A Study on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility Strategic Process and Operational Performance of Multinational Manufacturing Enterprises under the Perspective of Environmental Management

Xue-Liang Pei, Xiao-Li Man

Ekoloji, 2019, Issue 107, Pages: 779-788, Article No: e107092


Download Full Text (PDF)


Under the effects of economic globalization and environmental protection & social problems in the post-crisis era, the corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy and activities are gradually emphasized in multinational manufacturing enterprises. Accordingly, the theoretical relationship among CSR strategy, CSR activities, and operational performance is proposed in this study, and the moderation effect of external environmental management on the relationship is further discussed. Based on the survey data of 598 manufacturing enterprises from 22 countries and regions for 2013 International Manufacturing Strategy Survey (IMSS VI), the empirical research results reveal (1)significantly positive effects of CSR strategy on internal CSR activities and external CSR activities of multinational manufacturing enterprises, (2)remarkably positive effects of internal CSR activities and external CSR activities on efficient performance, flexible performance, and cost performance in the operational performance of multinational manufacturing enterprises, and (3)partially notable moderation of external environmental management on the relationship between CSR activities and operational performance of multinational manufacturing enterprises. On one hand, this study expands the theoretical research on corporate social responsibility; on the other hand, it presents certain practice value of the formulation and practice of CSR strategy in multinational manufacturing enterprises.


environmental management, corporate social responsibility strategy, corporate social responsibility activities, operational performance, multinational manufacturing enterprises


  • Aksak EO, Ferguson MA, Duman SA (2016) Corporate social responsibility and CSR fit as predictors of corporate reputation: a global perspective. Public Relations Review, 42(1): 79-81.
  • Anderson M (2018) Fair trade and consumer social responsibility: Exploring consumer citizenship as a driver of social and environmental change. Management Decision, 56(3): 634-651.
  • Aupperle KE, Carroll AB, Hatfield JD (1985) An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of management Journal, 28(2): 446-463.
  • Campbell L, Gulas CS, Gruca TS (1999) Corporate giving behavior and decision-maker social consciousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4): 375-383.
  • Carroll AB (1979) A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 497-505.
  • Cetindamar D, Husoy K (2007) Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: the case of the united nations global compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2): 163-176.
  • Cho CH, Patten DM (2007) The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: a research note. Accounting Organizations & Society, 32(7-8): 639-647.
  • Darrell W, Schwartz BN (1997) Environmental disclosures and public policy pressure. Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, 16(2): 125-154.
  • De Jong MD, Van der Meer M (2017) How does it fit? Exploring the congruence between organizations and their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1): 71-83.
  • DiSegni DM, Huly M, Akron S (2015) Corporate social responsibility, environmental leadership and financial performance. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(1): 131-148.
  • Doane D (2005) Beyond corporate social responsibility: minnows, mammoths and markets. Futures, 37(2-3): 215-229.
  • Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1): 65-91.
  • Famiyeh S (2017) Corporate social responsibility and firm’s performance: empirical evidence, Social Responsibility Journal, 13(2): 390-406
  • Frynas JG, Yamahaki C (2016) Corporate social responsibility: Review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(3): 258-285.
  • Guillamonsaorin E, Kapelko M, Stefanou SE (2018) Corporate social responsibility and operational inefficiency: a dynamic approach. Sustainability, 10: 1-26.
  • Hart SL (1995) A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of management review, 20(4): 986-1014.
  • Kramer MR, Porter ME (2006) Estrategia y sociedad: el vínculo entre ventaja competitiv y responsabilidad social corporativa. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 42-56.
  • Kumar DP, Petridis NE, Konstantinos P, Chrisovalantis M, Daniel NJ, Kumar GS (2018) Environmental management and corporate social responsibility practices of small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195: 687-702.
  • Laczniak GR, Murphy PE (2006) Normative perspectives for ethical and socially responsible marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2): 154-177.
  • Lenssen G, Chen H, Wang X (2011) Corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance in china: an empirical research from Chinese firms. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 11(4): 361-370.
  • Lindblom CK (1994) The Implications of Organizational Legitimacy for Corporate Social Performance and Disclosure. The Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, USA: New York.
  • Lomas T, Medina JC, Ivtzan I, Rupprecht S, Hart R, Eiroa-Orosa FJ (2017) The impact of mindfulness on well-being and performance in the workplace: an inclusive systematic review of the empirical literature. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4): 492-513.
  • Lyon TP, Maxwell JW (2007) Corporate social responsibility and the environment: a theoretical perspective. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2(2): 240-260.
  • Maignan I, Ferrell OC (2003) Nature of corporate responsibilities: Perspectives from American, French, and German consumers. Journal of Business research, 56(1): 55-67.
  • Malshe A, Friend SB, Al-Khatib J, Al-Habib MI, Al-Torkistani HM (2017) Strategic and operational alignment of sales-marketing interfaces: dual paths within an SME configuration. Industrial Marketing Management, 66(12): 145-158.
  • Nath D, Sudharshan D (1994) Measuring Strategy Coherence Through Patterns of Strategic Choices. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1): 43-61.
  • Ness MR (1992) Corporate Social Responsibility. British Food Journal, 94(7): 38-44.
  • Öberseder M, Schlegelmilch BB, Murphy PE, Gruber V (2014) Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1): 101-115.
  • Patten DM (2002) Media exposure, public policy pressure, and environmental disclosure: an examination of the impact of tri data availability. Accounting Forum, 26(2): 152-171.
  • Pérez A, Del Bosque IR (2013) Measuring CSR image: three studies to develop and to validate a reliable measurement tool. Journal of business ethics, 118(2): 265-286.
  • Representative H (2008) “European commission”, Climate change and international security. Joint paper to the European Council, S: 113.
  • Samson D, Terziovski M (2017) The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4): 393-409.
  • Schroeder R (1986) The content of manufacturing strategy: an empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 6(3): 405-415.
  • Sen S, Bhattacharya CB (2001) Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38(2): 225-243.
  • Sharma S, Vredenburg H (1998) Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic management journal, 19(8): 729-753.
  • Sheldon O (1924) The Social Responsibility of Management The Philosophy of Management. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd.
  • Smith TM, Reece JS (1999) the Relationship of Strategy, Fit, Productivity, and Business Performance In A Service Setting. Journal of Operations Management, 17(2): 145-161.
  • Smith W, Higgins M (2000) Cause-related marketing: Ethics and the ecstatic. Business & Society, 39(3): 304-322.
  • Srivastava P, Iyer KNS, Rawwas MYA (2017) Performance impact of supply chain partnership strategy-environment co-alignment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(7): 927-949.
  • Turker D (2009) Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of business ethics, 85(4): 411-427.
  • Vachon S, Halley A, Beaulieu M (2013) Aligning competitive priorities in the supply chain: the role of interactions with suppliers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(4): 322-340.
  • Vilanova M, Lozano JM, Arenas D (2009) Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1): 57-69.
  • Waddock SA, Graves SB (1997) The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303-319.
  • Ward PT, Mccreery JK, Ritzman LP, Sharma D (2010) Competitive priorities in operations management. Decision Sciences, 29(4): 1035-1046.
  • Wartick SL, Cochran PL (1985) The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of management review, 10(4): 758-769.
  • Whipp R, Rosenfeld R, Pettigrew A (1989) Managing Strategic Change In A Mature Business. Long Range Planning, 22(6): 92-99.
  • Wu TJ, Tsai HT, Tai YN (2016) Would corporate social responsibility affect consumers’ attitudes towards brand and purchase behavior? Buyer-seller Guanxi as the moderator. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 53: 272-287.
  • Yu Y, Choi Y (2014) Corporate social responsibility and firm performance through the mediating effect of organizational trust in Chinese firms. Chinese Management Studies, 8(4): 577-592.
  • Yuen KF, Thai VV, Wong YD (2017) Corporate social responsibility and classical competitive strategies of maritime transport firms: A contingency-fit perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 98(2): 1-13.