Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
We examine how a firm’s productivity level is related to its potential corporate social responsibility (CSR) objectives for innovations, and whether this relationship is affected by firm size. Two CSR objectives for innovations are examined: a firm’s objective of reducing environmental impacts, and an objective of improving health or safety of the employees. Firm size is measured by the number of employees. A data set comprising Norwegian manufacturing firms with or without innovation activity is used. The estimation results show that the predicted probability of adopting the objective of reducing environmental impacts has a significant negative effect on the productivity level among large firms while this effect is not significant among small firms. The predicted probability of adopting the objective of improving health or safety of the employees has no significant effect on the productivity level of small or large firms. These results indicate that whether ‘it pays to be green’ or not, depends on firm size. The article offers a resource argument in order to explain the different results between small and large firms.
Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013). The porter hypothesis at 20: Can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(1), 2–22. CrossRef
Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation, growth and survival. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 441–457. CrossRef
Bai, X., & Chang, J. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: The mediating role of marketing competence and the moderating role of market environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(2), 505–530. CrossRef
Banbury, C. M., & Mitchell, W. (1995). The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 161–182. CrossRef
Baumann, J., & Kritikos, A. S. (2016). The link between R&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different? Research Policy, 45(6), 1263–1274. CrossRef
Beise, M., & Rennings, K. (2005). Lead markets and regulation: A framework for analyzing the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecological Economics, 52(1), 5–17. CrossRef
Black, S. E., & Lynch, L. M. (2004). What’s driving the new economy? The benefits of workplace innovation. The Economic Journal, 114(493), F97–F116. CrossRef
Bocquet, R., Le Bas, C., Mothe, C., & Poussing, N. (2017). CSR, innovation, and firm performance in sluggish growth contexts: A firm-level empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 241–254. CrossRef
Børing, P. (2014). The impact of manufacturing firms’ use of academic workers on their productivity level. Bulletin of Economic Research, 66(2), 156–172. CrossRef
Børing, P., Fevolden, A., & Herstad, S. (2016). Eager and able: A study of innovation activity among young, mature and old firms in Norway. Economics Bulletin, 36(1), 291–297.
Buhai, I. S., Cottini, E., & Westergaard-Nielsen, N. (2017). How productive is workplace health and safety? The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 119(4), 1086–1104. CrossRef
Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R., & Savona, M. (2004). The impact of innovation on economic performance in services. The Service Industries Journal, 24(1), 116–130. CrossRef
Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R., & Savona, M. (2006). Innovation and economic performance in services: A firm-level analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(3), 435–458. CrossRef
Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: Innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 1167–1192. CrossRef
Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2006). Survivor: The role of innovation in firms’ survival. Research Policy, 35(5), 626–641. CrossRef
Cerulli, G. (2014). ivtreatreg: A command for fitting binary treatment models with heterogeneous response to treatment and unobservable selection. The Stata Journal, 14(3), 453–480. CrossRef
Chang, J., & Kang, Y. (2018). Instrumental variable estimates of the effect of management practices on firm performance in korean firms. Journal of Labor Research, 17, 1–20.
Chatterji, A. K., Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169. CrossRef
Crépon, B., Duguet, E., & Mairesse, J. (1998). Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), 115–158. CrossRef
Crespi, G., Criscuolo, C., Haskel, J., & Hawkes, D. (2006). Measuring and understanding productivity in UK market services. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4), 560–572. CrossRef
del Río, P., Romero-Jordán, D., & Peñasco, C. (2017). Analysing firm-specific and type-specific determinants of eco-innovation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 23(2), 270–295.
Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, Á., & Sáez-Martínez, F. J. (2015). Eco-innovation: Insights from a literature review. Innovation: Organization & Management, 17(1), 6–23. CrossRef
Dixon-Fowler, H. R., Slater, D. J., Johnson, J. L., Ellstrand, A. E., & Romi, A. M. (2013). Beyond “does it pay to be green?” A meta-analysis of moderators of the CEP–CFP relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 353–366. CrossRef
Eden, L., Levitas, E., & Martinez, R. J. (1997). The production, transfer and spillover of technology: Comparing large and small multinationals as technology producers. Small Business Economics, 9(1), 53–66. CrossRef
Eurostat. (2018). Glossary:High-tech classification of manufacturing industries. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:High-tech_classification_of_manufacturing_industries.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ghisetti, C., & Rennings, K. (2014). ‘Environmental innovations and profitability: How does it pay to be green? An empirical analysis on the German innovation survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 75, 106–117. CrossRef
Ghosal, V., Stephan, A., & Weiss, J. F. (2018). Decentralized environmental regulations and plant- level productivity. CESifo working paper no. 7255.
Grinza, E., & Rycx, F. (2018). The impact of sickness absenteeism on productivity: New evidence from Belgian matched panel data. IZA DP no. 11543.
Hall, B. H. (2011). Innovation and productivity. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 2, 167–204.
Hall, B. H., Lotti, F., & Mairesse, J. (2009). Innovation and productivity in SMEs: Empirical evidence for Italy. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 13–33. CrossRef
Hall, B. H., Lotti, F., & Mairesse, J. (2013). Evidence on the impact of R&D and ICT investments on innovation and productivity in Italian firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 22(3), 300–328. CrossRef
Haltiwanger, J. C., Lane, J. I., & Spletzer, J. R. (1999). Productivity differences across employers: The roles of employer size, age, and human capital. The American Economic Review, 89(2), 94–98. CrossRef
Hart, S. L., & Ahuja, G. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(1), 30–37.
Hashi, I., & Stojčić, N. (2013). The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey 4. Research Policy, 42(2), 353–366. CrossRef
Hellerstein, J. K., & Neumark, D. (1999). Sex, wages, and productivity: An empirical analysis of israeli firm-level data. International Economic Review, 40(1), 95–123. CrossRef
Heyman, F. (2007). Firm size or firm age? The effect on wages using matched employer–employee data. Labour, 21(2), 237–263. CrossRef
Hsiao, C. (2007). Panel data analysis—Advantages and challenges. TEST, 16(1), 1–22. CrossRef
Jensen, J. B., McGuckin, R. H., & Stiroh, K. (2001). The impact of vintage and survival on productivity: Evidence from cohorts of U.S. manufacturing plants. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2), 323–332. CrossRef
Katkalo, V. S., Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. (2010). Introduction: On the nature and scope of dynamic capabilities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1175–1186. CrossRef
King, A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299. CrossRef
Kneller, R., & Manderson, E. (2012). Environmental regulations and innovation activity in UK manufacturing industries. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(2), 211–235. CrossRef
Lanoie, P., Patry, M., & Lajeunesse, R. (2008). Environmental regulation and productivity: Testing the porter hypothesis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 30(2), 121–128. CrossRef
Leung, D., Meh, C., & Terajima, Y. (2008). Productivity in Canada: Does firm size matter? (pp. 7–16). Autumn: Bank of Canada Review.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127. CrossRef
Mohnen, P., & Hall, B. H. (2013). Innovation and productivity: An update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47–65.
Moral-Benito, E. (2018). Growing by learning: Firm-level evidence on the size-productivity nexus. SERIEs, 9(1), 65–90. CrossRef
Pfeifer, C., & Wagner, J. (2014). Age and gender effects of workforce composition on productivity and profits: Evidence from a new type of data for German enterprises. Contemporary Economics, 8(1), 25–46. CrossRef
Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. CrossRef
Quinlan, M., & Mayhew, C. (1999). The effects of outsourcing on occupational health and safety: A comparative study of factory-based workers and outworkers in the Australian clothing industry. International Journal of Health Services, 29(1), 83–107. CrossRef
Rubashkina, Y., Galeotti, M., & Verdolini, E. (2015). Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the porter hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy, 83, 288–300. CrossRef
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.
Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 341–350. CrossRef
Stoian, C., & Gilman, M. W. (2017). Corporate social responsibility that ‘pays’: A strategic approach to CSR for SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 5–31. CrossRef
Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2), 326–365. CrossRef
Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Doing poorly by doing good: Corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 948–963. CrossRef
van Ours, J. C., & Stoeldraijer, L. (2011). Age, wage and productivity in Dutch manufacturing. De Economist, 159(2), 113–137. CrossRef
Walker, K., & Dyck, B. (2014). The primary importance of corporate social responsibility and ethicality in corporate reputation: An empirical study. Business and Society Review, 119(1), 147–174. CrossRef
Wang, Y., & Shen, N. (2016). Environmental regulation and environmental productivity: The case of China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 758–766. CrossRef
Welsh, J., & White, J. (1981). A small business is not a little big business. Harvard Business Review, 59(4), 18–27.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718. CrossRef
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wright, P., & Ferris, S. P. (1997). Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 77–83. CrossRef
Youn, H., Hua, N., & Lee, S. (2015). Does size matter? Corporate social responsibility and firm performance in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 127–134. CrossRef
- The relationship between firm productivity, firm size and CSR objectives for innovations
- Springer International Publishing
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Frankfurt School