International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Business Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev
Corporate social innovation: A systematic literature review
Marcelo Dionisio*, Eduardo Raupp de Vargas
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Instituto COPPEAD de Administracao, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Corporate social innovation
Social innovation
Corporations
Hybrid organizations
CSV
CSR
This paper studies a timely but theoretically underspecified relationship between multinational corporations
(MNCs) and the concept of corporate social innovation (CSI), which we argue is the latest and definitive alternative for companies to help solve social problems through innovative procedures and strategies while
reaching economic results. Through a systematic literature review, this study selected 89 articles and performed
a descriptive and a thematic analysis of the literature to address the following research questions: How has the
CSI concept evolved? How is CSI similar to or different from other concepts?
The study finds that new paradigms could reinvent institutions as they open new possibilities for solving
social problems by giving businesses a new way to innovate while examples are given that are still works in
progress but that tomorrow could be the way business is done everywhere.
1. Introduction
Corporate Social innovation (CSI) has become relevant in global
strategy because society expects international corporations to be socially responsible, so multinationals (MNCs) must balance corporate
purpose, reputation, and strategy with local realities and their social
needs in order to achieve both corporate and social objectives (Husted
& Allen, 2006; Snider, Hill, & Martin, 2003), therefore this paper studies a timely but theoretically underspecified relationship between
multinational corporations (MNCs) and social innovation, which despite the growing interest in this field, has its literature still under-explored because of problems about 1) its understanding, once this is a
concept that overlaps with many existing theoretical backgrounds, and
2) its management, given the sparse literature on institutional mechanisms for integrating social innovation into strategy and operations
(Canestrino, Bonfanti, & Oliaee, 2015; Herrera, 2015; Porter & Kramer,
2006), so we expect to demonstrate the evolution of the CSI concept
and the differences and relationships with other similar concepts regarding social value creation. This paper expects to contribute with the
social innovation literature by arguing that the corporate social innovation (CSI) concept is the latest and definitive alternative for companies to help solve social problems while reaching economic results
through innovative procedures and strategies.
The concept of social innovation (SI) is among the most discussed in
the field of innovation in the last years (Canestrino et al., 2015) and has
received growing scholarly interest as it appears as a potential solution
to address existing social needs that have not been filled by existing
⁎
players such as government, enterprises, NGOs, and the civil society
(Păunescu, 2014; Canestrino et al., 2015; Van der Have & Rubalcaba,
2016). SI refers to ideas, methods, processes, and outcomes that offer
new ways to address social needs (Mirvis, Herrera, Googins, &
Albareda, 2016). When adopted at the corporate level, SI receives the
denomination of Corporate Social Innovation (CSI), an initiative that
aims to create both shareholder and social value with the potential to
alter the structure of innovation systems, improve employee motivation, and change corporate identities and strategies to increase competitive advantage, while at the same time bringing solutions to societal
needs (Canestrino et al., 2015; Herrera, 2015; Mirvis et al., 2016). The
concept of Corporate Social Innovation (CSI) was created in 1999 and
proposed the development of strategic alliances between companies
and the social sector, producing profitable and sustainable changes for
both sides based on the principle that applying energies to solve the
chronic problems of society powerfully stimulates the business’ own
development (Kanter, 1999). This idea seems more relevant in a moment when MNCs still face great challenges such as little significant
organic growth in the last decades despite the focus on cost cutting,
globalization, supply chains, and mergers to meet profit targets that
lead to an increased public rejection and rise in stakeholder expectations that MNCs should address troubling social, economic, and environmental issues once they are considered to also be responsible for
these problems and perceived to be prospering at the expense of the
broader community (Mirvis et al., 2016; Porter & Kramer, 2011).
The concept of CSI derives from and is intertwined with other
concepts, and the most relevant that appeared in the selected literature
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marcelo.dionisio@coppead.ufrj.br (M. Dionisio), eduardo.raupp@coppead.ufrj.br (E.R. de Vargas).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101641
Received 28 November 2018; Received in revised form 14 October 2019; Accepted 24 October 2019
0969-5931/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Marcelo Dionisio and Eduardo Raupp de Vargas, International Business Review,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101641
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
the keywords that would better identify the relevant literature to answer the following study research questions: 1) How has the CSI concept evolved?, and 2) how is CSI similar to and different from the
concepts of CSR, CSV, and Hybrid? In order to reach this objective, we
adopted the criteria to cover three main topics in this search: corporations, social value creation, and institutionalization. Corporations
are the actors we aim to explore in this study as we seek to understand
corporate social innovations as a way to create both shareholder and
social value. Afterwards we considered the three most relevant concepts
of social value creation that appeared in the literature selected, namely
corporate social innovation (CSI), creating shared value (CSV), and
hybrid organizations. Finally we included institutionalization and neoinstitutionalization, as according to Herrera (2015) innovations are
most powerful when organizational systems and structures can institutionalize them (Herrera, 2015). Institutionalization is broadly defined as “the processes by which societal expectations of appropriate
organizational action influence the structuring and behavior of organizations” (Dacin, 1997, p. 48), while neo-institutional literature suggests that often (but not always) organizations see themselves as an
attempt to mimic the other organizations in their field since this isomorphism would provide legitimacy within its industry. Both concepts
impact directly the adoption and growth of CSI (Bennett, 2016;
O’Connor & Gronewold, 2012), so by including this topic we expected
to find studies where CSI was already implemented to offer a practical
view of the concept without the intention of exploring this field of study
in depth.
This criteria led to the selection of the following specific keywords:
corporation, MNCs, corporate social innovation, CSI, social innovation,
shared value, CSV, hybrid organizations, institutionalization, and neoinstitutionalization (refer to Table 1), which were constructed into the
following root search string: (Corporation) OR (MNC) AND (Corporate
Social Innovation) OR (CSI) OR (Social Innovation) OR (Shared Value)
OR (CSV) OR (Hybrid Organization) AND (Inst*) OR (Neo-inst*).
The next step was to select the relevant databases, which initially
led us to five alternatives: Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, EBSCO,
and Google Scholar. These databases were selected in order to include
the most widely used business and economic resources that provide
material from top ranked management journals with more than one
million articles from business and social science research. The last two
databases offered a huge number of articles without many filtering alternatives, so they were discarded.
The initial search was conducted based on each database’s search
functionalities, so in the case of Scopus in Title-Abstract-Keywords, in
Web of Science in topic, and in Emerald in keywords. After the application of their many search filters (e.g.: subject area, language, type of
publication) and removal of duplicates, we obtained a total of 1112
articles. Then an interpretative validation criteria was taken, which
according to De-la-Torre-Ugarte-Guanilo, Takahashi, and Bertolozzi
(2011) consists in interpreting the data selected and its correspondence
with the study proposition. So the next step was to screen the type, title,
and abstract of the articles for relevance and eligibility for the systematic review based on the following inclusion criteria: 1) focus on
innovation to promote social value and/or 2) the participation of corporations in its social activities. On the other side, the terms social and
value are used in many varied ways (e.g. value health or social media),
so an exclusion criteria was established that discarded articles that: 1)
are Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Creating Shared Value (CSV)
and hybrid organizations. CSR differs from CSI as it has been more
focused on philanthropic or generic initiatives aiming to answer to
external pressures and improving the reputation of MNCs while CSI
represents a strategic investment that companies manage such as other
corporate projects, applying its full assets and expertise through deeper
collaboration across functions within a firm and external parties (NGOs,
Government, etc.) to co-create something new that provides a sustainable solution to social needs. CSI also aims to produce new sources of
revenue and to generate a more socially relevant innovation system and
corporate culture that can be a source of competitive advantage
(Herrera, 2015; Kanter, 1999; Mirvis et al., 2016). The CSV concept
coined by Porter and Kramer (2011) argues that “shared value is based
on mutual, positive economic and societal benefits relative to costs, and
hence integral to long term competitiveness” (Fearne, Garcia Martinez,
& Dent, 2012;) since companies were currently trapped in an outdated
model and needed to reconnect their success with social progress. This
concept, although similar to CSI, is limited to policies and operating
practices with a focus on economic success and has thus been incorporated into the concept of CSI (de los Reyes, Scholz, & Smith, 2017;
Michelini & Fiorentino, 2012; Porter & Kramer, 2011). There is a new
generation of companies that has implemented new hybrid business
models aligned with the goal of social sustainability. Unlike existing
MNCs that need to modify their current business models, they design
their products, operating models, brands, and technologies from the
ground up creating shared economic value by enabling their main
stakeholders to define and implement their own social and sustainability-oriented values. This can be considered a social innovation in
itself and has attracted the interest of large companies to acquire successful hybrids (such as Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever) so they can learn
how to embed social values into their missions, production processes,
product characteristics, organizational cultures, and relationships with
their employees, suppliers, and consumers (Austin & Leonard, 2008;
Lee & Jay, 2015; Michelini & Fiorention, 2012). For these reasons we
believe that CSI represents an evolutionary notion that better encompass the other concepts and better reflects the balance firms need to
have to create both shareholder and social value, and in this sense this
study performs a descriptive and a thematic analysis of the literature
aiming to address the following research questions: How has the CSI
concept evolved? How is CSI similar to and different from the concepts
of CSR, CSV, and Hybrid?
This article is structured as follows: we describe the method used to
conduct the systematic literature review followed by an analysis of the
literature and the evolution of the CSI field, to finalize with a discussion
and concluding remarks along with limitations and suggestions for future research.
2. Research method
Building on medical research methods, systematic literature reviews
(SLR) have gained increasing credibility within management research
as they offer a transparent, reproducible, and iterative review process
by using a comprehensive search and analysis framework that combines
cross-referencing between journals and researchers, extensive searches
of research databases, and applying an inclusion and exclusion criteria
that could provide a research that is theoretically sound, methodologically rigorous, and that offers practitioners and scholars a reliable
basis to formulate decisions and take actions (Phillips, Lee, Ghobadian,
O’Regan, & James, 2014; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). As stated
by Worthington, Esposito, Nieri, and Glenny (2003), “(…) systematic
reviews are most needed whenever there is a substantive question,
several primary studies – perhaps with disparate findings – and substantial uncertainty” (p. 3).
As Gough et al. (2017) pointed out, systematic literature reviews are
grounded on a set of common principles guided by a research question
and systematic approaches. So the first step of this review was to define
Table 1
Rational for keyword definition.
2
Corporate
Social Value Creation
Institutionalization
MNC’s
Corporation
Coporate Social Innovation (CSI)
Social Innovation
Creating Shared Value (CSV)
Hybrid Organization
Institutionalization
Neo-Institutionalization
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
Fig. 1. Systematic literature review structure.
disciplines from which corporate social innovation research draws its
concepts and theories (refer to Fig. 2). Among them, 48 or 54 % of the
journals have two or more articles selected. This can be interpreted
because there is some fragmentation in the selection of journals due to
the variety of subjects involved in the concept of CSI (Van der Have &
Rubacalba, 2016). On the other hand, more than fifty percent of the
articles were concentrated in journals that were more connected to the
key areas of interest of CSI, namely strategy, management, social responsibility, and governance, as can be observed in Table 2 in the list of
the journals most cited.
Examination of the 14 most cited journals shows that six of them
(43 %) have h-indexes greater than 100 and the remaining 8 journals
have h-indexes higher than 20. Analyzing the full list, we find that 65 %
of the journals have h-indexes above 50 and only 3 % have no h-index,
but they all come from a reputable publisher of peer reviewed journals,
so considering that Mingers, Macri, and Petrovici (2012) found evidence that suggests that the h-index could be a better citation-based
metric for evaluating the quality and contribution of scholarly journals
than the impact factor (IF) or the number of cites per paper (cpp), we
assume that this selection of articles based on the quality of their
publications are adequate for this literature review.
At this point, all articles were categorized by publication year (see
Fig. 3), and in order to evaluate and better understand possible trends,
we performed a content analysis that allowed us to divide the entire
period by four and investigate each of them.
The tool chosen to perform this content analysis was the open-
were not related to social value creation, 2) did not involve companies,
and 3) were not fully related to the three main areas defined for this
study, namely corporations, social innovation, and institutionalization.
This interpretative validation resulted in 89 articles that served as database for this study. Fig. 1 shows the summary of the systematic literature review structure.
The analysis of the data in the 89 articles remaining were conducted
in two parts: 1) a descriptive analysis of the area in terms of key
journals, types of articles, and field of study, and 2) a thematic analysis
to assess CSI as a theoretical concept by examining its ontological and
epistemological properties. We used ontology to cover aspects that deal
with definitions, constructs, and theories and epistemological properties to relate concepts and frameworks similar or connected to CSI.
3. Findings
3.1. Descriptive analysis of the literature
This descriptive analysis aims to map the field as a whole since we
cover an emerging topic that would benefit from a comprehensive integration of different concepts emerging from different arenas that can
help to obtain a deeper insight from the literature.
The 89 articles selected come from 52 different journals from diversified fields such as management, strategy, marketing, leadership,
social responsibility, and innovation, which emphasizes the diverse
characteristic of the subject and presents a good indicator of the
Fig. 2. Definition of fields of study.
3
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
the presence of terms such as law (third most cited) and legal are largely observed but they will no longer appear in further periods. This
may be explained by the fact that during this period there were still
concerns about the relationship between corporations and the government. Kanter (1999) stated in her seminal article that adopting CSI
would give corporations the opportunity to influence regulations, but to
reshape public institutions, corporations depended upon establishing
close relationships with governments, which was later reinforced by
authors who stressed the need to establish new relationships between
firms and governments (Cumming, Bettridge, & Toyne, 2005; Gentile,
2001).
The second period from 2006 to 2010 consisted of 9 articles. This
period started with the publication of Porter & Kramer’s (2006) first
article that explored the idea of shared value proposing a link between
competitive advantage and CSR, reinforcing the idea that more than
philanthropic or isolated activities, corporations should include the
creation of social value in their strategies. That is when new terms such
as management, responsibility, leadership, and technology emerged in
the debate. We assumed that the terms responsibility and management
refer to the fact that half of these articles dealt with corporate social
responsibility (CSR). Borgelt and Falk (2007) supported this idea by
emphasizing that organizations should develop new strategies through
leadership and management and not only focus on the reputational
aspects of CSR, which is in line with Midttun’s (2007) perspective who
also highlighted the need for institutionalization of these changes for
the embeddedness of these innovative processes. In this period there is
one article that explores the perspective of workers, showing a change
in habits where people, in general, started to seek for new work arrangements and the opportunity to give back to society, which would
define new relationship with firms and a further support for the development of strategies to create social value (Hewlett, Sherbin, &
Sumberg, 2009).
The next period goes from 2011 to 2015 and shows the appearance
of new terms such as CSI, value, environment, and stakeholders. There
is a significant growth in the number of articles in this period that went
up to 33 in total. As mentioned, this period witnessed the appearance of
the concept of creating shared value (CSV), an idea that expects to
strengthen the link between corporations and society (Michelini &
Fiorentino, 2012; Porter & Kramer, 2011; Raimi, Akhuemonkhan, &
Ogunjirin, 2015). During this period a growing presence can be observed of terms such as hybrid enterprises and inclusive business, reflecting new kinds of business models that are able to combine social
and business advantage (Michelini & Fiorentino, 2012). Not surprisingly there is a greater focus on the relationships between companies
Table 2
Publication sources.
Publication
Frequency
H Index
Academy Of Management Review
California Management Review
Corporate Governance: The international journal of
business in society
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management
Harvard business review
Journal of Business Ethics
Journal of Business Strategy
Journal of Management Studies
Leadership & Organization Development Journal
Long Range Planning
Management Decision
Social Responsibility Journal
Strategic Management Journal
Strategy & Leadership
3
4
4
229
114
62
3
49
6
2
2
6
2
2
5
4
3
2
48
54%
154
132
31
145
51
81
77
20
232
35
Articles
of total
source software package R, an integrated suite of software facilities for
data manipulation, calculation, and graphical display (R Core Team,
2013). Tippmann (2015) stated that since its launch, R quickly attracted the interest from scientists around the globe who needed statistical software, and at that time nearly 1 out of 100 scholarly articles
indexed in Elsevier’s Scopus database cited R or one of its packages.
There were no articles before 1999, which may be attributed to the
growing interest in the social related fields during the late 1990s and
took time to appear into academic publications. It can be inferred from
Fig. 3 that although CSR has been present during the entire period
studied, after 2011, the year that Porter & Kramer’s shared value article
was published, it had to share its space with other concepts. During this
initial period (1999–2010) there were a couple of articles published on
social innovation and the seminal article on CSI by Kanter (1999).
It is in the period between 2010 and 2018 that the other concepts
related to CSI started to appear in the literature. After 2010, CSV has
appeared consistently every year. An increase can also be observed in
publications on social innovation, while CSR, although remaining in the
debate, shows a decrease in importance compared with these other
concepts. CSI enters the debate in 2012 and appears steadily after 2015,
while the same movement can be observed with Hybrids that follows
the same pattern.
The first period, defined between 1999 and 2005, consisted of seven
articles and is the period with the fewest publications. In this segment,
Fig. 3. Fields of study by year of publication.
4
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
Europe (other than UK) is the continent with largest participation
with 25 articles (28 %) from 13 different countries where Spain produced 6 articles and Italy 4, the most relevant countries from this region. Asia is the third most important region with 12 articles from 7
different countries. Australia and New Zealand participate actively in
this debate offering 7 articles and interactions with 3 different countries. Latina America and Africa are the continents with the lowest
participation and interaction with other regions. Considering the interaction between countries, it can be observed that the UK offers a
more international approach interacting with more different regions,
while the US interacts only with Asia and Europe. It is relevant to
highlight that Spain, which interacts mostly with Latin America, participates in 3 out of the 4 articles produced by this region.
Finally, the articles were categorized between theoretical/conceptual and empirical and between qualitative and quantitative. As may
be expected in an emerging field, it was found that much of the research
was exploratory and qualitative in nature (72 articles), though some
quantitative research is being carried out (17 articles). The review also
identified 45 conceptual articles and 44 empirical articles, evenly distributed during the period studied (Fig. 5).
Among the qualitative articles, there are seminal works that have
had great influence in the field such as Kanter’s (1999) work on CSI,
Hart and Christensen’s (2002) on innovation for the base of the pyramid, Seelos and Mair (2005) on social entrepreneurship, and Porter
and Kramer (2006); Porter & Kramer, 2011 on shared value. Other
relevant articles in this category identify a move from more reactive
initiatives with focus on improving reputation and positive public
perception to a focus on social change, especially due to institutional
pressures (Midttun, 2007; Waddock, Bodwell, Graves, & S., 2002). For
example, Lee and Jay (2015) posited that “The recent success of hybrid
social ventures builds on a generational shift in how business stakeholders perceive and respond to business’ relationships with society and
the natural environment. This shift allows hybrid social ventures to
create economic value through favorable interactions with those stakeholders whose behaviors are guided by sustainability-oriented values” (p.128). From an institutional side, evidence suggests that CSR is
already institutionalized and as organizations are influenced by normative isomorphism when they adopt certain structures or practices,
new practices adopted by MNCs would eventually lead other companies
displaying a high level of uniformity in their business practices to adopt
effective collaborative relationships with other enterprises or institutions as one important ingredient to achieve competitive advantage
(Cullen, 2000; Tang, Gallagher, & Bie, 2015).
and their multiple stakeholders: employees, customers, suppliers,
NGOs/activists, communities, governments, competitors, etc. (Ayuso,
Rodríguez, García-Castro, & Ariño, 2011). It can be concluded from this
period that socially oriented goals were demanded by customers, employees, and stakeholders in general, representing a generational shift
in how business was perceived and how it related with society and the
natural environment, and how ever more this shift demanded a need for
institutional changes and adopting new strategies and business models.
In particular, neo- institutional theory suggests that these institutional
forces could influence the shape, limit, and/or facilitate the diffusion
and/or imposition of business practices and innovations in corporations
(Lee & Jay, 2015; Ntim & Soobaroyen, 2013).
The last period comprises the years between 2016 and 2018 and
showed a spike in the growth of articles with a total of 40 articles,
representing an increase of 122 % compared to the previous period,
demonstrating a continuous interest in the field. New terms that appeared in this period are society and sustainability, which could be
attributed to the growing focus on sustainable development. It is important to mention that the literature used concepts such as CSR,
Hybrid Organizations, CSV, and CSI interchangeably, but the idea that
companies must apply their business resources and management capabilities to address social issues seemed very clear (Cohen & Muñoz,
2017; Kao, Chen, Wu, & Yang, 2016; Kaul & Luo, 2018; Kramer &
Pfitzer, 2016). The reason why MNCs seem apt to this task can be
corroborated by the perspective of Kramer and Pfitzer (2016) who
posited that “Businesses bring essential assets to collective-impact efforts. They know how to define and achieve objectives within a limited
time and budget. They understand change management and the art of
negotiation. And corporate pragmatism, accountability, and datadriven decision making can cut through the red tape and ideological
disagreements that often stymie governments and NGOs.” (p. 6).
In order to analyze country productivity, with the help of the
package R we performed a social network analysis where we identified
articles from institutions in 33 different countries from five continents
with a high level of interaction between them, as can be seen in Fig. 4.
The United States (39) and the UK (19) represent the most number of
institutions collaborating with 65 % of all articles, being the greatest
source of connection with other countries, implying that their academics have made the most significant contribution to studies in the
field while also promoting the theme. However, it is important to
mention that because the search was focused on English language articles, there could be some bias toward research conducted in English or
by English-speaking researchers.
Fig. 4. Social Network Analysis of affiliation origins.
5
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
Fig. 5. Definition of article types.
encountered five definitions (Table 4) in the few articles that cover
specifically this new concept, including the seminal article from Kanter
(1999). They are aligned with the main concepts of social innovation
defined as new ideas, institutions, ways of working, products, services,
business models, and processes that offer solutions and value to businesses, customers, the environment, and society as a whole in order to
solve global challenges related to both environmental issues and social
problems along with the importance to adopt efficient management and
integration between all internal functions, the need of partnerships with
external actors such as governments and NGOs, and the clear goal to
adopt this view as a strategic way to get competitive advantage and
achieve both economic and social returns (Kanter, 1999; Canestrino
et al., 2015; Herrera, 2015; Jayakumar, 2017; Michelini, 2012; Mirvis
et al., 2016).
The literature researched cites many practical examples to better
illustrate this concept. Kanter (1999) used the example of IBM’s Reinventing education program that develops new tools and solutions that
was present in 21 US sites and four countries and resulted in innovations that offered solutions to both schools and IBM. Another company
that invested in education was Intel with Education Programs focused
on expanding academic opportunities, arguing that technology can be a
vehicle for social inclusion through learning and employment. Intel's
stakeholder engagement platforms helped develop strong relationships
with institutions and individuals to improve understanding of market
opportunities and trends, allowing them to contribute to society and
build competitive advantages by either broadening markets or by developing innovative, low-cost solutions (Herrera, 2015).
There are eight other articles from the literature selected that deal
with CSI, meaning that they apply the concept and theories of social
innovation at the corporation level since a business’ impact on society
has become a key management issue in today’s world (Carrillo & Gomi,
2017; Gutierrez & Vernis, 2016). They do not propose any formal definitions of CSI, but explore different concepts that may be classified
into two groups: organizational and stakeholder influence. Five articles
focus on organizational aspects of CSI identifying barriers to launch into
CSI (Gutierrez & Vernis, 2016; Venn & Berg, 2013), new CSI business
models (Abebe & Cha, 2018; Laasch, 2018), and how CSI works in
Empirical articles focused mainly on case studies, investigating how
different companies work to implement and expand the concepts of
social responsibility into effective creation of social value, exploring
internal attributes (Hillestead, Xie, & Haugland, 2010; Fearne et al.,
2012; Manz, Manz, Adams, & Shipper, 2011), different CSR concepts
(Kourula & Halme, 2008), and roles of internal and external stakeholders (Fearne et al., 2012), suggesting a growing focus on organizations (versus its brands) providing practical insights that could serve as
a model for managers that would like to do well by doing good (Manz
et al., 2011).
Quantitative articles increased their presence after 2015, when
more than half of them were published (11 out of 17). This reflects the
evolution of the field. Once it became more firmly grounded in its
theory, it saw the rise in the number of quantitative studies. These articles collected data mainly from surveys (Cumming et al., 2005; Luu,
2017; Mahmoud & Hinson, 2012) and reputable databases such as the
Dow Jones Sustainability Index (Ayuso et al., 2011; Gallego‐Álvarez,
Manuel, & García‐Sánchez, 2011) or London’s stock exchange FTSE 350
(Cumming et al., 2005). In general terms, they investigated positive
relationships between social value creation activities and perceptions of
internal and external stakeholders in both domestic and foreign markets, impacts within a specific sector, or changes in market value
(Crilly, Ni, & Jiang, 2016; Hawn & Ioannou, 2016; Halkos & Skouloudis,
2017; Jung & Ha-Brookshire, 2017; Luu, 2017; Moura-Leite, Padgett, &
Galan, 2012).
3.2. Thematic analysis of the literature
This thematic analysis assessed the ontological and epistemological
properties of CSI as a concept based on the 89 articles selected. We first
analyze how CSI is defined and presented in terms of organizational
activities, then we examine how the concept is similar to and different
from the concepts of CSR, CSV, and Hybrid (refer to Table 3).
3.3. How is corporate social innovation defined?
There are not many definitions of CSI in the literature. We
Table 3
The framework for the analysis of ontoogical and epistemological properties of CSI.
Ontological Properties
Epistemological Properties
How is Corporate Social Innovation defined?
How do definitions of CSI are presented in terms of organizational activities
How CSI is similar to and different from other concepts namely CSR, CSV and Hybrid
6
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
Table 4
Definitions of CSI.
Kanter (1999)
Canestrino et al. (2015)
Herrera (2015)
Mirvis et al. (2016)
Jayakumar (2017)
A new paradigm for innovation, a partnership between private enterprise and public interest that produces profitable and sustainable change for both
sides. When companies approach social needs in this way, they have a stake in the problems, and they treat the effort the way they would treat any
other project central to the company's operations. They use their best people and their core skills. This is not charity, it is R&D-a strategic business
investment.
A way of finding new products and services that meet not only the functional needs of consumers but also their wider aspirations as citizens. CSI focus
on how to manage firms’ knowledge in order to get not only profits but also social goals. Its effectiveness depends on the firms’ ability to manage both
knowledge for innovation and their propensity to achieve social benefits.
Social innovation is a measureable, replicable initiative that uses a new concept or a new application of an existing concept to create shareholder and
social value. Identifying drivers, enablers, and barriers to idea generation, experimentation, and implementation is critical to understanding CSI
institutionalization.
Corporate Social Innovation (CSI) represents a strategic investment that companies manage more or less like other corporate investments, engaging a
company in societally-relevant R&D and applying the full range of corporate assets to the challenges at hand. CSI involves deeper collaboration across
functions within a firm and with external parties to co-create something new that provides a sustainable solution to social ills and can be a source of
competitive advantage.
CSI is when the company uses innovations to differentiate itself from competition to create competitive advantage (organizational outcomes) and
shared value (societal outcomes).
communities, governments, competitors, etc. (Ayuso et al., 2011). In
2012, an IBM CEO Study acknowledged demands for greater transparency and the competitive imperative to open up their organizations
to expand collaboration both internally and externally. CEOs identified
personal and organizational attributes that were most important to
reach this change. The top four organizational attributes CEOs deemed
necessary (cited by more than 50 % of all CEOs) to engage employees
were ethics & values, collaborative environment, purpose & mission,
and ability to innovate (Ban & Marshall, 2013). This process of change
demonstrates the need for new models other than the existing ones, so
this segment of the work will concentrate on establishing the differences between CSI and the three most relevant concepts that appear in
the literature selected: CSR, CSV, and Hybrid organizations.
The literature makes clear that ethics & responsibility are firmly
established in the corporate agenda, nevertheless significant challenges
remain concerning how to embed these concepts into the everyday
processes, structures, and cultures of contemporary organizations,
especially when it involves a change of philosophy within companies
and whether these changes are a form to reach competitive advantage
or adhere to institutionalization within the industry (Bartlett, 2009;
Gallego‐Álvarez et al., 2011; O’Connor & Gronewold, 2012) leading to
an increased role for organizations in understanding and operationalizing what Porter and Kramer (2006, p. 89) called “a social dimension to the value proposition”, which they continue, can offer “a
new frontier in competitive positioning”.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in its modern form has been a
relevant topic since the 1950’s, where it must be acknowledged that
some writers early on have been critical of the concept, such as
Theodore Levitt and Milton Friedman who claimed that businesses were
responsible to maximize profits in an honest way. Nevertheless, during
the 1980s with the incentive of the Reagan administration that called
upon companies and private initiatives to address social problems, and
the 1990s with the trend of globalization and the rise of competitiveness of corporations increased the reputational risk with global visibility, CSR was institutionalized and exported as corporations needed to
plan carefully their responsibility and ethics initiatives wherever they
were doing business (Carroll 2015; 2016). At the same time in Europe,
Mullerat (2013) claimed that “Although innumerable abuses took place
along its history, in Europe there have been traditionally more CSR
consistent values, norms and perceptions than in other areas of the
world; European corporations have tended to hold stronger and broader
approaches to stakeholder relations; and that network is being established to help many companies share and diffuse relevant information
about CSR” (p. 5), with the relevance of the UK considered a leader in
CSR, where the government of Tony Blair (1997–2007) put pressure on
companies in terms of improving disclosure, challenging the top 350
companies to produce social and environmental reports and the issue of
a number of regulations designed to complement voluntary initiatives
MNCs in a specific market (Carrillo & Gomi, 2017). These articles use
case studies in their research, two of them work with MNCs that have
Base of the Pyramid (BoP) projects, one of them with MNCs in Mexico,
and the remaining are based on quantitative research that investigate
positive relationships with corporate social programs. The other three
articles that focus on stakeholder influence concentrate on the different
levels of stakeholder influence: internal (Rodell, Booth, Lynch, & Zipay,
2017), external (Noronha, Guam & Fan, 2018), and both (Mitchell,
Weaver, Agle, Bailey, & Carlson, 2016). In general, the cases supported
the CSI objectives. Consider the example that shows Phillips’ BoP initiatives in South Asia (Venn & Berg, 2013). This study identified many
benefits from their activities. As external results they obtained customer
value creation through initiatives that provided products that were
cheaper, sustainable, and with superior technology, and as internal
results, the case unearthed commercial viability from a business perspective at the same time that reputational impacts were acknowledged
throughout all BoP ventures with overwhelming employee engagement
and very high levels of motivation where involvement in poverty alleviation and sustainable development was perceived as very rewarding
with employees describing feelings such as pride and honor. All quantitative articles showed a positive relationship of social contributions
related to different evaluations, namely strategy adoption, perception
of investors, and volunteer work (Abebe & Cha, 2018; Noronha, Guan,
& Fan, 2018; Rodell et al., 2017).
Although these definitions reinforce our perspective that CSI offers a
better solution to social problems, a limitation identified in the literature is related to what may be the reason CSI is relevant to business
since companies still need to urgently connect with society. Restoring
trust in business has been considered crucial to achieve competitive
advantages, gain legitimacy, and to secure business licenses to operate
in society and thus allow them to enhance their positive contributions,
earn stakeholder trust, and develop a new generation of leaders and
employees (Mirvis & Googins, 2017; Wyman, 2016). Nevertheless,
these articles effectively presented the theory, practice, and policy of
CSI expressed in new ways of doing things, distinctive social relationships, and novel solutions, offering major progress in understanding
corporate social innovation trajectories, barriers, business models, and
institutions, highlighting the superiority of CSI as a concept compared
to CSR or CSV, for example, since this is a broader, more inclusive
process that promotes a deeper collaboration across functions within a
firm and external parties (NGOs, Government, etc.) to co-create something new that provides a sustainable solution to social needs.
3.4. How CSI is similar to and different from other theories
It has become clear for MNCs and businesses in general that there is
a need for them to reinvent the way they relate to their multiple stakeholders:
employees,
customers,
suppliers,
NGOs/activists,
7
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
who place a higher value on healthy living, environmental and social
justice in the products and services they purchase, in the companies
they will invest and work, in the politicians and policies they support,
and ultimately, in the lifestyles they lead (Haigh & Hoffman, 2012).
Unlike existing MNCs that need to modify their current business
models, they design their products, operating models, brands, and
technologies from the ground up creating shared economic value by
enabling their main stakeholders to define and implement their own
social and sustainability-oriented values. This can be considered a social innovation in itself and has attracted the interest of large companies
to acquire successful hybrids, such as Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever, so
they can learn how to embed social values into their missions, production processes, product characteristics, organizational cultures, and
relationships with their employees, suppliers, and consumers (Austin &
Leonard, 2008; Lee & Jay, 2015; Michelini & Fiorentino, 2012),
This model presents limitations to scale up and maintain sustainability and with the dilemma of being acquired (Alberti & Varon
Garrido, 2017; Haigh & Hoffman, 2012; Lee & Jay, 2015). The issue
with scaling up and maintaining sustainability is exemplified by Haigh
and Hoffman (2012) with the case of Seventh Generation, a company
that produces cleaning products and publishes their ingredients in order
to exemplify the value of total transparency, thus putting at risk their
intellectual property but at the same time creating opportunities for
imitation. The dilemma of being acquired appears with the success and
intensifying competition that turn hybrids into acquisition targets of
large corporations, which was the case of Ben & Jerry’s acquired by
Unilever in 2000, contributing to the company’s recognition of the
importance of sustainability to its success. In this specific case, Unilever
sought to use Ben & Jerry’s culture and way of doing business to improve their value creation strategies with both employees and customers. Their first measures were to implement policies to cultivate Ben &
Jerry’s identity to understand how it contributed to the success of the
business that later helped them launch the Lipton Tea brand as one of
the test cases for how to transform an existing brand into a sustainability-oriented brand by adapting Ben & Jerry’s innovative approach
into Unilever’s larger portfolio (Lee & Jay, 2015).
It can be inferred that this model represents the birth of a new style
of doing business that in a way takes the concept of CSI from exclusively
being MNC oriented to reaching a large spectrum of businesses since
one may say that hybrid organizations practice CSI once they rely on
innovation, strategies, and involves business-to-nonbusiness (B2N)
partnering aiming for social impact. CSI differs in the scope it occurs
since it is related to traditional MNCs, while hybrids represents new
organizations of all sizes with new business models that places them
instead of potential competitors, as allies in the advancement of CSI in
the strategies of larger companies (Lee & Jay, 2015; Mirvis et al., 2016).
By comparing these four concepts, the differences between them
allows us to establish that CSI not only differs from the others, but also
represents a more complete approach to social and economic problems
(refer to Table 5). We assume that new concepts such as CSI, CSV, and
Hybridism are evolutions or transformations of the initial CSR activities
since MNCs are increasingly confronted with their own, sometimes
uncomfortable, pasts concerning environmental harm and human rights
violations, leading the legitimacy of businesses to fall to levels not seen
before (Porter & Kramer, 2011; Schrempf-Stirling, Phillips, & Palazzo,
2016). These changes are also associated with a generational shift in
how business stakeholders perceive and respond to the business’ relationships with society and the natural environment where there are
more conscious consumers that seek more informed buying decisions
and more ethical choices along with a new set of employees that
achieve personal fulfillment from working for a sustainable business
with the opportunity to give back to society and to build attitudes and
behaviors that set them apart from other generations. In this scenario,
socially innovative companies incorporate “outside-in” ideas from stakeholders and “bottom up” ones from employees in order to apply
business know-how and resources to devise relevant solutions for
to encourage CSR, such as the 2000 Amendment to the Pensions Act,
requiring occupational pension funds to disclose the extent to which
they take account of CSR issues in their investment decisions (Mullerat,
2013).
So, in general it is observed that MNCs and some large companies
have implemented CSR practices at some minimal level for various
reasons such as to prevent negative reactions from markets, minimize
the impact of externalities, improve the firm’s reputation, create a solid
relationship with stakeholders, and allow firms to create sustainable
relationships that lead to long-term competitive advantages (Abebe &
Cha, 2018; Gallego‐Álvarez et al., 2011; Kaul & Luo, 2018). Decades of
empirical results backed up a claim that there exists a positive relationship between CSR and financial performance, but when compared
to innovation this relationship was found negative, helping to distance
the concepts of CSI and CSR (Gallego‐Álvarez et al., 2011) since the
latter has been more focused on philanthropic or generic initiatives
aiming to answer to external pressures and improve the MNC’s reputation, while CSI intends to implement a strategic investment managed like other corporate projects, applying its full assets and expertise
through deeper collaboration across functions to produce new sources
of revenue and to generate a more socially relevant innovation system
and corporate culture that can be a source of competitive advantage
(Herrera, 2015; Kanter, 1999; Mirvis et al., 2016). Nevertheless, Mirvis
and Googins (2017) acknowledged that “CSI has developed over the
past two decades, building on traditional corporate social responsibility
(CSR) activities in ways that embed social impact more directly in
corporate strategies, activities, and partnerships” (p. 2), which reinforces the differences between the two concepts. Actually it has been
suggested that companies should transfer their corporate foundations
and CSR funds, originally targeted to charity activities, to engage employees in CSI and provide venture capital for social enterprises to increase focus on social impact, thus moving from philanthropy to innovation (Mirvis & Googins, 2018).
C
The concept of creating shared value (CSV) offers an appealing vision, calling for a search for success not merely by generating financial
returns, but by addressing the pressing challenges facing society, and it
has been enthusiastically embraced by MNCs such as HP, Nestlé, and
Novartis (de losReyes et al., 2017; Porter & Kramer, 2011). Despite the
criticisms that CSV ignores the tensions between social and economic
goals, that it is naïve about the challenges of business compliance, that
it is based on a shallow conception of the role of the corporation in
society, and that alone it does not provide a robust managerial framework (Crane, Pallazzo, Spence, & Matten, 2014; de losReyes et al.,
2017), CSV proposes to embed a social mission in the corporate culture
and develop innovations to help solve social problems, providing a
more legitimate conception of business that may use innovation and
productivity growth in order to reshape capitalism and its relationship
to society (Pfitzer, Bockstette, & Stamp, 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2011).
CSI carries some similarities with CSV, especially by recognizing societal needs and searching for solutions through strategic measures and a
closer relationship with communities, but CSV has been considered
limited to policies and operating practices with focus on economic
success. In this sense, CSI is a broader concept with the goal of meeting
social needs through innovative activities and services involving new
ideas, concepts, and relationships in an integrated manner (Canestrino
et al., 2015; de losReyes et al., 2017; Michelini & Fiorentino, 2012;
Porter & Kramer, 2011).
There is a new generation of companies that have implemented a
new hybrid model aligned with its goals of environmental and social
sustainability. They propose a new business model that is configured
not only with the quality of goods and services, but also on their ability
to affect positively social and environmental change, blurring the
boundaries with nonprofit, but generating income to accomplish their
mission like a for-profit. These new organizations are led by individuals
8
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Cost structures, processes, and the use of
technology to increase productivity and expand
markets (Porter & Kramer, 2011)
Reconceive products and markets, redefine
productivity in the value chain, and build
supportive industry clusters at the company’s
locations. (Porter & Kramer, 2011)
Focus on Processes & competitve advantages
(Porter & Kramer, 2011)
Protect society avoiding negative impacts (externalities)
and improve the welfare of society (Carroll, 2015)
Philanthropic contributions and community relations
improvements. (Carroll, 2015)
Focus on new companies (Lee & Jay, 2015)
Hybrid organizations may be defined as those
companies that design their business models based on
the mitigation of a particular social or environmental
issue. Hybrids generate income and attract capital in
ways that may be consistent with for-profit models,
nonprofit models or both (Alberti & Varon Garrido,
2017)
Compete not only on the quality of goods and services,
but also on the ability to effect positive social and
environmental change (Haig & Hoffman, 2012).
Creation of economic value “in a way that also
creates value for society by addressing its needs
and challenges’’ (Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 64)
CSR is viewed as the voluntary actions that corporations
initiate, beyond compliance with minimum legal
requirements, to address both its own competitive
interests and the interests of wider society including
host communities in the forms of welfare support
services and palliatives (Raimi et al., 2015)
4. Conclusion
Focus on company's reputation and limited societal
contributions. (Kaul & Luo, 2018)
The objective of this work was to perform a systematic literature
review on CSI, a concept with a growing interest because of its potential
to solve recurring social problems, but that is still under-explored because of problems about its understanding and its management. In this
sense this work proposed to evaluate the evolution of the research field
and to offer a conceptualization of key issues, suggesting a path for
theoretical advancement and filling this literature gap by addressing
the following research questions: 1) how has the CSI concept evolved?,
and 2) how is CSI similar to and different from the concepts of CSR,
CSV, and Hybrid? while relating CSI with three main concepts that are
intertwined with social value creation.
The literature demonstrated that as society expects international
corporations to be more socially responsible, their role in solving social
and environmental problems has become institutionalized, which has
influenced many MNCs to pursue new strategies and procedures to
maintain their legitimacy and competitive advantage, especially considering that some of them still face public rejection as they are blamed
to be prospering at the expense of the environment and society (Mirvis
et al., 2016; Porter & Kramer, 2011). We observed that many MNCs
embraced CSR as a practice supported by the fact that more than half of
S&P 500 companies issue annual CSR reports and over 8000 companies
in 140 countries have signed the UN Global Compact where 65 % of
these develop and/or evaluate policies and strategies at the CEO level
(Lee & Jay, 2015). Nevertheless, this is not enough as it only works
based on philanthropic or isolated activities, and society expects corporations to include creating social value in their strategies. This
movement led to the upsurge of many different concepts that have the
objective to create both competitive advantage and social value.
As per our thematic analysis, we compared CSI with three concepts:
CSR, CSV, and Hybrid organizations, and we argue that although they
share common points and in some moments overlap, CSI appears as a
broader concept that embraces not only internal changes through efficient management and integration between all internal function, but
also external changes, including the need to establish partnerships with
external stakeholders (e.g. governments, NGOs, Civil Society) with the
clear goal to adopt a strategic way to reach competitive advantages and
achieve both economic and social returns by developing new ideas,
institutions, ways of working, products, services, business models, and
processes. In this sense, the example provided by Kanter (1999) in her
seminal work became very fortunate as we found out that the program
she used to illustrate her article became part of IBM’s strategy and grew
and evolved to the point that in 2017 IBM invested US$ 291 million in
educational programs such as P-TECH school model, an initiative designed to address both education and workforce development and the
teacher advisor with Watson (AI technology), a free online resource to
help teachers plan and deliver lessons aligned with 21st century needs
(IBM, 2017 CSR report). This reflects the long-term use of R&D and a
company’s core skills and strategy to solve social problems while serving their business interests, demonstrating the evolution and power of
the CSI concept.
Even though some companies have embraced social innovations in
its strategy, there is still a lot of skepticism about a company’s motivations for getting involved in social initiatives by both its employees
(internal) and stakeholders (external), requiring changes in various
different dimensions of the organizations in order to reconcile this existing gap and align perceptions about the company’s goals so as to
reassure all the parties involved that management practices what it
preaches. Since the initial stages of CSI implementation, there must be
efforts to systematize, coordinate, and manage these innovations,
clearing the tensions between differentiation and integration, making
Differences
Co-create breakthrough solutions to complex economic,
social, and environmental issues that bear on the
sustainability of both business and society (Mirvis &
Googins, 2017).
Re-think current business models, or devise entirely
new ones; develop new ways of making, selling, and
distributing goods and services; and forge new kinds of
partnerships. (Mirvis & Googins, 2017)
Focus on Social change (Cajaiba-santana, 2014)
Main Focus
Activities
A new paradigm for innovation, a partnership between
private enterprise and public interest that produces
profitable and sustainable change for both sides. They
use their best people and their core skills. This is not
charity, it is R&D-a strategic business investment
(Kanter, 1999)
Definition
Adopt social and environmental missions like
nonprofits, but generating income to accomplish their
mission like for-profits. (Haig & Hoffman, 2012)
Hybrid
CSV
persisting social and environmental problems. (Cohen & Muñoz, 2017;
Hewlett et al., 2009; Lee & Jay, 2015; Mirvis & Googins, 2018; Porter &
Kramer, 2011).
CSR
CSI
Table 5
How CSI is similar to and different from other theories.
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
9
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
5. Limitations & suggestions of future research
the CSI agenda coherent, and moving a company into a transforming
stage where it places CSI as a more central part of the business model
where leaders define new terms and persuade employees to accept
them, allowing them to see that there is consistency between what the
company says and what it practices, making it clear for all parties that
there is a true commitment with social and environmental purposes
(Mirvis & Googins, 2006; Polman & Bhattacharya, 2016). This commitment and broader character of CSI, in our point of view, is vital to
provide solutions to key global problems at both a social and environmental level with compelling examples of hybrid logics and organizational models that offer the potential for changes at all levels in a more
effective way than the other concepts compared of CSR, CSV, and Hybrid organizations, which can be reinforced by the descriptive analysis
that shows a predominance of CSI and SI in the literature in the last five
years.
This work suggests that further institutionalization of CSI is of great
importance for the consolidation of the concept, especially considering
that the increasing demands from stakeholders such as customers,
employees, and civil society calls for institutional changes that could
influence and facilitate the diffusion of business practices and innovations in corporations. Research supports that organizations in the same
fields engage in mimicry and this homogenization would support the
growth and evolution of CSI as a response to institutional pressures to
enhance their legitimacy, reputation, and competitive advantage (Ntim
& Soobaroyen, 2013; O’Connor & Gronewold, 2012). This diffusion
takes a more relevant impact if you consider the potential that MNCs
have to influence different markets, especially emerging and developing economies that still suffer from the 2008 economic recession and
hold persistent social and environmental problems. Nonetheless, we
observed that the institutionalization of CSI has been evolving differently in different markets and regions. This process follows three isomorphic pressures that influence organizational boundaries. Coercive
isomorphism, a pressure exerted by formal and informal organizations
and institutions, Mimetic isomorphism, observed when organizations
copy the most successful models in the market and seen as a sign of
increasing competition in the market, and Normative isomorphism that
is observed when the organizations tend to adopt best management
practices to run an organization (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Osburg &
Schmidpeter, 2013). In this scenario we observed for example that U.S.
companies demonstrated a high level of similarity in their institutionalization of social innovations due to coercive isomorphism
caused by their legal and regulatory framework, while in China the lack
of such a legal environment might have contributed to Chinese companies failing to adequately address their social and environment issues
(Tang et al., 2015). Similar to the US, Europe has been undertaking
diverse actions ranging from networking to funding to promote social
innovation, especially as a source of growth and creating jobs among
companies and investors (Turker & Altuntas Vural, 2017). However, in
emerging countries, the existence of institutional voids defined as the
absence of institutions that support markets (Mair & Marti, 2009) can
accelerate social innovations by stimulating the actors to meet their
challenges by combining the resources at hand and by reconfiguring the
existing market structures. Relationships can be built by involving
stakeholders in identifying all the dimensions of a problem and use the
best practices of MNCs to design and implement co-created solutions for
social problems (Pfitzer et al., 2013; Turker & Altuntas Vural, 2017). So,
to understand the institutionalization of CSI it is crucial to consider its
different stages of evolution and the context it is inserted.
Overall, our findings support our perspective that CSI could better
improve the relationship of businesses, stakeholders, society, and
communities. As posited by Kanter (1999), it can be inferred that new
paradigms could reinvent institutions as they open new possibilities for
solving recalcitrant social problems by giving businesses a new way to
innovate. Today these examples are still works in progress, but tomorrow they could be the way business is done everywhere.
Our literature review is not without its limitations. Despite using
large academic databases, because of the comprehensiveness of the root
research string, it is possible that not all relevant articles were reviewed, including new studies that may have been published and were
not included in this review. Consequently, despite being comprehensive, our review cannot be considered exhaustive. Also, the analytical
framework used had the intention to provide an objective and evidencebased discussion of the state-of-the-art of the concept of CSI through a
descriptive and thematic analysis of the literature selected, even though
we acknowledge that there are other perspectives which could result in
different analytical frameworks.
We observed that there was a lack of presence of institutionalization
of CSI, which we believe to be very important for the development of
the concept; therefore, we recommend further studies with this focus.
We also suggest the development of more in-depth case studies to find
out how CSI works in different organizations and different markets,
especially considering the influence of international organizations on
institutional change by influencing the modification of existing rules or
even the establishment of new ones. Another area that seems relevant is
the development of tools to measure the social impact of CSI activities
and how they connect the company’s strategies. As this is a new concept
that overlaps with other more empirical understanding, it is necessary
to avoid the risk of this concept to be reduced to a buzzword and gain
little traction with academy and practitioners.
Acknowledgments
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) Finance Code 001.
References
Abebe, M., & Cha, W. (2018). The effect of firm strategic orientation on corporate philanthropic engagement. Management Decision, 56(3), 515–533. https://doi.org/10.
1108/MD-09-2016-0625.
Alberti, F. G., & Varon Garrido, M. A. (2017). Can profit and sustainability goals co-exist?
New business models for hybrid firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(1), 3–13.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-12-2015-0124.
Austin, J. E., & Leonard, H. B. D. (2008). Can the virtuous mouse and the wealthy elephant live happily ever after? California Management Review.
Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M.Á., García-Castro, R., & Ariño, M.Á. (2011). Does stakeholder
engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial Management and
Data Systems, 111(9), 1399–1417. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111182764.
Ban, L., & Marshall, A. (2013). How CEOs, CIOs and CMOs see the technology future of
corporate openness, customer individualization and innovation partnerships. Strategy
and Leadership, 41(6), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-07-2013-0051.
Bartlett, D. (2009). Embedding corporate responsibility: The development of a transformational model of organizational innovation. Corporate Governance: The International
Journal of Business in Society, 9(4), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14720700910984963.
Bennett, E. A. (2016). Governance, legitimacy, and stakeholder balance: Lessons from
Fairtrade International. Social Enterprise Journal, 12(3), 322–346. https://doi.org/10.
1108/SEJ-08-2016-0038.
Borgelt, K., & Falk, I. (2007). The leadership/management conundrum: Innovation or risk
management? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28(2), 122–136.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710726822.
Cajaiba-santana, G. (2014). Social innovation : Moving the field forward. A conceptual
framework. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 82, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008.
Canestrino, R., Bonfanti, A., & Oliaee, L. (2015). Cultural insights of CSI: how do Italian
and Iranian firms differ? Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 12. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s13731-015-0026-4.
Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility. Organizational Dynamics, 44(2),
1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.02.002.
Carrillo, J., & Gomi, R. (2017). Los caminos de la innovación y la inclusión en las empresas multinacionales que operan en México. Sociologias, 46, 198–227. https://doi.
org/10.1590/15174522-019004606.
Cohen, B., & Muñoz, P. (2017). Entering conscious consumer markets: Toward a new
generation of sustainability strategies. California Management Review, 59(4), 23–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617722792.
Crane, A., Pallazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value “Creating
shared value” concept. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–154. https://doi.
10
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
Lee, M., & Jay, J. (2015). Strategic responses to hybrid social ventures. California
Management Review, 57(3), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2015.57.3.126.
Luu, T. T. (2017). CSR and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in
hotel industry: The moderating roles of corporate entrepreneurship and employee
attachment style. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management(29),
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2016-0080.
Mahmoud, M. A., & Hinson, R. E. (2012). Market orientation, innovation and corporate
social responsibility practices in Ghana’s telecommunication sector. Social
Responsibility Journal, 8(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17471111211247910.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case
study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006.
Manz, C. C., Manz, K. P., Adams, S. B., & Shipper, F. (2011). Sustainable performance
with values-based shared leadership: A case study of a virtuous organization.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(3), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.
1002/CJAS.184.
Michelini, L., & Fiorentino, D. (2012). New business models for creating shared value.
Social Responsibility Journal, 8(4), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17471111211272129.
Midttun, A. (2007). Corporate responsibility from a resource and knowledge perspective
towards a dynamic reinterpretation of C(S)R: Are corporate responsibility and innovation compatible or contradictory? Corporate Governance: The International
Journal of Business in Society, 7(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14720700710820489.
Mingers, J., Macri, F., & Petrovici, D. (2012). Using the h-index to measure the quality of
journals in the field of business and management. Information Processing and
Management, 48(2), 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2011.03.009.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship: A developmental framework. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 34(3), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.
1109/EMR.2006.261390.
Mirvis, P., Herrera, M. E. B., Googins, B., & Albareda, L. (2016). Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good. Journal of Business
Research, 69(11), 5014–5021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2017). The new business of business: Innovating for a better
world. Giving Thoughts, Conference Board, (March 2017), 1–19.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, S. (2018). Engaging employees as social innovators. California
Management Review, 60(4), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618779062.
Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., & Carlson, J. (2016). Stakeholder
agency and Social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective
corporation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 252–275. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amr.2013.0486.
Moura-Leite, R. C., Padgett, R. C., & Galan, J. I. (2012). Is social responsibility driven by
industry or firm-specific factors? Management Decision, 50(7), 1200–1221. https://
doi.org/10.1108/00251741211246969.
Mullerat, R. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: (A European legal perspective). The
Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, 20(6), 21.
Noronha, C., Guan, J., & Fan, J. (2018). Firm value and social contribution with the
interaction of corporate governance: Social contribution value per share.
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(2), 165–200. https://doi.
org/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2016-0078.
Ntim, C. G., & Soobaroyen, T. (2013). Corporate governance and performance in socially
responsible corporations: New empirical insights from a neo-institutional framework.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(5), 468–494. https://doi.org/10.
1111/corg.12026.
O’Connor, A., & Gronewold, K. L. (2012). Black gold, green earth: An analysis of the
petroleum industry’s CSR environmental sustainability discourse. Management
Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 210–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0893318912465189.
Osburg, T., & Schmidpeter, R. (2013). Social innovation solutions for a sustainable future.
Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Păunescu, C. (2014). Current trends in social innovation research: Social capital, corporate social responsibility, impact measurement. Management and Marketing. Challenges
for the Knowledge Society, 9(2), 105–118. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/
inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84907274813&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V., & Stamp, M. (2013). Innovating for shared value. Harvard
Business Review, 12, 1–15. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/
pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=fbfb3918-5256-4682-824b-18dafa4aca76@sessionmgr14
&vid=1&hid=26.
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N., & James, P. (2014). Social innovation
and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group and Organization
Management, 40(3), 428–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560063.
Polman, P., & Bhattacharya, C. (2016). Engaging employees to create a sustainable business.
Stanford Social Innovation Review August.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 53(9), 78–92. https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review,
(February), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039410055963.
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. URLVienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.
Raimi, L., Akhuemonkhan, I., & Ogunjirin, O. D. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility
and Entrepreneurship (CSRE): Antidotes to poverty, insecurity and underdevelopment in Nigeria. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SRJ-11-2012-0138.
Rodell, J. B., Booth, J. E., Lynch, J., & Zipay, K. (2017). Corporate volunteering climate:
org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.2.130.
Crilly, D., Ni, N., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Do‐no‐harm versus do‐good social responsibility:
Attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness. Strategic Management Journal,
37(7), 1316–1329.
Cullen, P. A. (2000). Contracting, co-operative relations and extended enterprises.
Technovation, 20(7), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(99)00172-8.
Cumming, J. F., Bettridge, N., & Toyne, P. (2005). Responding to global business critical
issues: A source of innovation and transformation for FTSE 350 companies? Corporate
Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3), 42–51. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14720700510604689.
Dacin, M. T. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional
norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 46–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/
257020.
De-la-Torre-Ugarte-Guanilo, M. C., Takahashi, R. F., & Bertolozzi, M. R. (2011). Revisão
sistemática: noções gerais. Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da U S P, 45(5),
1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62342011000500033.
de los Reyes, G., Scholz, M., & Smith, N. C. (2017). Beyond the “Win-Win”: Creating
shared value requires ethical frameworks. California Management Review, 59(2),
142–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617695286.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Fearne, A., Garcia Martinez, M., & Dent, B. (2012). Dimensions of sustainable value
chains: Implications for value chain analysis. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 17(6), 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13598541211269193.
Gallego‐Álvarez, I., Manuel Prado‐Lorenzo, J., & García‐Sánchez, I. (2011). Corporate
social responsibility and innovation: A resource‐based theory. Management Decision,
49(10), 1709–1727. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111183843.
Gentile, M. C. (2001). Preparing business leaders to manage social impacts: Lessons from
the field. Journal of Human Values, 7(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/
097168580100700202.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews.
Sage.
Gutierrez, R., & Vernis, A. (2016). Innovations to serve low-income citizens: When corporations leave their comfort zones. Long Range Planning, 49(3), 283–297. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.12.007.
Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations. The next chapter of sustainable
business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2012.01.006.
Halkos, G., & Skouloudis, A. (2017). Revisiting the relationship between corporate social
responsibility and national culture: A quantitative assessment. Management Decision,
55(3), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-0868.
Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2002). The great leap: Driving innovation from the base
of the pyramid. MIT Sloan management review, 44(1), 51.
Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2016). Mind the gap: The interplay between external and internal actions in the case of corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management
Journal, 37(13), 2569–2588.
Herrera, M. E. B. (2015). Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate
social innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1468–1474. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.036.
Hewlett, S. A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How gen Y & boomers will reshape your
agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87(7), 71–77.
Hillestead, T., Xie, C., & Haugland, S. A. (2010). Innovative corporate social responsibility: The founder’s role in creating a trustworthy corporate brand through “green
innovation”. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19(6), 440–451. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10610421011085758.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational
enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37(6), 838–849.
IBM (2017). 2017 corporate responsibility report.
Jayakumar, T. (2017). Corporate social innovation: An Indian moving company drives
industry change. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(6), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JBS-10-2015-0107.
Jung, S., & Ha-Brookshire, J. (2017). Perfect or imperfect duties? Developing a moral
responsibility framework for corporate sustainability from the consumer perspective.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 24(4), 326–340.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1414.
Kanter, R. M. (1999). From spare change to real change – The social sector as Beta site for
business innovation. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 122–132 https://doi.org/Article.
Kao, T. Y., Chen, J. C. H., Wu, J. T. B., & Yang, M. H. (2016). Poverty reduction through
empowerment for sustainable development: A proactive strategy of corporate social
responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(3),
140–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1365.
Kaul, A., & Luo, J. (2018). An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of forprofit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods. Strategic Management
Journal, 39(6), 1650–1677. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2705.
Kourula, A., & Halme, M. (2008). Types of corporate responsibility and engagement with
NGOs: An exploration of business and societal outcomes. Corporate Governance: The
International Journal of Business in Society, 8(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14720700810899275.
Kramer, M. R., & Pfitzer, M. W. (2016). The ecosystem of shared value. Harvard Business
Review, 94(10), 80–89.
Laasch, O. (2018). Beyond the purely commercial business model: Organizational value
logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models. Long Range Planning,
51(1), 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.09.002.
11
International Business Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx
M. Dionisio and E.R. de Vargas
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Turker, D., & Altuntas Vural, C. (2017). Embedding social innovation process into the
institutional context: Voids or supports. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
119, 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.019.
Van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: An emerging
area of innovation studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.respol.2016.06.010.
Venn, R., & Berg, N. (2013). Building competitive advantage through social intrapreneurship. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 2(1), 104–127.
https://doi.org/10.1108/20454451311303310.
Waddock, S. A., Bodwell, C., Graves, B., & S (2002). Responsibility: The new business
imperative. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.
5465/AME.2002.7173581.
Worthington, H. V., Esposito, M., Nieri, M., & Glenny, A.-M. (2003). What is a systematic
review? European Journal of Oral Implantology, 1(April), 174–175. https://doi.org/10.
1097/00008877-200411000-00002.
Wyman, O. (2016). Social innovation – a guide to achieving corporate and societal valueWorld
Economic Forum – Insight Reporthttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2009.11.040.
Mobilizing employee passion for societal causes and inspiring future charitable action. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0726 ISSN
0001-4273.
Schrempf-Stirling, J., Phillips, R. A., & Palazzo, G. (2016). Historic corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amr.2014.0137.
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to
serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.
2004.11.006.
Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st
century: A view from the world’s most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 48,
175–187. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849805278.
Tang, L., Gallagher, C. C., & Bie, B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility communication
through corporate websites: A comparison of leading corporations in the United
States and China. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(2), 205–227.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525443.
Tippmann, S. (2015). Programming tools: Adventures with R. Nature News, 517(7532),
109.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
12