When Does It Pay to be Good? Moderators and Mediators in the Corporate Sustainability–Corporate Financial Performance Relationship: A Critical Review

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors review the literature on moderators and mediators in the CS-corporate financial performance (CFP) relationship and provide some clarity on what has been learned so far by taking a contingency perspective on this much-researched relationship.

Abstract: In this paper, we review the literature on moderators and mediators in the corporate sustainability (CS)–corporate financial performance (CFP) relationship. We provide some clarity on what has been learned so far by taking a contingency perspective on this much-researched relationship. Overall, we find that this research has made some progress in the past. However, we also find this research stream to be characterized by three major shortcomings, namely low degree of novelty, missing investment in theory building, and a lack of research design and measurement options. To address these shortcomings, we suggest avenues for future research. Beyond that we also argue for a stronger emphasis on the strategic perspective of CS. In particular, we propose future research to take a step back and aim for an integration of the CS–CFP relationship into the strategic management literature.

Summary

INTRODUCTION

• For the past 40 years, the study of the relationship between corporate sustainability (CS) – corporate financial performance (CFP) has had a prominent place in the literature (Bowman and Haire, 1975; Bragdon and Marlin, 1972).
• Concentrating on moderators and mediators that may affect the CS-CFP relationship, research attention has recently begun to shift from whether it pays to be good to when it pays to be good (Orlitzky, Siegel and Waldman, 2011; Orsato, 2006).
• In the next section, the authors describe both their approach to identifying the relevant body of literature to be reviewed as well as the integrative framework for organizing and reviewing this body of literature.
• The authors close the paper with a brief conclusion in section eight.

Identification of the Literature

• In order to identify the body of literature to be reviewed, that is, studies adopting a contingency perspective on the CS-CFP relationship, the authors followed prior research and conducted a systematic literature search (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; van Beurden and Gössling, 2008).
• In order to select the specific journals that provide the basis for their review, the authors first consulted several studies on journal quality and impact (Johnson and Podsakoff, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2008; Tahai and Meyer, 1999).
• Notwithstanding their focus on the contingency perspective, the authors decided to use a broad set of keywords1 referring to CS and CFP, reasoning that limiting their search to keywords referring to moderators and mediators would potentially lead to the exclusion of relevant studies.
• CSR is very society oriented and associated with communication aspects of people and organizations, whereas CS offers a wider focus, because it is considered from the tridimensional perspective of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), which emphasizes the integration of economy, society and environment for a firm’s success (Montiel, 2008; Van Marrewijk, 2003).
• The authors believe that doing so will result in making the text more accessible.

Results of the Database Search

• The database search – in title and abstract – yielded a total of 274 potentially relevant studies.
• In a first step, the authors carefully reviewed the abstract of each study and eliminated 106 studies, which obviously did not fall within the domain of their review, for example because they were not concerned with the CSCFP relationship.
• In a second step, the authors examined the theory and method sections of the remaining 168 studies to make sure that these studies did in fact fall into the domain of their review.
• In particular, the authors focused on studies that explicitly use the term moderator or mediator, but they also included studies with an implicit argumentation for a moderating or mediating effect.

A Framework for Organizing the Literature

• Subsequent to the identification of the literature, the authors moved to the coding and categorizing of the identified studies.
• The authors coded the primary constructs and key findings.
• Drawing from this coding, the authors then developed a framework that provides the analytical review scheme necessary for systematically evaluating the contribution of a given body of literature (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985).
• In coding the moderators and mediators of the basic CS-CFP relationship, the authors followed the widely used approach and distinguished between influences coming from outside the firm and those originating from within the firm.
• Figure 2 depicts their framework and Table 1 provides an overview of the classification of the studies included in the review.

THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE BASIC RELATIONSHIP: CS AND CFP

• The focus of their study is on the moderators and mediators of the CS-CFP relationship.
• Using a sample of firms originating from the oekom research AG, the author was able to include firms originating from as many as 24 different countries.
• The authors analysis lends support to the assumption that different findings concerning the basic CS-CFP relationship may to a substantial degree be explained with the varying operationalizations of the CS- CFP constructs.
• Even seemingly identical constructs – such as for instance CSR – that are derived from the same database – such as the KLD database – may exhibit substantial differences at closer inspection.

Internal Moderators

• Reviewing the studies within their sample, the authors found that a broad variety of internal, organizationaloriented factors had been explored as potential moderators of the CS-CFP relationship.
• This broad variety of factors can be categorized as: firm characteristics, differentiation between sustainability engagements, and managerial characteristics, behavior, and action.

Firm characteristics

• Based on the assumption that some firm characteristics represent a firm’s resources and capabilities, the literature has so far explored the moderating effect of firm size, ownership structure, innovation, and strategic orientation.
• Dixon-Fowler et al. (2013) provide evidence for a negative moderating effect of firm size.
• Firms follow different approaches towards their sustainability engagement.
• Thus, in the proactive approach, CS evolves as a valuable organizational capability that has the potential to decrease costs and risk (Dixon-Fowler et al., 2013) and to cause less replicable differentiation in the eye of the stakeholders (Brammer and Millington, 2008).
• Moreover, Aguinis and Glavas (2012) provide some evidence in their review that managers’ commitment to ethics and sensitivity to equity have a strong positive moderating effect on the CS-CFP relationship.

External Moderators

• External moderating variables are external factors, which influence the strength and intensity of the CS-CFP relationship.
• The authors categorize the identified external moderating variables into three themes: stakeholder relationship, industry characteristics and general business environment.

Stakeholder relationship

• Good stakeholder relationships are a source of competitive advantage (Wang and Choi, 2013).
• Accordingly, the financial value of CS is directly contingent upon the ability to influence stakeholders and their perception of the firm’s CS activities.
• Due to information asymmetry and uncertainty between different stakeholders (Van der Laan, Van Ees and Van Witteloostuijn, 2008), firms need to work on their CS reputation and communication, as well as symbolic management.
• Through advertising intensity (Servaes and Tamayo, 2013), high qualitative CS reports (Schreck, 2011), and consistent good treatment of different stakeholders over time (Wang and Choi, 2013), firms can reduce the information gap, so that stakeholders find out more about the firm’s CS engagement and reward it, which enhances the benefits of CS.
• Thus the bottom line is that tailor-made stakeholder relationships positively moderate the CSCFP relationship.

Industry characteristics

• The nature of the CS-CFP relationship varies across industries, because each industry operates in a different context with distinct environmental, social, and financial concerns (Baird, Geylani and Roberts, 2012; Schreck, 2011).
• Industries with a negative environmental reputation face higher media attention, regulations and pressure by stakeholders (Dixon-Fowler et al., 2013), but at the same time they have more to win from a good environmental performance.
• Klassen & McLaughlin (1996) were among the first to elaborate on the moderating effect of industries within the CS-CFP relationship.
• Dixon-Fowler et al. (2013) fail to find a significant effect of this relationship in their meta-analysis.
• Firms in high-growth industries are more successful with their CS than firms in low-growth industries due to a general higher attitude to riskier investments, a more flexible and organic organizational management structure, and the promotion of intangible assets, such as reputation, in order to differentiate from competitors and new players (Russo and Fouts, 1997).

Business environment

• Apart from industry characteristics, various studies have considered characteristics of the general business environment.
• External pressure towards the institutionalization of sustainability impacts the value of CS.
• In contrast, munificence or a low hostile environment makes it easier for competitors to obtain this information of a firm’s proactive environmental strategy and to duplicate these capabilities.
• Following Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007, p.186), mediation “is said to occur when the causal effect of an independent variable (X) on a dependent variable (Y) is transmitted by a mediator (M).
• Following their previous approach taken to review moderators of the CS-CFP relationship, the authors subsequently distinguish potential mediators into internal and external, respectively.

Internal Mediators

• Internal mediators are internal factors through which an indirect relationship between CS and CFP occurs.
• The few studies, addressing the intervening process of internal mediators, can be summarized to one factor – intangible resources & capabilities.

Intangible resources & capabilities

• Drawing on the insights of RBV (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984), some scholars have argued that the CS-CFP relationship is mediated by a firm’s intangible resources and capabilities.
• CS initiatives, such as product stewardship, resource management, reduction of energy consumption and waste, and stakeholder dialogue, in turn, are argued to represent means promoting the development of specific organizational capabilities.
• By developing these capabilities, a firm increases its preparedness for a dynamic, complex environment and turbulent times.
• Though studies have begun to study the mediating role of intangible resources and capabilities this research stream seems to be in its infancy.
• First empirical results seem to yield mixed patterns.

External Mediators

• According to the external mediator perspective, there is no direct relationship between CS and CFP.
• Rather, the basic assumption of this literature is that the effect of CS on CFP occurs through external influence factors.
• Reviewing the literature, the authors found that research on external mediators focused on a single factor, namely stakeholder response.

Stakeholder response

• Studies exploring stakeholder response as an external mediator are grounded in stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), with stakeholder response referring to stakeholders’ assessment, attitude, and action towards a firm’s CS actions.
• Studies in this stream are based on two main arguments: (i) the need of stakeholders are at the heart of any CS activity (Surroca et al., 2010) and (ii) stakeholders’ responses towards a firm’s CS activity directly affect financial performance (Schuler and Cording, 2006).
• Primary stakeholders have to be differentiated from secondary stakeholders.
• On the other hand, however, the authors find research on moderators and mediators in the CS-CFP relationship to be fragmented and underdeveloped.
• A limited number of studies addressing a specific relationship need not be a severe limitation per se.

Low Degree of Novelty

• On second sight, it becomes obvious that notwithstanding different names and operationalization only eight different moderators and mediators were explored.
• The authors believe that in order to provide deeper insights on the CS-CFP relationship, they must move beyond these ‘usual suspects’ and explore novel constructs that have the potential to moderate and/or mediate the CS-CFP relationship.
• In other words, so far little attention has been devoted to the individual-level factors inside the firm.
• Moreover, RBV and stakeholder theory are strongly interlinked with a firm’s competitiveness and financial performance (Barney and Zajac, 1994; Schuler and Cording, 2006).
• At the same time, the contradicting findings the authors revealed may suggest that these two theories alone are not enough to provide an explanation for the effect of specific moderators and mediators.

Lack of Research Design and Measurement Options

• 1985), its empirical research is still in its infancy.
• There is a mismatch between theory, research design, and measurement options.
• Less used are perceptual and reputational measures.

Specific Suggestions for Moderator & Mediator Research

• In a notable study, Marom (2006) laid the foundation of a unified theory of the CS-CFP relationship, aimed at explaining the range of observed outcomes within the respective research.
• To develop this unified theory, the author draws on the parallels between the construct of CSR and the business economics domains.
• It does not, however, acknowledge contextual factors.
• Against the background of these three studies and their emphasis on CS, decisions concerning CS activities can be considered one of the strategic management’s key questions.
• By taking a more strategic perspective on the moderators and mediators within the CS-CFP relationship, their objective is to encourage cross-fertilization of concepts, theories, and analytical models.

Internal moderators

• In the CS and strategic management literatures there is a vigorous discussion on the driving forces of managerial motives and, in particular, on the influence of different leadership styles (Waldman and Siegel, 2008).
• Rather it seems that, in particular, for firms selling experience or credence goods and services, it is likely that the benefits of differentiation achieved through CS offset the higher costs associated with the respective CS activities.
• The authors show that higher insider ownership is positively related to better CS and CFP.
• In particular, the authors propose that due to shortsightedness, the relationship between CS and CFP will be less distinct (if present at all) for non-family firms, whereas they expect a strong positive relationship for family firms.

External moderators

• The type of industry, whether firms act in environmentally bad or good industries, is a common moderator and a control variable in the CS-CFP nexus.
• It has been shown that both objective characteristics and subjective perception of the competitive market structure affect a firm’s financial performance and determine the success of strategies (Prescott, 1986).
• Therefore, when facing a shortage of skilled labor in its industry, a firm is likely to apply CS activities and policies in order to become more attractive for potential employees (Greening and Turban, 2000).
• Considering this important role of the firm’s administrative and social structure, it is reasonable to assume that it represents an important resource guiding the implementation of strategic actions and the interaction between the firm and the environment.
• The more the firm engages in CS activities – that is, the larger the degree to which the firm considers CS to be part of the firm’s strategy – the more aligned becomes the firm’s administrative and social structure with that CS strategy.

External mediators

• They are embedded in a network of social, professional, and exchange relationships with other stakeholders.
• These relationships can be within or across industries and countries, and be horizontally or vertically oriented.
• They are also important to diffuse and receive information.
• Strategic networks are external gatekeepers for the success of CS.
• Networks allow profits by means of casual ambiguity, sharing of risks, inter-organizational interconnectedness, time compression, development of the institutional environment, and co-evolution of resources and capabilities.

Taking a Step Back - Broader Implications for the CS-CFP Research

• In the previous section the authors have provided a number of specific suggestions to further explore moderators and mediators in the CS-CFP relationship.
• At the core such a strategic CS concept (Aguinis and Glavas, 2013; Burke and Logsdon, 1996; Husted and Allen, 2007) would focus on the integration of CS within a firm’s values, goals, and daily routines and operations.
• Following Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) there are three different approaches to measure firm performance in the strategy literature, namely (i) financial performance, (ii) operational performance, and (iii) operational effectiveness.
• In accordance with the TBL approach it is advisable to look at the existing ‘types of capital’ in a firm – physical, financial, human, intellectual, social and natural capital (Elkington, 1997).

CONCLUSION

• The authors have reviewed the literature on moderators and mediators in the CS-CFP relationship.
• Overall, the authors find that despite long-standing calls to take a contingency perspective on the CS-CFP relationship, this research is underdeveloped.
• While existing studies have for sure provided valuable and interesting insights, the overall attention that this research has attracted is rather low.

Figures

Figure 1: Number of studies published on the CS-CFP relationship per year and those adopting a contingency perspective

Table 1: Studies adopting a contingency perspective on the CS-CFP relationship Error! Not a valid link.

Figure 2: Framework used to review the literature

Full text

General Rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.
This coversheet template is made available by AU Library
Version 1.0, October 2016
Coversheet
This is the accepted manuscript (post-print version) of the article.
Contentwise, the post-print version is identical to the final published version, but there may be
differences in typography and layout.
How to cite this publication
Please cite the final published version:
Grewatsch, S., & Kleindienst, I. (2017). When does it pay to be good? Moderators and mediators in the corporate
sustainability- corporate financial relationship: A critical review. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(2), 383–416.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2852-5
Publication metadata
Title:
When does it pay to be good? Moderators and mediators in the corporate
sustainability- corporate financial relationship: A critical review.
Author(s):
Grewatsch, S., & Kleindienst, I.
Journal:
Journal of Business Ethics
DOI/Link:
10.1007/s10551-015-2852-5
Document version:
Accepted manuscript (post-print)

1
When does it pay to be good?
Moderators and mediators in the corporate sustainability
– corporate financial performance relationship: A critical review
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
In this paper, we review the literature on moderators and mediators in the corporate sustainability (CS)
–corporate financial performance (CFP) relationship. We provide some clarity on what has been
learned so far by taking a contingency perspective on this much-researched relationship. Overall, we
find that this research has made some progress in the past. However, we also find this research stream
to be characterized by three major shortcomings, namely low degree of novelty, missing investment in
theory building, and a lack of research design and measurement options. To address these
shortcomings, we suggest avenues for future research. Beyond that we also argue for a stronger
emphasis on the strategic perspective of corporate sustainability. In particular, we propose future
research to take a step back and aim for an integration of the CS-CFP relationship into the strategic
management literature.
Section: Corporate Responsibility
Keywords: Corporate Sustainability, Corporate Financial Performance, Moderators, Mediators,
Literature Review, Strategic Corporate Sustainability
Article Type: Literature Review

2
INTRODUCTION
For the past 40 years, the study of the relationship between corporate sustainability (CS) – corporate
financial performance (CFP) has had a prominent place in the literature (Bowman and Haire, 1975;
Bragdon and Marlin, 1972). However, despite literally hundreds of studies on this topic, the findings
have been inconsistent and disappointing (Waddock and Graves, 1997), as the relationship between CS
and CFP has been argued and found to be positive (Hart and Ahuja, 1996; Orlitzky, Schmidt and
Rynes, 2003), insignificant (Surroca, Tribo and Waddock, 2010), negative (Aupperle, Carroll and
Hatfield, 1985; Friedman, 1970), U-shaped (Barnett and Salomon, 2012), inverted U-shaped
(Lankoski, 2008), or asymmetric (Jayachandran, Kalaignanam and Eilert, 2013). Indeed, at first sight
the wide variety of shapes found in the literature may convey the impression that we as researchers are
able to argue and find whatever shape we want the CS-CFP relationship to have.
Then again, is it really surprising that our quest for a general relationship between CS and CFP has
failed so far? We do not think so. In fact, we believe that the quest for such a general relationship may
be pointless given the large number of environmental and organizational influences on CFP (Anderson
and Zeithaml, 1984). After all, there is little evidence for the existence of a simple, unidirectional
causal relationship of any given construct on CFP (Lenz, 1981).
Efforts aimed at reconciling the inconsistent and at times even contradictory findings have initially
focused on the choice and measurement of constructs for CS and CFP (Aupperle et al., 1985; Griffin
and Mahon, 1997; Sharfman, 1996), as well as model specification (Margolis and Walsh, 2003;
Marom, 2006; Russo and Fouts, 1997). However, a debatable implicit assumption of this approach is
still that there is a general relationship between CS and CFP that holds for any firm in any context at
any time. Acknowledging the possibility that such a general relationship may just not exist, scholars

3
have called for more research on the contingencies – moderators and mediators – affecting the CS-CFP
relationship. As Barnett (2007, p.813) put it: “Here I […] call for increased attention to a contingency
perspective that affirms the payoffs of CSR to some forms of CSR for some firms at some points in
time.” In other words, in contrast to a congruent proposition in which “a simple unconditional
association is hypothesized to exist among variable in the model […] a contingent proposition is more
complex, because a conditional association of two or more independent variables with a dependent
outcome is hypothesized” (Drazin and Van de Ven, 1985, p.514). As a result, a contingency
perspective on the CS-CFP relationship is likely to yield a much finer grained and differentiated
picture, thereby acknowledging that differences in firm and context characteristics may affect the CS-
CFP relationship – moderators – and also that the effect of CS on CFP may occur through different
means – mediators.
Concentrating on moderators and mediators that may affect the CS-CFP relationship, research attention
has recently begun to shift from whether it pays to be good to when it pays to be good (Orlitzky, Siegel
and Waldman, 2011; Orsato, 2006). In light of the potential contribution, which the contingency
perspective holds, it seems that there is great value in taking stock of what we have learned so far and
what is still to be explored regarding moderators and mediators of the CS-CFP relationship. The
objective of the present study is, thus, to provide a review of research exploring the contingencies
affecting the CS-CFP relationship. In doing so, we aim at increasing our understanding of the
conditions under which CS has a distinct effect on CFP.
Admittedly, a number of thorough reviews on the CS-CFP relationship are available (Aguinis and
Glavas, 2012; Beurden and Gössling, 2008; Dixon-Fowler, Slater, Johnson, Ellstrand and Romi, 2013;
Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky et al., 2003). Some of these reviews have focused on measurement

4
and operationalization issues (Peloza, 2009; van Beurden and Gössling, 2008), some have focused on
specific scholarly disciplines (Dixon-Fowler et al., 2013), and still others have attempted to review the
entire literature on the CS – outcome relationship (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). However, to the best of
our knowledge to date, no in-depth review is available critically reflecting upon existing knowledge,
uncovering important gaps, and outlining future research avenues regarding research on moderators
and mediators within the CS-CFP relationship. We address this gap.
We proceed as follows: In the next section, we describe both our approach to identifying the relevant
body of literature to be reviewed as well as the integrative framework for organizing and reviewing this
body of literature. Thereafter, in sections three we review the building blocks of the basic relationship,
that is, CS and CFP. In sections four and five, we present the results of our review regarding
moderators and mediators of the CS-CFP relationship, respectively. Thereafter, in section six, we
provide an overall evaluation of the current status of the field before we provide an extensive agenda
for future research in section seven. We close the paper with a brief conclusion in section eight.
METHOD
Identification of the Literature
In order to identify the body of literature to be reviewed, that is, studies adopting a contingency
perspective on the CS-CFP relationship, we followed prior research and conducted a systematic
literature search (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; van Beurden and Gössling, 2008). We decided to focus
our search on major academic journals that had previously been included in studies of journal impact
and quality (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Bachrach, 2008; Tahai and Meyer, 1999). The

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the future works in this paper?

Therefore, the authors have provided a number of suggestions aimed at accelerating future research in this area. The authors hope that their review of the literature and their suggestions for future research will provide some help in overcoming the challenges this research stream currently faces. Given the overall results obtained within the CS-CFP literature the authors also believe that there is a considerable need for taking a step back and re-conceptualize the CS-CFP relationship. 

Q2. What are the contributions in this paper?

In this paper, the authors review the literature on moderators and mediators in the corporate sustainability ( CS ) –corporate financial performance ( CFP ) relationship. The authors provide some clarity on what has been learned so far by taking a contingency perspective on this much-researched relationship. Overall, the authors find that this research has made some progress in the past. However, the authors also find this research stream to be characterized by three major shortcomings, namely low degree of novelty, missing investment in theory building, and a lack of research design and measurement options. In particular, the authors propose future research to take a step back and aim for an integration of the CS-CFP relationship into the strategic management literature. To address these shortcomings, the authors suggest avenues for future research. 

Q3. What are the main factors that are argued to be promoting the development of CS?

CS initiatives, such as product stewardship, resource management, reduction of energy consumption and waste, and stakeholder dialogue, in turn, are argued to represent means promoting the development of specific organizational capabilities. 

Q4. What are the main factors that are argued to be promoted through CS activities?

Likewise managerial skills, referring to organizational-wide coordination, forward-thinking and employee involvement, are argued to be promoted through CS activities (Orlitzky et al., 2003). 

Q5. Why is the demand for skilled workers growing faster than its supply?

Due to the rapid growth of developing economies and the aging of many advanced economies, the demand for skilled workforce is growing faster than its supply (McKinsey Global Institute, 2012). 

Q6. What is the role of resource bundles in the firm’s financial performance?

Resource bundles are appropriately channeled and configured through strategic choices, which ultimately determine the firm’s financial performance. 

Q7. What are the two main theoretical cornerstones of the literature the authors reviewed?

Missing Investment in Theory BuildingRBV and stakeholder theory are clearly the theoretical cornerstones of the literature the authors reviewed (and maybe also of the broader CS-CFP relationship literature). 

Q8. What is the argument that low-innovative firms benefit more from CS activities?

They argue that low-innovative firms benefit more financially from CS activities, the reasoning being that firms engaging in CS are able to differentiate themselves from competitors and give customers a reason to buy their products and services. 

Q9. Why does Becker propose that the relationship between CS and CFP will be less distinct?

In particular, the authors propose that due to shortsightedness, the relationship between CS and CFP will be less distinct (if present at all) for non-family firms, whereas the authors expect a strong positive relationship for family firms. 

Q10. How long does a long-term orientation reverse this negative impact?

Wang and Bansal (2012) show that a long-term orientation, with a strategic perspective of more than 5 years, reverses this negative impact. 

Q11. What databases were used to identify relevant studies?

The authors decided to rely on a systematic search within major databases such as Business Source Complete, Web of Science, and Science Direct for the identification of relevant studies within the set of journals for the period between 1972 and 2013. 

Q12. What is the main reason for the limited number of studies available?

taking into consideration the many different constructs and operationalization the studies in their sample rely on to proxy firms’ corporate sustainability performance as well as the different dependent variables (see Table 1 for detailed information on this), the limited number of studies available must be considered a severe limitation as it hampers the comparability of results across studies and – as a result – the emergence of stable patterns. 

Q13. What is the importance of understanding the underlying constructs of CS?

It is of utmost importance to understand the underlying constructs of this phenomenon and to treat CS no longer as a ‘black box’. 

Q14. What is the mechanism that is likely to enhance a firm’s CFP?

If this mechanism is valid, the authors expect firms that engage in more CS activities to have an administrative and social structure that more strongly supports and guides CS related activities, which in turn is likely to enhance a firm’s CFP.