IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01916944.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How nation-level background governance conditions shape the economic payoffs of corporate environmental performance

Author

Listed:
  • Sukhbir Sandhu

    (School of Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide)

  • Marc Orlitzky

    (School of Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide)

  • Céline Louche

    (Audencia Business School)

Abstract

Purpose Companies develop and implement environmental initiatives in particular national governance and institutional contexts. The purpose of this paper is to study how the background governance conditions of legal systems, economic policies and national culture enable or impede the relationship between corporate environmental performance (CEP) and lagged corporate financial performance (CFP). Design/methodology/approach This is an empirical study of 427 MNCs headquartered in 22 different countries. The authors merged data from the SiRi database (generally known as SustainAnalytics now), which contains ratings of stakeholder relations for 427 large corporations with publicly available data from Datastream. Findings Drawing on the new institutionalism in economics and sociology, the authors show that common-law systems and high economic freedom in a company's home country tend to strengthen the CEP-CFP link. In addition, the home-country cultural variables of uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and (to a lesser extent) masculinity may impede the deployment of CEP for maximum financial gain at the organizational level. The macrolevel analysis starts to move the field toward an understanding of the particular national governance configurations that provide the most supportive conditions for any CEP-CFP links. Originality/value One of the central questions in the field of organizations and the natural environment is about the background conditions that may incentivize and reward firms to be more environmentally responsive. The paper addresses this issue through a nation-level investigation of the background governance conditions that may help or hinder the relationship between CEP and CFP.

Suggested Citation

  • Sukhbir Sandhu & Marc Orlitzky & Céline Louche, 2018. "How nation-level background governance conditions shape the economic payoffs of corporate environmental performance," Post-Print hal-01916944, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01916944
    DOI: 10.1108/MD-11-2017-1191
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://audencia.hal.science/hal-01916944v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://audencia.hal.science/hal-01916944v2/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/MD-11-2017-1191?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    2. Paul Lanoie, 2008. "When And Why Does It Pay To Be Green?," CIRANO Papers 2008n-02a, CIRANO.
    3. Audun Ruud, 2002. "Environmental management of transnational corporations in India—are TNCs creating islands of environmental excellence in a sea of dirt?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 103-118, March.
    4. G Tomas M Hult & David J Ketchen & David A Griffith & Carol A Finnegan & Tracy Gonzalez-Padron & Nukhet Harmancioglu & Ying Huang & M Berk Talay & S Tamer Cavusgil, 2008. "Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 39(6), pages 1027-1044, September.
    5. Ioannis Ioannou & George Serafeim, 2012. "What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 43(9), pages 834-864, December.
    6. David G. Hoopes & Tammy L. Madsen & Gordon Walker, 2003. "Guest editors' introduction to the special issue: why is there a resource‐based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 889-902, October.
    7. Daniel Sullivan, 1994. "Measuring the Degree of Internationalization of a Firm," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 25(2), pages 325-342, June.
    8. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, September.
    9. Newell, Richard G & Stavins, Robert N, 2003. "Cost Heterogeneity and the Potential Savings from Market-Based Policies," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 43-59, January.
    10. Stuart L. Hart & Gautam Ahuja, 1996. "Does It Pay To Be Green? An Empirical Examination Of The Relationship Between Emission Reduction And Firm Performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 30-37, March.
    11. Amable, Bruno, 2003. "The Diversity of Modern Capitalism," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199261147.
    12. Hofstede, Geert, 1994. "The business of international business is culture," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 1-14, March.
    13. Chuck C Y Kwok & David M Reeb, 2000. "Internationalization and Firm Risk: An Upstream-Downstream Hypothesis," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 31(4), pages 611-629, December.
    14. Marcoux, Alexei M., 2003. "A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    15. Aaron K. Chatterji & David I. Levine & Michael W. Toffel, 2009. "How Well Do Social Ratings Actually Measure Corporate Social Responsibility?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 125-169, March.
    16. Sunil Venaik & Paul Brewer, 2010. "Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 41(8), pages 1294-1315, October.
    17. Fernandes, Maria F. & Randall, Donna M., 1992. "The Nature of Social Desirability Response Effects in Ethics Research," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 183-205, April.
    18. Henry Mintzberg & James A. Waters, 1985. "Of strategies, deliberate and emergent," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 257-272, July.
    19. Horváthová, Eva, 2012. "The impact of environmental performance on firm performance: Short-term costs and long-term benefits?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 91-97.
    20. Heather Dixon-Fowler & Daniel Slater & Jonathan Johnson & Alan Ellstrand & Andrea Romi, 2013. "Beyond “Does it Pay to be Green?” A Meta-Analysis of Moderators of the CEP–CFP Relationship," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 353-366, January.
    21. Abagail McWilliams & Donald Siegel, 2000. "Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(5), pages 603-609, May.
    22. Gregory Jackson & Androniki Apostolakou, 2010. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Western Europe: An Institutional Mirror or Substitute?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 371-394, July.
    23. David L. Deephouse, 1999. "To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 147-166, February.
    24. David Popp, 2003. "Pollution control innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 641-660.
    25. Calton, Jerry M. & Lad, Lawrence J., 1995. "Social Contracting as a Trust-Building Process of Network Governance," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 271-295, April.
    26. Joanna Tochman Campbell & Lorraine Eden & Stewart R Miller, 2012. "Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in host countries: Does distance matter?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 43(1), pages 84-106, January.
    27. Wicks, Andrew C. & Gilbert, Daniel R. & Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "A Feminist Reinterpretation of The Stakeholder Concept," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 475-497, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kamini Gupta & Donal Crilly & Thomas Greckhamer, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement strategies, national institutions, and firm performance: A configurational perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 1869-1900, October.
    2. Ben Lahouel, Béchir & Ben Zaied, Younes & Managi, Shunsuke & Taleb, Lotfi, 2022. "Re-thinking about U: The relevance of regime-switching model in the relationship between environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 498-519.
    3. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Kozluk, Tomasz & Kruse, Tobias & Nachtigall, Daniel & de Serres, Alain, 2019. "Do Environmental and Economic Performance Go Together? A Review of Micro-level Empirical Evidence from the Past Decade or So," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 1-118, April.
    4. Xiang Deng & Li Li, 2020. "Promoting or Inhibiting? The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Corporate Financial Performance—An Empirical Analysis Based on China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Kudłak, Robert, 2019. "The role of corporate social responsibility in predicting CO2 emission: An institutional approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 169-176.
    6. Ruiqian Li & Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, 2018. "Impacts of Industrial Heterogeneity and Technical Innovation on the Relationship between Environmental Performance and Financial Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-25, May.
    7. Pål Børing, 2019. "The relationship between firm productivity, firm size and CSR objectives for innovations," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(3), pages 269-297, September.
    8. Sergio Manrique & Carmen-Pilar Martí-Ballester, 2017. "Analyzing the Effect of Corporate Environmental Performance on Corporate Financial Performance in Developed and Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-30, October.
    9. Wang, Haifei & Guo, Ting & Tang, Qingliang, 2021. "The effect of national culture on corporate green proactivity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 140-150.
    10. Weiwei Wu & Rizwan Ullah & Syed Jamal Shah, 2020. "Linking Corporate Environmental Performance to Financial Performance of Pakistani Firms: The Roles of Technological capability and Public awareness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Vitaliy Roud & Thomas Wolfgang Thurner, 2018. "The Influence of State‐Ownership on Eco‐Innovations in Russian Manufacturing Firms," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(5), pages 1213-1227, October.
    12. Kalpana Tokas & Kartik Yadav, 2023. "Foreign Ownership and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case of an Emerging Market," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 24(6), pages 1302-1325, December.
    13. Wang, Moran & Li, Xuerong & Wang, Shouyang, 2021. "Discovering research trends and opportunities of green finance and energy policy: A data-driven scientometric analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    14. Eduardo Ortas & Isabel Gallego‐Álvarez & Igor Álvarez, 2019. "National institutions, stakeholder engagement, and firms' environmental, social, and governance performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 598-611, May.
    15. Simone Lazzini & Zeila Occhipinti & Angela Parenti & Roberto Verona, 2021. "Disentangling economic crisis effects from environmental regulation effects: Implications for sustainable development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2332-2353, July.
    16. Cristina Cruz & Martin Larraza–Kintana & Lucía Garcés–Galdeano & Pascual Berrone, 2014. "Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(6), pages 1295-1316, November.
    17. Stefan Ambec & Paul Lanoie, 2009. "Performance environnementale et économique de l'entreprise," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(4), pages 71-94.
    18. Sadok El Ghoul & Omrane Guedhami & Hakkon Kim & Kwangwoo Park, 2018. "Corporate Environmental Responsibility and the Cost of Capital: International Evidence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 335-361, May.
    19. Shin, Jiyoung & Moon, Jon Jungbien & Kang, Jingoo, 2023. "Where does ESG pay? The role of national culture in moderating the relationship between ESG performance and financial performance," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(3).
    20. Nicolò Barbieri & Claudia Ghisetti & Marianna Gilli & Giovanni Marin & Francesco Nicolli, 2016. "A Survey Of The Literature On Environmental Innovation Based On Main Path Analysis," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 596-623, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01916944. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.