Effective public policy to mitigate climate change footprints should build on data-driven analysis of firm-level strategies. This article’s conceptual approach augments the resource-based view of the firm and identifies investments in four firm-level resource domains to develop capabilities in climate change impact mitigation. The authors denote the resulting framework as the GISTe model, which frames their analysis and public policy recommendations. This research uses the 2008 Carbon Disclosure Project database, with high-quality information on firm-level climate change strategies for 552 companies (...) from North America and Europe. In contrast to the widely accepted myth that European firms are performing better than North American ones, the authors find a different result. Many firms, whether European or North American, do not just “talk” about climate change impact mitigation, but actually do “walk the talk.” European firms appear to be better than their North American counterparts in “walk I,” denoting attention to governance, information management, and systems. But when it comes down to “walk II,” meaning actual Technology-related investments, North American firms’ performance is equal or superior to that of the European companies. The authors formulate public policy recommendations to accelerate firm-level, sector-level, and cluster-level implementation of climate change strategies. (shrink)

The early literature on base of the pyramid strategies argued that multinational enterprises can contribute significantly to poverty alleviation of the poorest population in the world. An emergent perspective suggests that the solution to poverty lies within the BOP itself. Here, entrepreneurship within the BOP population is seen as the more credible solution to poverty. In this Special Issue introduction, we briefly present how the literature has further shifted the discussion of BOP strategies toward issues such as innovation, networks, business (...) models, and sustainability at the BOP. This analysis signals a gap in our knowledge related to the success factors in business models of BOP entrepreneurs, with attention to economic, social, and environmental impacts. We present the five articles accepted for publication in this Special Issue, of which three contribute to our knowledge of BOP business models and two to our knowledge of sustainability at the BOP. In conclusion, we propose several avenues for future research. (shrink)

Integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in business is one of the great challenges facing firms today. Societal stakeholders require much more from the firm than pursuing profitability and growth. But these societal stakeholders often simply assume that increased societal expectations can easily be accommodated within efficiently run business operations, without much attention devoted to process issues. We build upon the core—periphery thesis to explore potential avenues for firms to add recurring CSR initiatives to their existing business practices. Based on (...) Siggelkow's (Admin Sei Quart 47: 125-159, 2002) analysis of organizational change, we conceptualize seven major patterns of CSR initiative adoption. We develop a new organizing framework showing how a firm can integrate CSR initiatives in business. Within the new framework, each of the seven patterns represents an idiosyncratic path through which recurring CSR initiatives can be included as practices into conventional operations. We also explore the nature of the resulting internal fit between recurring CSR initiatives and business practices. (shrink)

We propose adding a temporal dimension to stakeholder management theory, and assess the implications thereof for firm-level competitive advantage. We argue that a firm’s competitive advantage fundamentally depends on its capacity for stakeholder management related, transformational adaptation over time. Our new temporal stakeholder management approach builds upon insights from both the resource-based view (RBV) in strategic management and institutional theory. Stakeholder agendas and their relative salience to the firm evolve over time, a phenomenon well understood in the literature, and requiring (...) what we call level 1 adaptation. However, the dominant direction of stakeholder pressures can also change, namely, from supporting resource heterogeneity at the firm level to fostering industry homogeneity, and vice versa. When dominant stakeholder pressures shift from supporting heterogeneity towards stimulating homogeneity in industry, the firm must engage in level 2 or transformational adaptation. Stakeholders typically provide valuable resources to the firm in an early stage . Without these resources, which foster heterogeneity (in line with RBV thinking), the firm would not exist. At a later stage , stakeholders also contribute to inter-firm homogeneity via isomorphism pressures (in line with institutional theory thinking). Adding a temporal dimension to stakeholder management theory has far reaching implications for this theory’s practical relevance to senior level management in business. (shrink)