Competitive strategies, firm performance and corporate social responsibility as third strategy

Subject Areas : Management Accounting

Zohreh Hajiha ¹

1 - Department of Accounting, Islamic Azad University, East Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.

Received: 2017-04-02 Accepted : 2017-07-01 Published : 2018-03-21

Keywords: Business Strategy, cost strategy, Corporate social responsibilit, Performance,

Abstract :

In recent decades low-cost and differentiation strategies are recognized as dominant strategies in business and researchers has indicated that having a business strategy can improve firm performance. On the other hand, corporate social responsibility is proposed as a third complementary strategy. However, according to the kind of strategy, applying corporate social responsibility can affect firm performance negatively or positively.According to this, the research purpose is the investigation of business strategy and disclosure of information on corporate social responsibility on the firm performance. To measure the kind of business strategy the Yuen et al. model (2017) and for corporate social responsibility Mishra et al. model were employed. The research period was 2011-2015 and the sample was consisted of 96 firms listed in Tehran Stock Exchange. The findings of research indicate competitive strategies have a positive and significant effect on performance. Furthermore, the effect of competitive strategies on corporate social responsibility is positive and significant. However, where corporate social responsibility disclosure is higher differentiation strategy has more effect on performance rather than low-cost strategy.

References:

*       بادآور نهندی یونس، زارعی مصطفی، (1389 )، ساختار مالکیت و عملکرد شرکت های بورسی، فصلنامه مدیریت کسب و کار، دوره2،  شماره 7، صص 217-237.

*      حاجیها، زهره و بهمن سرفراز، (1393)، بررسی رابطه بین مسئولیت­پذیری­اجتماعی شرکت­ها و هزینه حقوق صاحبان سهام در شرکت­های پذیرفته‌شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران، پژوهش­های تجربی حسابداری، 4 (14): 105- 123.

*      رضایی، فرزین، عازم، حامد (1391)، تأثیر شدت رقابتی و راهبرد تجاری بر ارتباط بین اهرم مالی و عملکرد شرکت‌ها، فصلنامه حسابداری مدیریت، سال پنجم ، شماره دوازدهم،صص 101-115.

*      رضایی، فرزین،  محسن، رضا،  رایقی، مریم. (1392). مقایسه عوامل موثر بر نرخ بازده دارایی ها با تاکید بر راهبردهای تجاری، حسابداری مدیریت، دوره  6،  شماره 17،صص 1-17.

*      صنوبر، ناصر،  خلیلی، مجید،  ثقفیان، حامد. (1389)،  بررسی رابطه بین مسوولیت پذیری اجتماعی با عملکرد مالی شرکت ها،کاوش های مدیریت بازرگانی،دوره  2 شماره 4،28-52.

*      قاســمی،بهروز ، ابراهیمی، عبدلحمید، (1386). بررسی آثـار بـه کـارگیری راهبـردهـای رقـابتی مناسب بر کارایی شرکت های تجاری ایران، فصلنامه مدرس علوم انسانی، دوره 11، شماره 3، صص. 183-250.

*      ولی پور هاشم، باصری ستار. (1389)، موقعیت استراتژیک و ارزشیابی عملکرد شرکت،  فصلنامه حسابداری مدیریت،  دوره  3 ، شماره  5 ، صص 17-29.

*      Acquaah, M., Yasai-Ardekani, M., 2008. Does the implementation of a combination competitive strategy yield incremental performance benefits? A new perspective from a transition economy in Sub-Saharan African Journal of Business Research. 61 (4), 346–354.

*      Brik, A.B., Rettab, B., Mellahi, K., 2011. Market orientation, corporate social responsibility, and business performance. Journal of Business Ethics 99 (3), 307–324.

*      Crane, A., D. Matten, and L. Spence (2008). “Corporate Social Responsibility: In Globalcontext. In: Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in GlobalContext”, Routledge, London, pp. 3–20.

*      Dissanayake, Dinithi, Carol Tilt ,Maria Xydias-Lobo (2016).Sustainability reporting by publicly listed companies in Sri Lanka, Journal of Cleaner Production. 1. Pp 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.086.

*      Drobetz, W., Merikas, A., Merika, A., Tsionas, M.G., 2014. Corporate social responsibility disclosure: the case of international shipping. Transport. Res. Part E: Logistic. Transportation Review, 71, 18–44.

*      EY. (2013). Value of sustainability reporting. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY

*      Habib, Ahsan Hasan, ,  Mostafa Monzur.( 2017). Business strategy, overvalued equities, and stock price crash risk, Research in International Business and Finance,39, 389–405.

*      Kim,Y., and H. Siqi Li (2014). “Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Price Crash Risk”, Journal of Banking & Finance, 43, pp.1–13.

*      Korschun, D., Bhattacharya, C.B., Swain, S.D., 2014. Corporate social responsibility, customer orientation, and the job performance of frontline employees. Journal of Marketing. 78 (3), 20–37.

*      Kotler, P.J., Armstrong, G.M., 2010. Principles of Marketing. Pearson Education.

*      Lagoudis, I.N., Lalwani, C.S., Naim, M.M., 2006. Ranking of factors contributing to higher performance in the ocean transportation industry: a multi-attribute utility theory approach. Maritin. Political Management. 33 (4), 345–369.

*      Lindstad, H., Asbjørnslett, B.E., Strømman, A.H., 2015. Opportunities for increased profit and reduced cost and emissions by service differentiation within container liner shipping. Maritin. Political Management, 1–15

*      Lindstad, H., Asbjørnslett, B.E., Strømman, A.H., 2016. Opportunities for increased profit and reduced cost and emissions by service differentiation within container liner shipping. Maritin. Political Management. 43 (3), 280–294.

• Lu, C.-S., Lin, C.-C., Tu, C.-J., 2009. Corporate social responsibility and organisational performance in container shipping. International Journal of Logistic.: Research and Application, 12 (2), 119– 132. 12 K.F.


• Luo, X., Bhattacharya, C.B., 2006. Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing. 70 (4), 1–18.

*      Panayides, P.M., 2003. Competitive strategies and organizational performance in ship management. Maritin. Political Management. 30 (2), 123–140.

*      Pawlik, T., Gaffron, P., Dewes, P., Song, D., Panayides, P., 2012. Corporate social responsibility in maritime logistics. Maritin. Logistic.: Contemporary. Issues. 205–226

*      Porter, M.E., 1996. What Is Strategy? . Harvard Business Review (November–December). Sage.

*      Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2006. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84 (12), 78–92.

*      Porter, Micheal, F. 1980, Industry Structure and Competitive Strategy; Keys to Profitability, Financial Analysis Journal, July– August PP. 30-41.

*      Tripathy, B. COM., M.S.Arindam , 2006,Strategic positioning and firm performance, university of Texas at Dallas, PP.32-34.

*      Yamin, S., Gunasekaran, A., Mavondo, F.T., 1999. Relationship between generic strategies, competitive advantage and organizational performance: an empirical analysis. Technology Innovation 19 (8), 507–518.

*      Yuen, K.F., Thai, V.V., Wong, Y.D., 2016. The effect of continuous improvement capacity on the relationship between of corporate social performance and business performance in maritime transport in Singapore. Transport. Res. Part E: Logistic. Transportation Review. 95, 62–75.

*      Yuen, Kum Fai, Thai, Vinh V. Wong, YiikDiew. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and classical competitive strategies of maritime transport firms: A contingency-fit perspective, Transportation Research, Part A, 98, 1–13.

Wagner, M., 2010. The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: a firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecol. Econ. 69 (7), 1553–1560