Corporate Social Responsibility Knowledge Spillover: A Network Perspective

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been drawing the attention of corporate executives and scholars for the past few decades (Kang, Germann, and Grewal 2016; McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright 2006). Corporate social responsibility is defined as a discretionary allocation of corporate resources to improving social welfare that serves as means of enhancing relationships with key stakeholders (Barnett 2007, p. 801). CSR engagement can enhance a firms relationship with its key stakeholders such as customers, employees, and shareholders (Korschun, Bhattacharya, and Swain 2014). However, firms need to first develop their CSR knowledge in order to pursue such activities effectively. Interfirm networks provide firms with access to knowledge, resources, markets, and/or technology (Inkpen and Tsang 2005). Interfirm networks provide firms with access to knowledge, resources, markets, and/or technology (Inkpen and Tsang 2005). Knowledge is one of the most valuable resources for a firm and the process of knowledge transfer is central to developing learning capabilities that lead to competitive advantage for firms (Grant 1996). Knowledge transfer is the process through which one network member is affected by the experience of another (Argote and Ingram 2000; Inkpen and Tsang 2005). In most cases, organizations have to be in some form of strategic alliance before there is any significant knowledge flow from one member to another (Easterby-Smith, Lyles, and Tsang 2008; Hagedoorn and Narula 1996). Through membership in a network and the repeated and enduring exchange through relationships (Podolny and Page 1998), the potential for knowledge acquisition by network members is created (Inkpen and Tsang 2005). However, previous research on CSR knowledge spillover focuses solely on the dyadic level of interfirm knowledge transfer. They investigate how a firm gains knowledge from its partner at the dyadic level without considering the rest of the firm alliance partners. This simplistic view of interfirm relationships hinders our ability to clearly asses the extent of knowledge transfer. At any given time, a firm can be in alliance relationship with multiple partners. Thus, investigating a single alliance relationship does not accurately reflect the nature of interfirm relationships. Organizations are embedded in interfirm networks (Achrol and Kotler 1999).