independent variables (Achen 2001). To test this, we estimated a

static panel model; i.e. excluding the lagged dependent variable (Model 3, Table 6). The results

confirmed the significance of innovation in addition to the significance of NCSP. We also

estimated a model without the variable NCSP, just with the control variables (Model 4, Table 6).

The results showed that innovation was significant, confirming its critical importance for high

wage countries, as already discussed in previous sections. All our models have a good F-statistic

value (p= 0.000).

In order to test Hypothesis 2, we added the interaction term of NCSP with innovation

(Model 2, Table 5), following Aiken and West (1991) suggestions on the appropriate use and

interpretation of interaction terms. We found the interaction term to be significant and negative

(b= -0.02, p= 0.07). The coefficient of NCSP remained significant and positive (b= 0.15, p=

0.08), but both its value and significance levels are reduced with the inclusion of the interaction

term, indicating that the impact of NCSP on competitiveness is less for highly innovative

countries, supporting Hypothesis 2.

For the regression models reported above, we checked the validity of the instruments by

using the Sargan (1958) and Hansen (1982) tests of over-identifying restrictions, as well as the

autocorrelation tests described in Arellano and Bond (1991) and Roodman (2009). These are

standard tests after GMM estimation. All, the test results were satisfactory, accepting the validity

of our instruments. For robustness, we also tested our models with a different number of

24

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

instruments, and different measures for control variables. While Model 1 generated virtually the

same results confirming Hypotheis 1, Model 2 could not always confirm Hypothesis 2, hence

producing partial support for Hypothesis 2.

---------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
---------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
----------------------------------------------

7. DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that CSR-based positioning strategies can be an important contributor to

improved national competitiveness, approximated at first instance with GDP per capita.

Moreover, its impact seems to be stronger in countries with relatively low innovative record-

standing. This may be because these countries can compensate for the absence of a strong

national innovation record, through CSR-based differentiation strategies.

Our findings are important for public policy and managerial practice, as they suggest that

positioning strategies through CSR can be important for countries’ competitiveness. However,

our study focused only on a sample of developed countries with government policies already in

place to safeguard the competitiveness of SMEs, to protect market dynamism from bureaucracy,

and to thwart CSR synergies turning to anticompetitive behavior and harming the wider

economy. These potential negative impacts of CSR, which have been previously identified in the

literature (see, Swift and Zadek 2002). In this context, our findings can be taken to imply that for

as long as appropriate government policies are in place to minimize any potential negative

25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

impacts of CSR-based strategy, CSR-based positioning strategies by firms and nations can be

beneficial to a nation’s competitiveness goals.

Selecting appropriate CSR-based positioning strategies depends on each country’s

desired place in the international arena. As with any other value-capture strategies, CSR-based

ones should not be used to increase market share in the short term and at a level hurting the

competitiveness of other nations. Ultimately CSR-based strategies, as other value-capture

strategies, should be further evaluated; for example, according to wider criteria, such as the

‘global sustainable value creation’ (Mahoney et al. 2009).

Granted the qualifications above, our results seem to confirm previous work in this area

(e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2003, 2007; Zadek 2006; Zadek et al. 2005), that CSR at the national

level is positively associated with competitiveness. However, our work expands and improves on

previous work in a number of ways. First, we have used a new data set and a more advanced

statistical analysis through the use of panel data and Instrumental Variable techniques which

can control for many sources of endogeneity bias. Also, our results, focusing on actual business

performance on CSR, can better answer the question of whether CSR-based strategies can have

an impact on the competitiveness of a nation and also examine policies or factors that affect this

relationship. In this context, we examined the impact of one critical such factor, namely

innovative standing.

Other limitations of our study, that call for cautious applicability of our results and

further future research to improve generalizability and validity, are as follows. First, data

availability constraints required us to focus on the performance of a small sample of relatively

big and profitable firms that are already using CSR strategically. Hence a broader sample of

firms might assist generalizability of results. Also, the lack of macroeconomic data for many

26

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

countries, especially for developing ones, constrained larger samples for cross-country

comparisons. Therefore, it would be useful in the future to examine a bigger sample of countries

including countries at different stages of development. Besides, a larger sample of firms and

countries would enhance causal inference.

Moreover, based on the current sample, our measure of national CSR does not trace the

diffusion of CSR practices across the country. Our results account for the impact of a few ‘CSR

leaders’ on national competitiveness. Hence, we can argue that the impact of CSR-based

strategies on national competitiveness can manifest itself through the leadership of some

companies driving up societal expectations, as theorized by Zadek (2006). In competitiveness

literature, the impact even of single large companies on the economy as a whole can be

significant, e.g. Nokia in Finland. Besides, the potential of multinational enterprises acting as

agents of change and altering the institutional environment of host countries has also been

supported in the international business literature (see, Westney 1993; Dacin et al. 1999; Kwok

and Tadesse 2006 ).

On the basis of the above, additional research in future should focus on the following.

First, gathering a bigger sample of firms per country including SMEs as well as firms from

developing countries and second, testing more factors from the macroeconomic and institutional

environment that can moderate the impact of CSR on competitiveness. Work along these lines

can provide managers and policy makers with better advice on how to use CSR strategically at

the firm, national and international levels.

Despite limitations, our work contributes towards the critical question of measuring the

wider impact of CSR in the economy and strengthens the strategic view of CSR towards

delivering shared value for business and society; as envisioned by Porter and Kramer (2006,

27

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

2011). We hope the path of empirical inquiry initiated in this study will stimulate more research

along the lines indicated in the previous section to understand the important relationship between

CSR and national competitiveness.

NOTES

[1] Despite meta-analytic studies confirming a weak positive link (e.g., Orlitzky et al. 2003)

many scholars (e.g., Garcia-Castro et al. 2010) still remain sceptical based on serious

methodological limitations in this line of research.

[2] Unit cost economies refers to all the different types of economies that lead to reductions in

unit costs such as economies of scale and scope (see, Chandler 1962), transaction cost

economies (see, Coase 1937), economies of learning (see, Arrow 1962), economies of growth

(see Penrose 1959), economies of joint governance (see, Williamson 2005), external and

agglomeration economies (see, Henderson 2005) and economies of pluralism and diversity (see,

Mahoney et al. 2009).

[3] Countries classified as developed following the OECD classification, widely known as the

‘developed countries club’.

[4] These can be found on line at:

http://www.sustainabilityindexes.com/07_htmle/assessment/criteria.html (accessed on 28 July

2011)

28

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

REFERENCES

Achen, C.H. (2001). Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of

other independent variables. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science

Association, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, July 20-22, 2000.

Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Aiginger, K. (2006). Competitiveness: From a dangerous obsession to a welfare creating

ability with positive externalities. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 6, 161-

177.

Albareda, L., Lozano, J.M., & Ysa, T. (2007). Public policies on corporate social

responisbility: The role of governments in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 391-

407.

Arellano, M. & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo

evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58,

277–297.

Arellano, M. & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-

components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–52.

Arrow, K. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic

Studies, 29, 155–173.

Bain, J.S. (1956). Barriers to new competition: Their character and consequences for

manufacturing industries. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

29

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Baltagi, B.H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data (4th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley

and Sons Ltd.

Banerjee, A.V. & Duflo, E. (2003). Inequality and growth. What do the data say? Journal of

Economic Growth, 8, 267–299.

Barro, R.J. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 106, 407–443.

Barro, R.J. (1997). Determinants of economic growth: A cross-country empirical study.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Barro, R.J. & Lee, J.W. (2001). International data on educational attainment: Update and

implications. Oxford Economic Papers, 53, 541–563.

Barro, R.J. & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2003). Economic growth (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baumol, W. (1986). Productivity growth, convergence and welfare: What the long run data

show. American Economic Review, 76, 1072–1085.

Benhabib, J. & Spiegel, M.M. (2000). The role of financial development in growth and

investment. Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 341–360.

Boehe, D.M. & Cruz, L.B. (2010). Corporate social responsibility, product differentiation

strategy and export performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 325-346.

Bond, S., Hoeffler, A. & Temple, J. (2001). GMM estimation of empirical growth models.

CEPR discussion paper 3048, Centre of Economic Policy Research, London.

Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct.

Business and Society, 38, 268–295.

Caselli, F., Esquivel, G. & Lefort, F. (1996). Reopening the convergence debate: A new look at

cross country growth empirics. Journal of Economic Growth, 1, 363–389.

30

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Chandler, A.D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial

enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Coase, R.H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.

Dacin, M.T., Ventresca, M. & Beal, B. (1999). The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue

and directions. Journal of Management, 25, 317-356.

Deakin, S. & Whittaker, D.H. (2007). Re-embedding the Corporation? Comparative

perspectives on corporate governance, employment relations and corporate social

responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 1-4.

Dowell, G., Hart, S. & Yeung, B. (2000). Do corporate global environmental standards create or

destroy market value? Management Science, 46, 1059–1074.

Dunning, J.H. (Ed.) (2003). Making globalization good: The moral challenges of global

capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. & De Sherbinin, A. (2005). Environmental sustainability

index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. Yale Center for

Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, CT.

European Commission. (2008a). Communication from the commission on the European

competitiveness Report 2008. Brussels.

European Commission. (2008b). European Competitiveness Report 2008. Luxemburg.

Fowler, S. J. & Hope, C. (2007). A critical review of sustainable business indices and

their impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 243-252.

Frynas, J. G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and international development: critical

assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16, 274–281.

Garcia-Castro, R., Arino, M.A. & Canela, M.A. (2010). Does social performance

31

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

 really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity. Journal of

Business Ethics, 92, 107–126.

Halaby, C. (2004). Panel models in sociological research. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 507–

544.

Hall, P.A. & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of

comparative advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hansen, L. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators.

Econometrica, 50, 1029–1054.

Hausman R., Tyson, L.D. & Zahidi, S. (2008). The global gender gap report. Geneva: World

Economic Forum.

Henderson, J.V. (2005). New economic geography. Northampton, MA: Elgar.

Hopkins, M. (2003). The planetary bargain: Corporate social responsibility matters. London,

UK: Earthscan Publications Limited.

Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of Panel Data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Jones, C.I. (2006). Introduction to Economic Growth (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton and

Company Inc.

Krugman, P. (1992). Does the new trade theory require a new trade policy? The World Economy,

15, 423–442.

Krugman, P. (1994). Competitiveness, a dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs, 73, 28–44.

Kwok, C.C.Y & Tadesse, S. (2006). The MNC as an agent of change for host-country

institutions: FDI and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 767-785.

32

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Lantos, G. P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 18, 595–630.

Logsdon, J. & Wood, D.J. (2002). Business citizenship: from domestic to global level of

analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 155–188.

MacGillivray, A., Sabapathy, J. & Zadek, S. (2003). Responsible competitiveness index 2003.

London: AccountAbility and The Copenhagen Centre.

MacGillivray, A., Begley, P. & Zadek, S. (Eds.) (2007). The state of responsible competitiveness

2007. London: AccountAbility.

McWilliams, A., Van Fleet, D. D. & Cory, K. (2002). Raising rivals’ costs through

political strategy: An extension of the resource-based theory. Journal of Management

Studies, 39, 707–723.

McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the

firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. & Wright, P.M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility:

strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 2-18.

Mahoney, J.T., McGahan, M.A. & Pitelis, C.N. (2009). The interdependence of private and

public interests. Organization Science, 20, 1034–1052.

Margolis, J.D. & Walsh, J.P. (2001). People and profits? The search for a link between a

company’s social and financial performance. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Margolis, J.D. & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by

business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. & Rynes, S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a

meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.

33

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Peng, G.Z. & Beamish, P.W. (2008). The effect of national corporate responsibility environment

on Japanese foreign direct investment. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 677-695.

Penrose, E.T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pitelis, C.N. (2009). The sustainable competitive advantage and catching-up of nations: FDI,

clusters and the liability (asset) of smallness. Management International Review, 49, 95–

120.

Pollitt, M. (2002). The economics of trust, norms and networks. Business Ethics: A European

Review, 11, 119–128.

Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors.

New York: The Free Press.

Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.

New York: The Free Press.

Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

Porter, M. E & Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and society: the link between competitive

advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78-92.

Porter, M.E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62-

77.

Porter, M.E. & Schwab, K. (Eds.). (2008). The global competitiveness report 2008-2009.

Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Porter, M.E. & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-

competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97–118.

Ram, R. (1992). International inequalities in human development and real income. Economics

Letters, 38, 351-354.

34

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Rodrik, D. (2004). Rethinking growth policies in the developing world. Working Paper, J.F.

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: an introduction to ‘difference’ and ‘system’

GMM in Stata. Stata Journal, 9, 86–136.

Sargan, J. (1958). The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables.

Econometrica, 26, 393–415.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Unwin Hyman.

Schwab, K. (Ed.) (2009). The global competitiveness report 2009-2010. Geneva: World

Economic Forum.

Schwartz, M.S. & Carroll, A.B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: a three domain approach.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 503-530.

Snowdon, B. & Stonehouse, G. (2006). Competitiveness in a globalized world: Michael Porter

on the microeconomic foundations of the competitiveness of nations, regions, and firms.

Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 163–175.

Swift, T. & Zadek, S. (2002). Corporate responsibility and the competitive advantage of

nations. London: AccountAbility.

Teece, D.J. (2011). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Westney,D.E. (1993). Institutionalization theory and the multinational corporation. In S. Ghosal

& D.E. Westney (Eds.), Organization theory and multinational corporation. New York:

St Martin’s Press.

Williamson, O.E. (2005). The economics of governance. American Economic Review, 95, 1-18.

35

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review,

16, 691-718.

Zadek, S. (2006). Responsible competitiveness: reshaping global markets through responsible

business practices. Corporate Governance, 6, 334–348.

Zadek, S., Raynard, P. & Oliveira, C. (2005). Responsible competitiveness: Reshaping global

markets through responsible business practices. London: AccountAbility and Fundacao

Dom Cabral (FDC).

Zenghelis, D. & Stern, N. (2007). The Stern review. In A. MacGillivray, P. Begley & S. Zadek

(Eds.), The state of responsible competitiveness 2007. London: AccountAbility.

36

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

 Relative Differentiation/Innovation

High Low
Relative CSR
Low 1. Competitors 2. Laggards
performance
High 3. Stars 4. Question Marks

Figure 1. The Relative CSR Differentiation/Innovation Positioning Matrix

Figure 2. Relative CSR Rankings Based on Current Sample a b

Notes: a Countries’ names follow the ISO two letter codes (see Table 1)
b
Source: Authors’ calculations based on SAM’s data

37

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Table 1. List of developed countries included in current sample

Country ISO code Country ISO code

1. Australia AU 11. Japan JP

2. Austria AT 12. Netherlands NL

3. Belgium BE 13. Norway NO

4. Canada CA 14. Portugal PT

5. Denmark DK 15. Spain ES

6. Finland FI 16. Sweden SE

7. France FR 17. Switzerland CH

8. Germany DE 18. UK UK

9. Greece GR 19. USA USA

10. Italy IT

38

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

 a
Table 2. Percentage of publicly traded firms

Country Number of publicly Total number of % of publicly traded

traded firms analyzed in publicly traded firms firms in this study
this study (source: OSIRIS)
Australia 260 2574 10.10%
Austria 25 178 14.04%
Belgium 42 287 14.63%
Canada 167 4725 3.53%
Denmark 54 315 17.14%
Finland 72 202 35.64%
France 232 1598 14.52%
Germany 238 1382 17.22%
Greece 28 373 7.51%
Italy 198 472 41.95%
Japan 502 4501 11.15%
Netherlands 121 393 30.79%
Norway 48 368 13.04%
Portugal 28 129 21.71%
Spain 137 340 40.29%
Sweden 124 728 17.03%
Switzerland 154 413 37.29%
UK 549 4884 11.24%
USA 755 13929 5.42%

Notes: a Source: Authors’ calculations based on SAM’s data

39

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Table 3. Variables: names, measures and sources of data

Variable Name Measure Source

Dependent variable National GDP per capita is gross Business Monitor
Competitiveness domestic product International database
(GDP per capita: divided by midyear (2007)
GDPC) population. Measured
in current US dollars.

Independent National The country average on Sustainable Asset

variable Corporate Social social performance Management (SAM)
Performance calculated from a
(NCSP) sample of listed firms
at each country for
each year.

Control variables Innovation 1.The number of World Development

(INN) patents granted to Indicators database,
each country by the World Bank (2008)
USPTO
Global
2.Company spending Competitiveness
on RandD Reports, World
Economic Forum
Unit Cost Real Unit Labor Costs: AMECO
Economies total economy (Ratio of
(UCE) compensation per
employee to nominal
GDP per person
employed. Base year
=2000)

Human Capital 1. % of gross World Development

(HC) population enrolled Indicators database,
in tertiary education World Bank (2008)

2. Expenditure by firms Global

on staff training Competitiveness
Reports, World
Economic Forum

40

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

 Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix a b

Obs Mean SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5

1.GDP per 114 30641 5315 17810 51862 1.00
capita
2.NCSP 114 48.69 12.46 5.433 68.10 0.52 1.00
***
3.Human 114 5.22 0.74 3.50 6.10 0.50 0.26 1.00
Capital *** ***
4.Innovation 114 8715 22113 12 102169 0.32 0.01 0.27 1.00
*** ***
5.Unit Cost 108 99.11 2.78 91.30 107.50 -0.14 -0.20 -0.03 -0.25 1.00
Economies ** ***

Notes: a Descriptive statistics based on their original values, correlation results based on their z-

score transformations as used in the analysis

b
Significance levels: p<0.01***, p <0.05**, p<0.01*

41

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Table 5. Dynamic Panel Model Regressions a b c

Model 1 Model 2

Dependent Dependent
variable=GDPC variable=GDPC
GDP per capita 1.08 *** 1.09***
(1 year lag) (0.04) (0.03)

NCSP 0.16 * 0.15*

(0.08) (0.08)

Human Capital -0.03 -0.04

(0.04) (0.03)

Innovation -0.02 -0.01

(0.08) (0.10)
Unit Cost -0.05* -0.05
Economies (0.02) (0.04)

NCSP*Innovation -0.02 *
(0.01)

Num. of instruments 18 21

Time dummies Yes Yes

Observations 90 90

Number of groups 18 18

Model F value 4619 *** 3493 ***

Notes: a Model 1 was used to test Hypothesis 1 and model 2 to test Hypothesis 2.
b
Models are based on ‘system GMM’ estimation (two-step estimator with

robust errors), standard errors shown in parentheses.

c
Significance levels: p<0.01***, p <0.05**, p<0.10*

42

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449

Table 6. Static Panel Model Regressions Used for Robustness Tests a

Model 3 Model 4

Dependent Dependent
variable=GDPC variable=GDPC
NCSP 0.64 **
(0.30)
Human Capital 0.27 0.33
(0.24) (0.20)
Innovation 0.38 *** 0.37 ***
(0.08) (0.09)
Unit Cost 0.07 0.04
Economies (0.13) (0.09)
Number of 18 13
instruments
Time dummies yes yes
Observations 108 108
Number of groups 18 18
Model F value 14.04 *** 24.34 ***

Notes: a Significance levels: p<0.01***, p <0.05**, p<0.10 *

43

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1965449