You are here

Home » Content

The impact of R&D intensity on corporate reputation: Interaction effect of innovation with high social benefit

Journal Name:

  • Intangible Capital

Publication Year:

  • 2012
DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.336

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Purpose: This article analyzes the effect that Research and Development (R&D) intensity has on corporate reputation, and how this effect can be positively moderated when innovation yields some kind of social benefits. Design/methodology/approach: As a theoretical framework we use the resource based view theory and the institutional theory. For the empirical analysis we used the panel data technique to estimate our models, the sample is composed of 257 US firms and covers a four-year period from 2004 to 2007. Findings: The results of this research demonstrates that R&D with the moderation of innovation with high social benefits will produce a greater positive effect on corporate reputation than R&D by itself, since R&D activities can produce innovations that do not produce any social benefit which may not be perceived by stakeholders. Practical implications: Innovative firms should focus their efforts on identifying opportunities in their R&D processes to initiate related corporate social responsibility activities that could help them build a good reputation, which in the long run can give them a competitive advantage and profitable results.Originality/value: Recently several studies have demonstrated that R&D is related with corporate social responsibility and that it is important to include both variables when studying financial performance. Our research is novel in the sense that we are applying the same logic but studying the relationship with corporate reputation, which has been scarcely talked about in existing literature.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-impact-rd-intensity-corporate-reputation-interaction-effect-innovation-high-social-benefit.pdf
  • 2
216-238
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

ALDRICH, H.E.; FIOL, C.M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19: 645-670.
ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, S.C.; LEVIS, M. (2008). R&D and performance persistence: Evidence from the United Kingdom. The International Journal of Accounting, 43: 293–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2008.06.004
BARNEY, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108BAUM, J.A.C.; OLIVER, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 187-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393353
BAYSINGER, B.D.; KOSNIK, R.D.; TURK, T.A. (1991). Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1): 20-214.
BEN-ZION, U. (1984). The R&D and investment decision and its relationship to the firm s market value: Some preliminary results. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 134 -162.
BERMAN, S.L.; WICKS, A.C.; KOTHA, S.; JONES, M.T. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5): 488-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256972
BOUQUET, C.; DEUTSCH, Y. (2008). The Impact of corporate social performance on a firm’s multinationality. Journal of Business Ethics, 80: 755-769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9467-4
BRAMMER, S.; PAVELIN, S. (2004). Building a good reputation. European Management Journal, 22(6): 704-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.09.033
BRAMMER, S.; PAVELIN, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3): 435-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00597.x
BRANCO, M.C.; RODRIGUES, L.L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69: 111-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9071-z
CARROLL, G.; HANNAN, M.T. (1989). Density delay in the evolution of organizational populations: a model and five empirical tests. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3): 411-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393151
CARTER, S.M.; RUEFLI, T.W. (2006). Intra-industry reputation dynamics under a resource-based framework: Assessing the durability factor. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1): 43–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550006
CHUN, R. (2006). Innovation and reputation: An ethical character perspective. Innovation and Reputation Journal, 15(1): 63-73.CLARK, B.; GRILICHES, Z. (1984). Productivity and R&D at the firm level in French manufacturing. In: Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, patents, and productivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 393–416.
CLARKSON M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20: 92-117.
COLLIS, D.J.; MONTGOMERY, C.A. (1995). Competing on resources. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 118-128.
DAVIES, G.; MILES, L. (1998). Reputation management: Theory versus practice. Corporate Reputation Review, 2(1): 16-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540064
DIMAGGIO, P.J.; POWELL, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101
DIMAGGIO, P.J.; POWELL, W.W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DOH, J.P.; HOWTON, S.D.; HOWTON, S.W.; SIEGEL, D.S. (2009). Does the market respond to endorsement of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information and legitimacy. Journal of Management, 36(6): 1461-1485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309337896
DOWLING, G.R. (2004). Corporate reputation: Strategies for developing the corporate brand. London: Kogan Page.
DYER, J.H.; CHU, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14(1): 57-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.57.12806
FELDMAN, M.S.; MARCH, J.G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 171–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392467
FOMBRUN, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press.FOMBRUN, C.J.; SHANLEY, M. (1990). What s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256324
GALASKIEWICZ, J. (1991). Making corporate actors accountable: Institution-building in Minneapolis-St. Paul. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: 293-310. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
GODFREY, P.C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review 30: 777-798. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.18378878
GOFFMAN, E. (1969). Strategic interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
GRANT, R.M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, Spring: 114-135.
GRILICHES, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1): 92-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3003321
GRILICHES, Z. (1998). R&D and productivity: The Econometric evidence , national bureau of economic research for the university of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
GUERARD, J.B.; BEAN, JR., A.S.; ANDREWS, S. (1987). R&D management and corporate financial policy. Management Science, 33(11): 1419-1427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1419
GUERARD, J.B.; STONE, B.K.; ANDREWS, S. (1988). Corporate R&D expenditures, innovation, and competition in an international economy. In R. Shrieves (Ed.), Competition in the international economy (pp. 215-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HALL, B.H. (1999). Innovation and market value. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 6984.HALL, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8): 607-618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140804
HILLMAN, A.J.; KEIM, G.D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22: 125-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200101)22:2<125::AID-SMJ150>3.0.CO;2-H
HITT, M.A.; HOSKISSON, R.E.; KIM, H. (1997). International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4): 767-798. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256948
HULL, C.E.; ROTHENBERG, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 781-789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.675
ITAMI, H. (1987). Mobilizing invisible assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
JONES, T.M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A Synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20: 404-437.
KEH, H.T.; XIE, Y. (2008). Corporate reputation and customer behavioural intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7): 732-742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005
LICHTENBERG, F.; SIEGEL, D.S. (1991). The impact of R&D investment on productivity: New evidence using linked R&D-LRD data. Economic Inquiry, 29: 203-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1991.tb01267.x
MARGOLIS, J.D.; ELFENBEIN, H.A.; WALSH, J.P. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Academy of Management Meetings, Philadelphia, PA, August.
MCWILLIAMS, A.; SIEGEL D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 603-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200005)21:5<603::AID-SMJ101>3.0.CO;2-3
MCWILLIAMS, A.; SIEGEL, D.S.; WRIGHT, P.M. (2006). Guest editors introduction, corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.xMEYER, J.W.; SCOTT, W.R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
OLIVER, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145-179.
OLIVER, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9):697-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18:9<697::AID-SMJ909>3.0.CO;2-C
ORLITZKY, M.; SCHMIDT, F.L.; RYNES, S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3): 403-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
PADGETT, R.C.; GALÁN, J.I. (2010). The effect of R&D intensity on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 93: 407-418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0230-x
PETERAF, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303
PETERAF, M.A.; BARNEY, J. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Journal of Managerial and Decision Economics, 24: 309-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mde.1126
POLONSKY, M.J., SUCHARD, H.T.; SCOTT, D. (1997). A stakeholder approach to interacting with the external environment. Australia and New Zealand Marketing Educators Conference Proceedings, 1: 495-508.
PORTER, M.E.; KRAMER, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, online version.
QUAZI, A.; O BRIEN, D. (2000). An empirical test of a cross-national model of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 25: 33-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006305111122
QUEVEDO-PUENTE, E.; FUENTE-SABATÉ, J.M.; DELGADO-GARCÍA, J.B. (2007). Corporate social performance and corporate reputation: Two interwoven perspectives. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(1): 60-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550038H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contest, legitimating, and survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 29-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150904
ROBERTS, P.W.; DOWLING, G.R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1077-1093. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.274
RUSSO, M.V; FOUTS, P.A. (1997). A resource based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 534-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257052
SABATE, J.M.; PUENTE, E. (2003). Empirical analysis of the relationship between corporate reputation and financial performance: A survey of the literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 6: 161-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540197
SCHWARTZ, P.; GIBB, B. (1999). When good companies do bad things: Responsibility and risk in an age of globalization. New York: Wiley.
SCOTT, W.R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4): 493-511. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392880
SCOTT, W.R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
SURROCA, J.; TRIBÓ, J.A.; WADDOCK, S. (2009). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: the role of intangible resource. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5): 736-767.
SZWAJKOWSKI, E.; FIGLEWICZ, R. (1999). Evaluating corporate performance: A comparison of the Fortune reputation survey and the Socrates social rating database. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11(2): 137-154.
TOLBERT, P.S.; ZUCKER, L.G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 22-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392383
TURBAN, D.B.; GREENING, D.W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 658-672. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257057WAGNER, M. (2010). Corporate social performance and innovation with high social benefits: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4): 581–594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0339-y
WEIGELT, K.; CAMERER, C. (1988). Reputation and corporate strategy: A recent theory and applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 443–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090505
WERNERFELT, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
WOOD, D.J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1): 50–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00274.x
ZUKIN, S.; DIMAGGIO, P. (1990). Structures of capital: The social organization of the economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com