Social responsibility in new ventures: profiting from a long‐term orientation

Socially responsible activities help create business value, develop strategic resources, and insure against risks, but also cost money and distract management. These prior findings are mainly based on established corporations and may not extend to new ventures in which the liability of newness may suppress some positive effects and amplify some negative impacts of socially responsible activities. New ventures whose strategic decisions have a long‐term orientation, however, are able to counteract their liability of newness and thereby generate net positive economic returns. We tested these relationships by surveying the chief executive officers and presidents and studying the signature Web sites of 149 new ventures. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Justin W. Webb,et al.  You Say Illegal, I Say Legitimate: Entrepreneurship in the Informal Economy , 2009 .

[2]  Paul C. Godfrey,et al.  The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis , 2009 .

[3]  Hillary Anger Elfenbein,et al.  Does it Pay to Be Good...And Does it Matter? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Corporate Social and Financial Performance , 2009 .

[4]  S. Brammer,et al.  Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance , 2008 .

[5]  Clyde Eiríkur Hull,et al.  Firm performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation , 2008 .

[6]  T. Elfring,et al.  Entrepreneurial Orientation and New Venture Performance: The Moderating Role of Intra- And Extraindustry Social Capital , 2008 .

[7]  Robert A. Baron,et al.  Influence of Founder—CEOs' Personal Values on Firm Performance: Moderating Effects of Firm Age and Size† , 2007 .

[8]  Dror Etzion,et al.  Research on Organizations and the Natural Environment, 1992-Present: A Review , 2007 .

[9]  Qing Hu,et al.  Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressures and the Mediating Role of Top Management , 2007, MIS Q..

[10]  Peter J. Brews,et al.  Strategic Planning in Unstable Environments , 2007 .

[11]  M. Porter,et al.  Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. , 2006, Harvard business review.

[12]  Xueming Luo,et al.  Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value , 2006 .

[13]  P. Bansal,et al.  Being good while being bad: social responsibility and the international diversification of US firms , 2006 .

[14]  H. Jenkins.  Small Business Champions for Corporate Social Responsibility , 2006 .

[15]  D. Williamson,et al.  Drivers of Environmental Behaviour in Manufacturing SMEs and the Implications for CSR , 2006 .

[16]  Kimberly M. Green,et al.  Strategic Process Effects on the Entrepreneurial Orientation–Sales Growth Rate Relationship , 2006 .

[17]  Tyson B. Mackey,et al.  Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Performance: Investor Preferences and Corporate Strategies , 2007 .

[18]  John L. Campbell.  Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? an institutional theory of corporate social responsibility , 2007 .

[19]  W. Chapple,et al.  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia , 2005 .

[20]  Paul C. Godfrey.  The Relationship Between Corporate Philanthropy And Shareholder Wealth: A Risk Management Perspective , 2005 .

[21]  Michael L. Barnett.  Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility , 2005 .

[22]  D. Patton,et al.  Strategic intent in the management of the green environment within SMEs: an analysis of the UK screen-printing sector , 2005 .

[23]  P. Bansal.  Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development , 2005 .

[24]  John C. Narver,et al.  Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. , 2004 .

[25]  James J. Chrisman,et al.  Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise , 2004 .

[26]  K. Atuahene–Gima,et al.  Strategic Decision Comprehensiveness and New Product Development Outcomes in New Technology Ventures , 2004 .

[27]  Ruth V. Aguilera,et al.  Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: a Multi-Level Theory of Social Change in Organizations , 2004 .

[28]  H. Jenkins.  A Critique of Conventional CSR Theory: An SME Perspective , 2004 .

[29]  Michael D. Kaplowitz,et al.  A Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response Rates , 2004 .

[30]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[31]  J. D. Margolis,et al.  Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business , 2003 .

[32]  K. Aquino,et al.  Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  R. Grant.  Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors , 2003 .

[34]  F. Schmidt,et al.  Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis , 2003 .

[35]  K. Aquino,et al.  The self-importance of moral identity. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  I. Maignan,et al.  Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-presentations , 2002 .

[37]  Andrew King,et al.  Exploring the Locus of Profitable Pollution Reduction , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[38]  Gerardo A. Okhuysen,et al.  Taking Time to Integrate Temporal Research , 2001 .

[39]  A. Hillman,et al.  Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line? , 2001 .

[40]  Abagail McWilliams,et al.  Corporate Social Responsibility: a Theory of the Firm Perspective , 2001 .

[41]  Marianne W. Lewis.  Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide , 2000 .

[42]  M. Hitt,et al.  International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. , 2000 .

[43]  P. Earley,et al.  A Selective Review of Time Assumptions in Strategy Research , 2000 .

[44]  D. Turban,et al.  Corporate Social Performance As a Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce , 2000 .

[45]  Kendall Roth,et al.  Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness , 2000 .

[46]  Abagail McWilliams,et al.  Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? , 2000 .

[47]  S. Shane,et al.  The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research , 2000 .

[48]  C. Fombrun,et al.  Opportunity Platforms and Safety Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputational Risk , 2024, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[49]  Tom Connor,et al.  Customer‐led and market‐oriented: a matter of balance , 1999 .

[50]  R. Klassen,et al.  The Impact of Environmental Technologies on Manufacturing Performance , 1999 .

[51]  Heejin Lee,et al.  Time in Organizational Studies: Towards a New Research Direction , 1999 .

[52]  M. Rouse,et al.  Rethinking research methods for the resource‐based perspective: isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage , 1999 .

[53]  Judith Petts,et al.  THE CLIMATE AND CULTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE WITHIN SMEs , 1999 .

[54]  Bruce R. Barringer,et al.  Small business growth through geographic expansion , 1998 .

[55]  Stuart L. Esrock,et al.  Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting? , 1998 .

[56]  M. Russo,et al.  A Resource-Based Perspective On Corporate Environmental Performance And Profitability , 1997 .

[57]  Samuel B. Graves,et al.  The corporate social performance-financial performance link , 1997 .

[58]  J. Mahon,et al.  The Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Financial Performance Debate , 1997 .

[59]  Peter A. Dacin,et al.  The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses , 1997 .

[60]  Peter Wright,et al.  AGENCY CONFLICT AND CORPORATE STRATEGY: THE EFFECT OF DIVESTMENT ON CORPORATE VALUE , 1997 .

[61]  Daniel B. Turban,et al.  Corporate Social Performance And Organizational Attractiveness To Prospective Employees , 1997 .

[62]  R. Klassen,et al.  The impact of environmental management on firm performance , 1996 .

[63]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures , 1996 .

[64]  D. Schendel,et al.  STRATEGIC REFERENCE POINT THEORY , 1996 .

[65]  M. Porter,et al.  Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship , 1995 .

[66]  R. Gray,et al.  Corporate social and environmental reporting , 1995 .

[67]  T. Jones.  INSTRUMENTAL STAKEHOLDER THEORY: A SYNTHESIS OF ETHICS AND ECONOMICS , 1995 .

[68]  L. Preston,et al.  The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications , 1995 .

[69]  S. Hart,et al.  A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1995 .

[70]  Eric Abrahamson,et al.  Concealment of Negative Organizational Outcomes: An Agency Theory Perspective , 1994 .

[71]  J. M. Cortina,et al.  Interaction, Nonlinearity, and Multicollinearity: implications for Multiple Regression: , 1993 .

[72]  Ramona L. Paetzold.  Multicollinearity and the use of regression analyses in discrimination litigation , 1992 .

[73]  A. Carroll.  The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders , 1991 .

[74]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[75]  J. Brüderl,et al.  Organizational Mortality: The Liabilities of Newness and Adolescence. , 1990 .

[76]  C. Fombrun,et al.  What's in a Name? Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy , 1990 .

[77]  D. Slevin,et al.  New Venture Strategic Posture, Structure, and Performance: An Industry Life Cycle Analysis , 1990 .

[78]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[79]  C. Prahalad,et al.  To revitalize corporate performance, we need a whole new model of strategy. Strategic intent. , 1989, Harvard business review.

[80]  D. Slevin,et al.  Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments , 1989 .

[81]  Fred A. Mael,et al.  Social identity theory and the organization , 1989 .

[82]  K. Eisenhardt.  Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

[83]  R. Amit.  Cost leadership strategy and experience curves , 1986 .

[84]  Arieh A. Ullmann.  Data in Search of a Theory: A Critical Examination of the Relationships Among Social Performance, Social Disclosure, and Economic Performance of U.S. Firms , 1985 .

[85]  P. H. Friesen,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of the Corporate Life Cycle , 1984 .

[86]  Gregory G. Dess,et al.  Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit , 1984 .

[87]  K. Cameron,et al.  Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence , 1983 .

[88]  P. H. Friesen,et al.  Innovation in Conservative and Entrepreneurial Firms: Two Models of Strategic Momentum , 1982 .

[89]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[90]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. , 1977 .

[91]  K. Davis.  The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities , 1973 .