Corporate Social Responsibility Spillover and Competition Effects on the Food Industry

Abstract

This paper examines the spillover and competition effects of corporate social responsibility (CSR) with duopoly competition. In employing the assumption that firm CSR increases consumer willingness to pay for the firm's products while consumer willingness to pay decreases for non‐CSR firm products, some interesting conclusions are achieved. First, CSR spillover effects increase CSR firm outputs and prices, while CSR spillover has the opposite effect on competitors. Second, CSR spillover decreases total outputs and total social welfare levels. Third, competition effects increase CSR expenditures, and CSR firms' CSR policies are the most robust when non‐CSR firms assume a leading position. It is found that total outputs and consumer utilities are highest when CSR firm acts as leader, while the relationships of social welfare among different cases are ambiguous depending on product substitution and spillover effects.

Firms with benefits: A systematic review of responsible entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility literature

“…Indeed, the topics "Customer satisfaction" and "Consumer" are much more widely discussed in the CSR than in the RE literature (see Table 5). Leaning on the work of CSR scholars, entrepreneurship researchers may want to consider the extent to which communication of responsibility to customers through either eco-labels (Costanigro et al, 2015;Dauvergne & Lister, 2010) and green marketing initiatives (Yadav et al, 2016) can impact firm or brand reputation (Abdelzaher & Newburry, 2016;Hur, Kim, & Kim, 2018) and customers' willingness to pay (Chen et al, 2016;Costanigro et al, 2015;Krause, 2015). This holds even for those papers focusing explicitly on social ventures and how customers perceive these (Chung et al, 2015;Hall-Phillips et al, 2016;e.g., Park et al, 2016).…”

“…This holds even for those papers focusing explicitly on social ventures and how customers perceive these (Chung et al, 2015;Hall-Phillips et al, 2016;e.g., Park et al, 2016). Leaning on the work of CSR scholars, entrepreneurship researchers may want to consider the extent to which communication of responsibility to customers through either eco-labels (Costanigro et al, 2015;Dauvergne & Lister, 2010) and green marketing initiatives (Yadav et al, 2016) can impact firm or brand reputation (Abdelzaher & Newburry, 2016;Hur, Kim, & Kim, 2018) and customers' willingness to pay (Chen et al, 2016;Costanigro et al, 2015;Krause, 2015). Beyond customer preferences shaping company decisions, the impact responsibility measures by entrepreneurs may have on consumers' sustainable practices is another auspicious topic for exploration (Kim et al, 2015).…”

Cooperation with a multiproduct corporation in a strategic managerial delegation

“…For more discussion, see Schreck (2011), Kitzmueller and Shimshack (2012), Crifo and Forget (2015), Planer-Friedrich and Sahm (2018), Wang et al (2018), and Kim et al (2019) among others. For the recent research in empirical and experiment fields, see also Flammer (2013Flammer ( , 2015, Chen et al (2016), and Nishitani et al (2017). 3 For studies on strategic CSR, see Goering (2007), Goering (2012), Kopel and Brand (2012), Brand and Grothe (2013), Lambertini and Tampieri (2015), Fanti and Buccella (2017), and Wang et al (2018) among others.…”

Solutions for SMEs Challenged by CSR: A Multiple Cases Approach in the Food Industry within the DACH-Region

“…[35][36]. Hence, the CSR topic is one of high relevance and presence in this industry [41] (p. 1). Furthermore, SMEs accounted for approximately 48.3% of the turnover generated through food and drink in the EU in 2017 as well as for 62.1% of the total employment within this sector [42].…”

“…182-186). Small businesses often have a different ownership structure than large firms, since they tend to be owner-operated, meaning the ownership is closely located to the operating units and therefore has a higher level of influence on these units [12] (p. 41). SMEs also only have a few shareholders whilst large companies usually are responsible to a bigger number of shareholders [10] (p. 183).…”