Received: 3 March 2019 Revised: 7 July 2019 Accepted: 29 July 2019

DOI: 10.1002/csr.1841

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Influence of maturity on corporate social responsibility and

sustainable innovation in business performance

Edilson Bacinello1 | Gérson Tontini2 | Anete Alberton3

1
Department of Accounting Sciences, Federal
University of Rondônia–UNIR, Porto Velho, Abstract
Brazil Models of maturity in corporate social responsibility (CSRM) and in sustainable inno-
2
Department of Administration, Regional
vation (SIM) allow us to evaluate how a company is evolved in a given area, so that it
University of Blumenau ‐ FURB and University
of West Santa Catarina ‐ UNOESC, Chapecó, can trace a strategic path of improvements in the economic, social, and environmental
Brazil
dimensions. This study developed maturity models seeking to verify the influence of
3
Administration Department, University of
Vale do Itajaí–UNIVALI, Itajaí, Brazil
CSRM on the SIM and of these dimensions in the business performance (BP). The
analysis, grounded on resource‐based theory, used structural equation modeling with
Correspondence
Corrrespondence Edilson Bacinello,
a sample of 154 Brazilian companies. It was found that CSRM exerts influence on the
Department of Accounting Sciences, Federal SIM and that both positively influence the BP. The use of these models can assist
University of Rondônia–UNIR, BR 364, km 9,5,
CEP 76801‐059 Porto Velho, Brazil.
companies in creating value, generating competitive advantage, and promoting supe-
Email: edbaci@bol.com.br rior performance.

K E Y W OR D S

corporate social responsibility, performance, resource‐based theory, sustainable innovation

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N
By strategically engaging with corporate social responsibility (CSR),
companies consider the internal (resources and capacities) and exter-
nal (reputation) benefits, individually or jointly, as sources for value
generation, superior performance, and competitive advantage (Branco
& Rodrigues, 2006). This behavior promotes economic, social, and
environmental gains that benefit companies and consumers through
their integration with innovative business (Bansal, 2005). Thus, we
can say that CSR is strategically linked to sustainable innovations,
enabling the creation of economic, social, and environmental value,
generating competitive advantage, and improving business perfor-
mance (BP).
From a theoretical standpoint, it is considered the existence of
a bidirectional relationship between CSR and innovation (Gallego‐
Álvarez, Prado‐Lorenzo, & Garcia‐Sánches, 2011), considering that
many of these aspects assist in the creation of innovative processes
(Hart, 1995; Husted & Allen, 2007; McWilliams & Siegel, 2000),
including a direct effect on BP (Anser, Zhang, & Kanwal, 2017).
According to Peñalver, Conesa, and Nieto (2018), not only innova-
tions in goods, services, or management processes are recognized
as differentiators that promote competitive advantage for companies
but also factors associated with CSR. The association between CSR
and innovations means that these issues must be effectively studied,
providing a holistic framework to visualize and implement them in a
sustainable context (Poussing, 2018). Among the possibilities, the
models of CSR maturity (CSRM) allow analyzing the strengths and
weaknesses of the organization, demonstrating its evolution in a
given area (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010), besides serving as a
roadmap to managers diagnose which skills are missing (Gluszek,
2017). In the same context, the models of maturity in sustainable
innovation (SIM) can verify the stage in which an organization is
developed and managed regarding innovations (Stahl et al., 2017),
recognizing its strengths and identifying areas of improvement
(Demir, 2018), developing specific skills over time, and thus seek
better BP levels (Hynds et al., 2014).
The literature regarding CSRM mainly focuses on the development
of specific models, without verifying its practical application in compa-
nies (Gottschalk, 2013;Marques‐Mendes & Santos, 2016; Gluszek,
2017), whereas the few empirical studies on this subject, besides act-
ing on different fronts, generally cease to emphasize a specific theo-
retical approach (Withisuphakorn & Jiraporn, 2015;Lauesen, 2016).
Similarly, although the limited researches regarding SIM have sought
to validate their models (Demir, 2018) and/or to test them empirically

Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1
2 BACINELLO
(Hynds et al., 2014; Stahl et al., 2017), these studies perform analysis
only based on companies classifications, without being rigorous in the
definition of a theoretical perspective.
In addition, we did not find in the literature studies investigating
the relationship of CSRM and SIM as possible influencers of BP, dem-
onstrating an important gap that deserves to be investigated. This gap
allows to formulate the following research question:
What is the influence of CSRM on the SIM, and of these perspec-
tives in business performance?
Thus, the aim of this study is to develop two maturity models to
verify the influence of CSRM in the SIM and of these dimensions in
the BP. It can contribute to the managerial level for a better under-
standing of the strategies related to the use of maturity models as a
source of competitive advantage (Jugdev & Thomas, 2002), value cre-
ation, and superior performance to companies (Gluszek, 2017). It can
also formulate bases for the theoretical and empirical advance of stud-
ies related to CSR and SIM, demonstrating how these processes can
be integrated to the economic and social–environmental strategies
developed by the companies, considering the approach predicted by
the resource‐based theory (RBT).
RBT considers the strategic use of resources and capabilities as
potential sources of value creation and competitive advantage gener-
ation (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006), integrating the innovations devel-
oped by companies (Bansal, 2005; Husted & Allen, 2007;
McWilliams & Siegel, 2000). It analyzes the economic management
of the business (Barney, 1991; Petetaf & Barney, 2003), allied to social
actions (Husted & Salazar, 2006; McWilliams & Siegel, 2000; Tate &
Bals, 2018), and environmental demands (Hart, 1995; Russo & Fouts,
1997), seeking to verify its effects on BP (Anser et al., 2017).
This study is structured by this introduction and four more sec-
tions. Section 2 presents a review of the literature on CSR and its rela-
tionship with SIM as possible influencers of BP. In Section 3, the
methodological procedures are listed, followed by Section 4, which
presents the results obtained by the study. Finally, in Section 5, the
discussion is made, followed by the final considerations.
2 | T HE O R E T I C A L F R A M E W O R K
2.1 | Strategic CSR and value creation
According to Branco and Rodrigues (2006), the involvement of compa-
nies with CSR can add value to the business. These benefits can come
from the use of social, environmental, and economic practices in an
integrated and complementary way (Tate & Bals, 2018).
Petetaf and Barney (2003) consider that the main orientation of
CSR is related to its economic effects on business. From this orienta-
tion, the superior resources and capacities are more “efficient,”
allowing a more economical production and/or satisfying the desires
of customers, besides generating greater benefits at a certain cost.
The authors associate the competitive advantage to the creation of
economic value, minus the economic costs of perceived benefits.
ET AL.
On the other hand, Bansal (2005) notes that economic prosperity
involves the creation, production, and distribution of goods and ser-
vices that will help raise the standard of living around the world. The
author emphasizes that the capacities regarding shared vision, stake-
holder management, and strategic proactivity are positively associated
with the adoption of CSR and the improvement in the financial perfor-
mance of companies.
Russo and Fouts (1997) postulate that economic and environmen-
tal performances are positively associated. According to the authors,
this association is related, among other possibilities, to good manage-
ment practices, including the control of environmental pollution, labor
relations, problematic products, and the way of doing business. In the
same sense, Hart (1995) points out that sustainable economic devel-
opment can only be announced if companies are environmentally
responsible. Based on these authors, it is possible to infer that the
environmental value is associated with a positive balance of strategies
related to pollution prevention, product and material management,
and waste reduction, deduced from the costs related to these
processes.
According to Husted and Salazar (2006), the capture of value of
CSR is an element of strategic differentiation for the construction
and maintenance of a corporate reputation, obtained through the ful-
fillment of obligations in a creative and innovative way. For the
authors, a company's reputation depends on its previous actions and
its ability to develop financial and physical resource management skills
to create shareholder value (Acquaah, 2003). In turn, McWilliams and
Siegel (2000, 2011) infer that social value (effect on their reputation,
reduction in capital, and personnel costs) refers to additional revenue
less the costs of their generation.
These previous publications allow to infer that the creation of
value can, according to the premisses of the RBT, occur in the eco-
nomic, social, and environmental aspects; but it needs management
tools that allow to scale these processes. According to Gluszek
(2017), value creation should consider the use of a CSRM model as a
way of assisting managers in determining their CSR stages.
Thus, CSRM can demonstrate the contribution of the activities devel-
oped by the companies and verify its implications in the desired
results, while generating competitive advantages (Marques‐Mendes
& Santos, 2016).
It is worth noting that, in the present research, “value creation”
refers to better levels of BP, from the financial and market aspects.
Based on the above, the first hypothesis of the present study is
H1. A higher level of CSRM is directly associated with
better BP.
2.2 | CSR associated with SIM
Sustainable business models that incorporate economic, social, and
environmental issues consider a broad range of interests, including the
environment and society as important drivers for implementing innova-
tion related to sustainability, as well as serving as the engine of compet-
itive advantage (Anser et al., 2017; Gallego‐Álvarez et al., 2011).
BACINELLO ET AL. 3

A company committed to actions related to CSR can use the stra-
tegic advantage of SIM to add value to the business (Yoon & Tello,
2009). SIM is related to innovations that incorporate economic, social,
and environmental issues as the engine of competitive advantage,
adding positive net value to the company (Anser et al., 2017;
Gallego‐Álvarez et al., 2011). Although this relationship may be bidi-
rectional (Gallego‐Álvarez et al., 2011), CSR can promote the adoption
of SIMs (Poussing, 2018).
This strategy can have a positive impact on the aggregation of
value to the product, providing a competitive advantage to companies
(Aguado, Alavarez, & Domingo, 2013). From this point of view, the
stages established in a SIM model can describe the development of
specific innovation capabilities of an organization over time (Hynds
et al., 2014), helping managers see how these efforts can improve
product development and innovative and sustainable services
(Stahl et al., 2017). In this context, the second research hypothesis is
formulated:
H2. CSRM positively influences SIM.
2.3 | SIM and value creation
Gallego‐Álvarez et al. (2011) and Anser et al. (2017) state that innova-
tion related to sustainability incorporates economic, social, and envi-
ronmental issues as the engine of competitive advantage, adding
positive net value to the company. This value integrates the different
aspects of SIM by offering an analytical tool that combines economic,
ecological, and social issues (Boons & Lüdeke‐Freund, 2013), in

TABLE 1 CSRM, SIM, and BP levels

Dimension Variable Author

Economic (CSRM) Actions to reduce costs in materials management—ECMG Bansal (2005)

Actions with waste management for revenue generation—ECWM
Actions for management of derived technologies—ECMT
Actions to reduce water costs—ECWC Branco and Rodrigues (2006)
Actions to reduce energy costs—ECEC
Process of creating economic value—ECCEV Petetaf and Barney (2003)
Social (CSRM) Corporate reputation management—SOCRM McWilliams and Siegel (2011)
Advertising of social actions—SOASA
Actions to promote education and organizational learning—SOPEL Branco and Rodrigues (2006)
Management of equal opportunities in the company—SOEO
Management of labor practices and good working conditions—SOLP
Management of social actions in the company—SOSA Husted and Salazar (2006)
Process of creating social value—SOCSV
Environment (CSRM) Actions aimed at the management of environmental legislation—ENMEL Medeiros et al. (2014)
Management for clean technology management—ENCT Branco and Rodrigues (2006)
Management of environmental issues with less use of available resources—ENMEI
Sustainable actions for the use of natural resources—ENSA
Actions to encourage environmental programs—ENEP
Actions to treat effluents and waste with lower emissions in air, water, and soil—ENTE
Process of creating environmental value—ENCEV Hart (1995)
Sustainable innovations Technological actions and/or equipment to implement sustainable new products and/or Gallego‐Álvarez et al. (2011)
maturity (SIM) services, with sustainability concern (economic, social, and environmental)—ISNPS
Technological actions and/or equipment used to develop new processes with
sustainability concern—SIDNP
Technological actions and/or equipment used to develop new management or business
methods, looking at economic, environment, and social aspects—SIDNM
Actions related to technological processes and/or research and development, with
sustainability concern—SIR&D
Technological actions and/or equipment used to adapt business to society—SIABS Boons and Lüdeke‐Freund (2013)
Process of creating value with sustainable innovations—SIVCSI
Business performance (BP) Return on total assets—BPRA Gunday et al. (2011)
Total sales—BPS
Customer satisfaction—BPCS
Operating profit—BPOP Pelham and Wilson (1996)
Growth rate of sales—BPGS
Change in the employment rate—BPCE
Market share—BPMS Cheng et al. (2014)
Return on investment—BPRI
Aggregate financial and market value of the product and/or service—BPAFMV

Source: Elaborated by the authors.

4 BACINELLO
addition to providing a new way, method, procedure, or technique in
which the main stages of value chain activity (inbound logistics, pro-
duction, outbound logistics, marketing, sales, and services) can help
in the discovery of additional opportunities (Varadarajan, 2017).
According to Chen (2016), SIM is an inexhaustible source of busi-
ness development, bringing the opportunity for economic benefits
(profits) to continue to grow. In addition, it supports the capacities
and skills of sustainable business management, translating into actions
that lead to innovation and sustainable competitive advantage (Wu,
Liao, Tseng, & Chou, 2015).
Gunday, Ulusoy, Kilic, and Alpkan (2011) find that sustainability‐
related innovations can make manufacturing processes more produc-
tive, improving corporate reputation in customer perceptions, and
providing a sustainable competitive advantage. In addition, Halme
and Korpela (2013) indicate that through these innovations, compa-
nies can use resources to assess BP, financial capital, skills (industry
knowledge and intellectual property rights), social capital (R&D
networks and cooperation), and reputation assets.
Cheng, Yang, and Sheu (2014) find that performance is affected
directly and indirectly by eco‐organization, eco‐process, and eco‐
product innovations. Medeiros, Ribeiro, and Cortimiglia (2014) demon-
strate the need for regulatory laws, financial incentive policies, and
orientation towards research on cleaner technologies as a guide to
SIM. According to the authors, the search for sustainable levels of per-
formance is relevant in the environmental, social, economic, and man-
agement areas. According to Demir (2018), innovation can be
considered a source of sustainability for companies. In this context,
the management of SIM actions in companies, based on the use of
SIM, can respond to the dynamic environment of the business related
to the proposition of value (Demir, 2018) having a significant impact
on BP (Stahl et al., 2017). From these arguments, the third study
hypothesis is established:
H3. A high level of SIM positively influences BP.
3 | METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES
The current research, of a predominantly quantitative nature, submit-
ted questionnaires asking about CSRM, SIM, and BP (measured by
financial and market performance) to 845 managers and/or supervi-
sors of Brazilian companies, from a database with 500 largest and best
companies of Exame Magazine 2016, complemented by the compa-
nies listed on the São Paulo Stock Exchange (BM & F‐BOVESPA) of
the same year. The submission of questionnaires was between July
and October 2017, removing duplication of answers. These question-
naires were validated by six specialists (researchers and managers) and
subsequently complemented by statistical procedures, based on the
results of Cronbach's alpha (CA), composite reliability (CR), and
extracted mean variance (A.V.E.).
To establish the ideal sample size, we followed the recommenda-
tions made by Ringle, Silva, and Bido (2014) on the use of the
G*Power software, 3.1.9.2 version. Following the established criteria,
the calculation indicated a total sample size of 68 that, adjusted for
ET AL.
the validation of the result (double), corresponded to 136 companies.
Considering that we received answers from 154 companies, this num-
ber was considered representative (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt,
2014) for the analysis of structural equation modeling by the partial
least squares (PLS) method.
The variables composing CSRM are based on three different
dimensions: economic, social, and environment. The SIM and BP com-
prise a range of indicators, as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 2 Maturity levels
Lack of practices and standards related to corporate
Level 1 social responsibility and sustainable innovation
Level 2 Informality or implementation phase of practices and standards
related to corporate social responsibility and sustainable
innovation
Level 3 Formal establishment of practices and standards related to
corporate social responsibility and sustainable innovation
Level 4 Formal establishment and strategic systemic use of practices/
standards of corporate social responsibility and sustainable
innovation
Level 5 Formal establishment, strategic systemic use, and pursuit of
continuous improvement to optimize practices/standards
related to corporate social responsibility and sustainable
innovation
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
TABLE 3 Levels for maturity assessment used in this research
CSRM and SIM Definition
1 to 2 Inexistence or informality of practices and standards of
corporate social responsibilitya. The concepts value,
rarity, and competitive positions are not explored,
demonstrating a disadvantage or competitive
weakness of companies.
>2 to 3 Established practices and standards of corporate social
responsibilitya. In this interval, only the value is
manifested and exploited by the company,
representing a competitive parity compared with
competitors.
>3 to 4 Formal establishment and strategic use of practices
and standards of corporate social responsibilitya.
Here, the value and rarity are explored by the
company, representing a temporary competitive
advantage compared with competitors.
>4 to 5 Systemic and strategic use and search for continuous
improvement to optimize practices and standards of
corporate social responsibilitya. Within this range,
the value of rarity and imitability is exploited by the
company and represents a sustainable competitive
advantage over competitors.
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
a
Corporate social responsibility substituted by “sustainable innovations”
for the questions regarding innovations management.
BACINELLO ET AL. 5

3.1 | Models for evaluation of CSRM and SIM the criteria and classifications anticipated mainly by the works of
Baumgartner and Ebner (2010) and Hynds et al. (2014), measuring
The present research consisted of the development of a CSRM and the maturity of companies in five levels, as shown in Table 2.
SIM model adapted to the needs of the study (Table 1), following It is important to emphasize that, although the levels of maturity
express the context in which the companies are inserted, it was
TABLE 4 Analysis of levels for business performance (BP) evaluation decided to use the results between the levels, considering that the
used in this research
mean values are not accurate. Thus, following the RBT criteria on
BP Definition value, and rarity (Barney, 1991), allied to the organizations' competi-

1 to 2 Performance varies from much worse to worse, indicating a
disadvantage or weakness of the company
>2 to 3 Performance varies from medium to similar, corresponding to a
parity to competitors
>3 to 4 Above average to superior performance, representing a
temporary competitive advantage in relation to competitors
>4 to 5 High to very high performance, reflecting a sustainable
competitive advantage or competitive strength distinct from
competitors
Source: Elaborated by the authors.
tive positions (Barney & Hesterly, 2007), we made the classifications
according to Table 3.
The BP was evaluated based on the perception of respondents,
from a Likert‐type scale, with scores varying from 1: much worse;
2: worse/lower; 3: average/equal; 4: better/higher to 5: much
better/higher, compared with competitors. As foreseen in the
models of CSRM and SIM, based on the assumptions of the RBT,
the analysis of the intervals between levels was considered accord-
ing to the competitive positions (Barney & Hesterly, 2007), as shown
in Table 4.

TABLE 5 Business sectors and maturity levels

Economic sector Frequency CSRM/companies SIM/companies BP/companies

Basic materials 31 1 to 2 (2) 1 to 2 (2) >2 to 3 (1)

>2 to 3 (5) >2 to 3 (4) >3 to 4 (12)
>3 to 4 (9) >3 to 4 (13) >4 to 5 (18)
>4 to 5 (15) >4 to 5 (12)
Oil/gas/biofuels 5 >3 to 4 (4) >2 to 3 (2) >4 to 5 (5)
>4 to 5 (1) >3 to 4 (2)
>4 to 5 (1)
Industrial goods 23 >2 to 3 (4) >2 to 3 (3) >2 to 3 (1)
>3 to 4 (6) >3 to 4 (8) >3 to 4 (4)
>4 to 5 (13) >4 to 5 (12) >4 to 5 (18)
Noncyclic consumption 18 >2 to 3 (1) >2 to 3 (2) >3 to 4 (4)
>3 to 4 (8) >3 to 4 (7) >4 to 5 (14)
>4 to 5 (9) >4 to 5 (9)
Cyclic consumption 42 1 to 2 (4) 1 to 2 (8) >2 to 3 (6)
>2 to 3 (6) >2 to 3 (6) >3 to 4 (16)
>3 to 4 (15) >3 to 4 (13) >4 to 5 (20)
>4 to 5 (17) >4 to 5 (15)
Health 11 1 to 2 (2) 1 to 2 (2) >2 to 3 (1)
>2 to 3 (3) >2 to 3 (1) >3 to 4 (3)
>3 to 4 (5) >3 to 4 (5) >4 to 5 (7)
>4 to 5 (1) >4 to 5 (3)
Telecommunications 3 >2 to 3 (2) 1 to 2 (1) >3 to 4 (2)
>3 to 4 (1) >2 to 3 (1) >4 to 5 (1)
>3 to 4 (1)
Public utility 12 \>3 to 4 (7) 1 to 2 (1) >3 to 4 (5)
>4 to 5 (5) >2 to 3 (1) >4 to 5 (7)
>3 to 4 (8)
>4 to 5 (2)
Financial/other 9 >2 to 3 (1) 1 to 2 (2) >2 to 3 (1)
>3 to 4 (3) >2 to 3 (3) >3 to 4 (3)
>4 to 5 (5) >3 to 4 (1) >4 to 5 (5)
>4 to 5 (3)

Source: Elaborated by the authors.

6 BACINELLO ET AL.

4 | RESULTS TABLE 6 Reliability and validity of construct

Constructs of
4.1 | Profile and maturity of the investigated the first order CA CR A.V.E.
companies Economic dimension .895 0.920 0.657
Social dimension .908 0.927 0.645
The surveyed companies comprise nine economic sectors: services
Environmental .927 0.941 0.698
sector (53), industry and trade (44), industry (26), trade and services
dimension
(19), and industry and service (12). It was also found that most compa-
BP .909 0.925 0.580
nies have more than 500 employees (96) whereas the others have
SIM .932 0.946 0.746
between 100 and 500 employees (58). Table 5 shows the sectors sur-
Expected value >.70 >0.70 >0.50
veyed and the average levels of CSRM, SIM, and BP obtained. Appen-
dix 1 presents the statistical results (average, variance, asymmetry and Reference Hair, Babin, Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Hair et al.
Anderson, Chatelin, and (2014)
curtose) of the answers for each question.
Tatham, LAURO(2005)
Table 5 shows that most of the investigated sectors demonstrated and Black
in CSRM have a sustainable competitive advantage (Levels >4 to 5), (2005)
followed by a temporary competitive advantage (Levels >3 to 4) and,
Source: Research Data–Smart PLS software.
to a lesser extent, the other classifications, except in the telecommuni-
Abbreviations: BP, business performance; SIM, sustainable innovation
cations and health sector. In the SIM, there was a balance between the maturity.
sustainable competitive advantage and the temporary competitive
advantage, accompanied by the other specifications, with the excep-
TABLE 7 Values obtained in VIF, DV, and HTMT
tion of the oil/gas/biofuels sector. In turn, regarding BP, there was a
Dimension Economic Social Environm. SIM BP
prevalence of sustainable advantage/distinct competitive strength
(Levels >4 to 5), accompanied by temporary advantage/competitive VIF CSRM 2.672 1.892 2.212 1.00 2.405
strength (Levels >3 to 4), considering that only five sectors demon- SIM 2.405

strated inferior results. These results corroborate, in part, the findings DV CSRM —
Economic 0.810 —
of Jugdev and Thomas (2002), verifying that, in general, companies
Social 0.673 0.803 —
achieve a temporary competitive advantage, although in this study, a
Environm. 0.730 0.583 0.835 —
good part stated having superior results. SIM 0.671 0.624 0.708 0.864 —
FMP 0.599 0.527 0.555 0.615 0.761
HTMT CSRM 0.976 0.918 0.938 0.804 0.676
4.2 | Analysis based on structural equation modeling Social 0.740
Environm. 0.800 0.622
SIM 0.733 0.666 0.758
The use of the ESM‐PLS is justified by allowing the minimization of
FMP 0.660 0.566 0.598 0.663
the terms of error (residual variance) of the endogenous constructs
Reference VIF: <10 (Hair et al., 2005); DV: higher values in their
and by maximizing the values (R2) of the endogenous constructs (Hair
relationships (Hair et al., 2014);c>0.85 (Henseler, Ringle, &
et al., 2014). According to the authors, PLS aims to develop a theory Sarstedt, 2005)
and explain its variance (construction prediction).
Source: Research Data–Smart PLS software.
Table 6 shows the consistency of the questionnaire components,
Abbreviations: CSRM, corporate social responsibility maturity; DV, discrim-
verified through CA, CR, and A.V.E.
inant validity; FMP, Financial and Market Performance; HTMT,
The values of CA and CR presented results >0.7, being consid- heterotrait–monotrait ratio; SIM, sustainable innovation maturity; VIF, var-
ered adequate for the model (Hair et al., 2005), as occurred in the iance inflation factor.
CR (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). Similarly, the values found in the A.V.
E. were also consistent with the established parameter, that is >0.5 latent variable is different from the other constructs (Hair et al.,
(Chin, 1998). 2014). In addition, heterotrait–monotrait ratio indicated that despite
Table 7 presents the results obtained in the variance inflation the economic, social, and environmental perspectives of CSRM pres-
factor, discriminant validity—Fornell–Larcker method, and the ent results close to one (second order of CSRM), the other values
heterotrait–monotrait ratio. obtained were consistent with the established limits (Henseler
The values of the variance inflation factor in the relationship et al., 2005).
between the three dimensions of the CSRM with the SIM and BP, Student's t test indicated adequate values (T > 1.96 and sig. <.05)
considering the second‐order construct or the underlying latent var- for all analyzed variables (Hair et al., 2014). Sequentially, the structural
iable of the first order (Wetzels, Odekerken‐Schroder, & Van Oppen, model is presented, as shown in Figure 1.
2009), were considered suitable for the model (Hair et al., 2005). The model shows that, among the three perspectives analyzed, the
The discriminant validity demonstrated that the construction of each environmental dimension was the one that demonstrated to exert
BACINELLO ET AL. 7

FIGURE 1 Structural model. Source: Research Data–Smart PLS software

TABLE 8 R2, Q2, and f2 coeficients greater influence in CSRM, followed, in order of magnitude, by the
social and economic perspective. In turn, CSRM influences SIM, as
Dimension R2 Q2 f2
well as both dimensions showed to be representative in the BP, pre-
FMP (1st order) .447 0.235 0.410 senting path coefficients (β) considered representative.
SIM (1st order) .584 0.401 0.540 As can be seen in Table 8, the coefficients of the explained vari-
CSRM (2nd order) 1.00 0.471 0.394 ance (R2) indicated a great effect (Hair et al., 2005). The predictive
Expected value >0.33 0 to 1 (the higher, >0.15 validity values (Q2) were positive and >0, indicating that the model is
the better) close to the expected, whereas the results obtained in effect size
Reference Chin (1998) Hair et al. (2014) Hair et al. (2014) ( f 2) indicate values that are consistent with exogenous construction
(Hair et al., 2014).
Source: Research Data–Smart PLS software.
Finally, a new “t” test was performed to verify the ratios indicated
Abbreviations: CSRM, corporate social responsibility maturity; SIM, sus-
tainable innovation maturity. in H1, H2, and H3, as shown in Table 9.
The values obtained in both t test and P value were within accept-
able standards (t ≥ 1.96 and P value <.05) in the relationships between
the CSRM dimension and the FMP (t = 4.711; P value = .000),
TABLE 9 Hypothesis verification
between CSRM and SIM (t = 15.717; P value = .000), and between
t: β/ P SIM and FMP (t = 3.587; P value = .000). These results allow the
Hip. Construct B DP DP value Hypothesis acceptance of H1, H2, and H3, as discussed below.
H1 Dimension CSRM 0.764 0.046 4.711 .000 Accepted
FMP
H2 Dimension CSRM 0.303 0.084 15.717 .000 Accepted 5 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Dimension
SIM In response to the claim that a higher level of CSRM is directly associ-
H3 Dimension SIM 0.408 0.087 3.587 .000 Accepted ated with better BP (H1), it is observed, based on the reference values
FMP (t = 4.711; P value = .000), that the creation of value can be perceived
Source: Research Data–Smart PLS software. from the economic (Bansal, 2005; Petetaf & Barney, 2003), social
Abbreviations: CSRM, corporate social responsibility maturity; SIM, sus- (Husted & Salazar, 2006; McWilliams & Siegel, 2011), and environ-
tainable innovation maturity. mental perspectives (Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; Tate & Bals, 2018).
8 BACINELLO
In addition, although McWilliams and Siegel (2000) found a neutral
relationship between CSR and corporate performance, the findings
of the present study corroborate other studies (Acquaah, 2003; Busch
& Friede, 2018; Russo & Fouts, 1997), pointing out that this relation-
ship is positive.
Thus, CSRM allows to define strategic objectives in economic,
social, and environmental issues (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010), captur-
ing explicit and coded practices that can result in competitive advan-
tage and superior performance for companies (Jugdev & Thomas,
2002). In addition, CSRM can assist managers in analyzing possible
areas that need to develop social responsibility activities (Gluszek,
2017), besides adding value and bringing opportunities for society
(Gottschalk, 2013;Lauesen, 2016), in an integrated manner with the
business strategy (Marques‐Mendes & Santos, 2016). In this context,
H1 is accepted.
In the argumentation that CSRM exerts influence on SIM (H2), the
results (t = 15.717; P value = .000) show that CSR assists in the crea-
tion of innovative processes (Hart, 1995; Husted & Allen, 2007;
McWilliams & Siegel, 2000), promoting competitive advantage
through goods, services, or management processes (Peñalver et al.,
2018) and allowing companies to obtain better levels of reputation
in the market (Gunday et al., 2011).
Although Gallego‐Álvarez et al. (2011) verified that generally com-
panies do not implement innovations related to sustainability, the stra-
tegic association with CSR shows SIMs be contemned in the business
models (Anser et al., 2017; Poussing, 2018), providing the achieve-
ment of strategic advantage (Yoon & Tello, 2009) that adds economic
(Chen, 2016; Wu et al., 2015), social (Halme & Korpela, 2013), and
environmental value (Aguado et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2014), possibly
leading to the generation of competitive advantage.
The influence of CSRM on SIM indicates the close relationship
between economic, social, and environmental issues with the develop-
ment and implementation of innovations with a focus on sustainability
(Stahl et al., 2017), allowing companies to create business value and
gain a competitive advantage (Hynds et al., 2014). Based on the above,
we support H2.
With the indication that a higher level of SIM is directly associ-
ated with better BP (H3), it is established from the observed results
(t = 3.587; P value = .000) that SIM can add value to companies
(Anser et al., 2017; Boons & Lüdeke‐Freund, 2013; Gallego‐Álvarez
et al., 2011; Varadarajan, 2017). This value enables a better level
of performance in business and financial capital of companies (Halme
& Korpela, 2013; Medeiros et al., 2014) that can result in economic
benefits (Chen, 2016) in addition to capacities and skills that lead to
the generation of sustainable competitive advantage (Gunday et al.,
2011; Wu et al., 2015).
As predicted by previous studies (Anser et al., 2017; Cheng et al.,
2014), the present study shows that innovations focusing on sustain-
ability directly influence BP, enabling companies to generate compet-
itive advantage. In this sense, H3 is accepted.
Thus, it is verified that the factors associated with CSR can gener-
ate competitive advantage in companies (Peñalver et al., 2018), pro-
viding opportunities for economic, social, and environmental gains
ET AL.
through its integration with innovative actions (Bansal, 2005; Hart,
1995; Husted & Allen, 2007; McWilliams & Siegel, 2000) and influenc-
ing, thus, the performance of the business (Anser et al., 2017).
5.1 | Final considerations
The main objective of this study was to develop two maturity
models to verify the influence of CSRM in the SIM and of these
dimensions in BP. It was verified that, according to the assumptions
of the RBT, the sample companies demonstrated to exert a sustain-
able competitive advantage and/or temporary competitive advantage
in CSRM and SIM. In turn, companies indicated having a sustainable
advantage/distinct competitive strength and/or temporary
advantage/competitive strength in BP.
The use of the proposed CSRM model allows to assist companies
in the implementation and management of the strategic practices of
CSR, enabling the analysis of value creation in the economic, social,
and environmental aspects, and the generation of a competitive
advantage that can be temporary and/or sustainable, depending on
the success of the strategies developed by the companies.
This study demonstrated that CSR can act in an integrated manner
with SIMs and that, based on the use of CSRM and SIM, focused on
resource management and capacity and skills development can lever-
age a superior performance compared with competitors.
Considering the difficulty to collect information regarding the
primary data, it is believed that this study brings a significant scien-
tific and managerial contribution, bringing the opinion of the man-
agers of the companies about factors related to CSR and SIM,
unlike most previous works that use only secondary data. In addi-
tion, the present research consists in the development and practical
application of two maturity models, considering that much of the
literature does not, or when they do, consider a qualitative analysis
of the data, which makes it difficult to replicate the research and
confirm findings.
The fact that companies can manage the use of their resources and
capabilities as a way of creating value and a competitive advantage
over their competitors reveals an important theoretical debate that,
over time, has been carried out more frequently. It is believed that
the findings of this research allow us to advance in strategy research,
bringing the RBT as a theoretical platform to explain the factors asso-
ciated with CSR and SIM.
In addition, this study brings a managerial contribution, providing
tools that can be used by any type of company to analyze issues
related to sustainability. This diagnosis can help managers to identify
the organization's strengths and weaknesses, so they can design and
implement strategies that foster better outcomes and demonstrate
their commitment to society and environment.
As the main limitations, we indicate that there are few studies
investigating CSRM and SIM, demonstrating that more studies
should be developed to consolidate this field of investigation.
Another limiting factor relates to the sample used and in the form
of data collection, which, because of personal opinions, may
BACINELLO ET AL.
contain a respondents' biases. Also, another limitation is related to the
investigated dimensions regarding CSRM (economic, social, and envi-
ronment). Dahlsrud (2008) shows that besides these dimensions, the
scientific literature explores that CSR is also formed by
stakeholder dimension and voluntariness dimension. It is suggested
as future studies the replication of the maturity model developed in
this research considering other samples, as well as the use of control
variables to analyze the results.
ORCID
Edilson Bacinello https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1555-8176
Gérson Tontini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7430-562X
Anete Alberton https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6477-0122
RE FE R ENC E S
Acquaah, M. (2003). Organizational competence and firm‐specific Tobin's
q: The moderating role of corporate reputation. Strategic Organization,
1, 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F14761270030014002
Aguado, S., Alavarez, R., & Domingo, R. (2013). Model of efficient and sus-
tainable improvements in a lean production system through processes
of environmental innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47,
141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.048
Anser, M. K., Zhang, Z., & Kanwal, L. (2017). Moderating effect of innovation
on corporate social responsibility and firm performance in realm of sus-
tainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 25(6), 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1495
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate
sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3),
197–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.441
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014920639101700108
Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). Strategic management and competi-
tive advantage: Brazilian cases. São Paulo: Pearson.
Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies:
Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development,
18(2), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.447
Boons, F., & Lüdeke‐Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable
innovation: State‐of‐the‐art and steps towards a research agenda. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 45(13), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.07.007
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and
resource‐based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 111–132.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551‐006‐9071‐Z
Busch, T., & Friede, G. (2018). The robustness of the corporate social and
financial performance relation: A second‐order meta‐analysis. Corpo-
rate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25,
583–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1480
Chen, S. H. (2016). The influencing factors of enterprise sustainable inno-
vation: An empirical study. Sustainability, 8(5), 2–17. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su8050425
Cheng, C. C. J., Yang, C. I., & Sheu, C. (2014). The link between eco‐
innovation and business performance: A Taiwanese industry context.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.09.050
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equa-
tion modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
9
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An
analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ-
mental Management, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132
Demir, F. (2018). A strategic management maturity model for innovation.
Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(11), 13–21. https://doi.
org/10.22215/timreview/1196
Gallego‐Álvarez, I., Prado‐Lorenzo, J. M., & Garcia‐Sánches, I. M. (2011).
Corporate social responsibility and innovation: A resource‐based the-
ory. Management Decision, 49(10), 1709–1727. https://doi.org/
10.1108/00251741111183843
Gluszek, E. (2017). Corporate social responsibility in management theory &
business practice. Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership,
4(3), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.12775/JCRL.2017.015
Gottschalk, P. (2013). Limits to corporate social responsibility: The case of
Gjensidige insurance company and Hells Angels motorcycle club. Cor-
porate Reputation Review, 16(3), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1057/
crr.2013.11
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation
types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Econom-
ics, 133(2), 662–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.014
Hair, J. F., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2005).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS‐SEM). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Halme, M., & Korpela, M. (2013). Responsible innovation toward sustain-
able development in small and medium‐sized enterprises: A resource
perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(8), 547–566.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1801
Hart, S. (1995). A natural resource‐based view of the firm. Academy of
Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014. https://doi.org/10.2307/
258963
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2005). A new criterion for
assessing discriminant validity in variance‐based structural equation
modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1),
115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747‐014‐0403‐8
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2007). Strategic corporate social responsibil-
ity and value creation among large firms lessons from the Spanish
experience. Long Range Planning, 40, 594–610. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lrp.2007.07.001
Husted, B. W., & Salazar, J. J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximiz-
ing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies,
43(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6486.2006.00583.x
Hynds, E. J. B., Randt, V., Burek, S., Jager, W., Knox, P., Parker, J. P., …
Zietlow, M. (2014). Maturity model for sustainability in new product
development: A new assessment tool allows companies to benchmark
progress toward sustainability goals and drive NPD growth. Research‐
Technology Management, 57, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.5437/
08956308X5701143
Jugdev, K., & Thomas, J. (2002). Project management maturity models: The
silver bullets of competitive advantage? Project Management Journal,
33(4), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280203300402
Lauesen, L. M. (2016). CSR maturity and motivation in the water sector.
Social Responsibility Journal, 12(3), 506–522. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SRJ‐05‐2015‐0063
Marques‐Mendes, A., & Santos, M. J. (2016). Strategic CSR: An integrative
model for analysis. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 1–33. https://doi.
org/10.1108/SRJ‐04‐2015‐0055
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and
financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic
10
Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/
(SICI)1097‐0266(200005)21:5<3C603::AID‐SMJ101>3E3.0.CO;2‐3
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic
corporate social responsibility, resource based theory and sustainable
competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1480–1149.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385696
Medeiros, J. F., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2014). Success factors
for environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic liter-
ature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 76–86. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.035
Pelham, A. M., & Wilson, D. T. A. (1996). Longitudinal study of the impact
of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation
culture on dimensions of small‐firm performance. Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02893935
Peñalver, A. J. B., Conesa, J. A. B., & Nieto, C. N. (2018). Analysis of corpo-
rate social responsibility in Spanish agribusiness and its influence on
innovation and performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi-
ronmental Management, 25, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.1448
Petetaf, M., & Barney, J. (2003). Unraveling the resource‐based tangle.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mde.1126
Poussing, N. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility encourage sus-
tainable innovation adoption? Empirical evidence from Luxembourg.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1712
Ringle, C. M., Silva, D., & Bido, D. S. (2014). Modeling structural equations
using SmartPLS. REMark, 13(2), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.5585/
remark.v13i2.2717
Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997). A resource‐based perspective on corporate
environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management
Journal, 40(3), 534–559. https://doi.org/10.2307/257052
Stahl, B. C., Obach, M., Yaghmaei, E. Ikonen, V., Chatfield, K., & Bream, A.
(2017). The responsible research and innovation (RRI) maturity model:
BACINELLO ET AL.
Linking theory and practice. Sustainability, 9(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su9061036
Tate, W., & Bals, L. (2018). Achieving shared triple bottom line (TBL) value
creation: Toward a social resource‐based (SRBV) of the firm. Journal of
Business Ethics, 152(3), 803–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐
016‐3344‐y
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path
modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005
Varadarajan, R. (2017). Innovating for sustainability: A framework for sus-
tainable innovations and a model of sustainable innovations
orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1),
14–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747‐015‐0461‐6
Wetzels, M., Odekerken‐Schroder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS
path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines
and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195. https://doi.
org/10.2307/20650284
Withisuphakorn, P., & Jiraporn, P. (2015). The effect of firm maturity on
corporate social responsibility (CSR): Do older firms invest more in
CSR? Applied Economics Letters, 23, 298–301. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13504851.2015.1071464
Wu, K. J., Liao, C. J., Tseng, M. L., & Chou, P. J. (2015). Understanding inno-
vation for sustainable business management capabilities and
competencies under uncertainty. Sustainability, 7, 13726–13760.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su71013726
Yoon, E., & Tello, S. (2009). Drivers of sustainable innovation: Exploratory
views and corporate strategies. Seoul Journal of Business, 15(2),
85–115. https://doi.org/10.35152/snusjb.2009.15.2.004
How to cite this article: Bacinello E, Tontini G, Alberton A.
Influence of maturity on corporate social responsibility and
sustainable innovation in business performance. Corp Soc Resp
Env Ma. 2019;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1841
BACINELLO ET AL. 11

APPENDIX A

TABLE A1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF VARIABLES

Asymmetry Curtose
n Average Variance
Statistics Statistics Statistics Statistics Standard error Statistics Standard error
ECMG 154 3.8052 1.360 −0.815 0.195 −0.099 0.389
ECWM 154 3.6039 1.692 −0.782 0.195 −0.476 0.389
ECMT 154 3.7662 1.304 −0.649 0.195 −0.449 0.389
ECWC 154 3.9221 1.079 −0.764 0.195 0.022 0.389
ECEC 154 3.8701 1.316 −0.768 0.195 −0.296 0.389
ECCEV 154 3.6818 1.225 −0.777 0.195 0.062 0.389
SOCRM 154 4.0325 0.764 −1.016 0.195 1.528 0.389
SOASA 154 3.9610 0.953 −1.075 0.195 1.173 0.389
SOPEL 154 3.9545 0.946 −0.945 0.195 0.766 0.389
SOEO 154 3.9416 0.931 −0.678 0.195 −0.061 0.389
SOLP 154 3.9610 0.717 −0.645 0.195 0.318 0.389
SOSA 154 3.7403 1.318 −0.736 0.195 −0.230 0.389
SOCSV 154 3.8377 1.013 −0.721 0.195 0.138 0.389
ENMEL 154 3.7078 1.071 −0.642 0.195 −0.059 0.389
ENCT 154 3.5974 1.419 −0.681 0.195 −0.428 0.389
ENMEI 154 3.5130 1.872 −0.648 0.195 −0.791 0.389
ENSA 154 3.5649 1.672 −0.816 0.195 −0.392 0.389
ENEP 154 3.4935 1.690 −0.565 0.195 −0.767 0.389
Body 154 3.6558 1.404 −0.832 0.195 −0.056 0.389
ENCEV 154 3.4740 1.715 −0.615 0.195 −0.742 0.389
SIABS 154 3.6364 1.187 −0.617 0.195 −0.340 0.389
SIDNP 154 3.5909 1.289 −0.581 0.195 −0.350 0.389
ISNPS 154 3.6169 1.179 −0.647 0.195 −0.100 0.389
SIDNM 154 3.4351 1.437 −0.618 0.195 −0.501 0.389
SIRD 154 3.4675 1.532 −0.595 0.195 −0.637 0.389
SIVCSI 154 3.5974 1.262 −0.639 0.195 −0.250 0.389
BPRA 154 4.1169 0.731 −0.736 0.195 −0.095 0.389
BPS 154 4.0714 0.655 −0.356 0.195 −0.809 0.389
BPCS 154 4.1558 0.721 −0.629 0.195 −0.520 0.389
BPOP 154 4.0260 0.888 −0.717 0.195 0.049 0.389
BPGS 154 4.2078 0.767 −0.774 0.195 −0.395 0.389
BPCE 154 3.9545 0.750 −0.524 0.195 −0.347 0.389
BPMS 154 4.2143 0.640 −0.950 0.195 0.668 0.389
BPRI 154 4.2338 0.664 −0.823 0.195 0.010 0.389
BPAFMV 154 4.1623 0.804 −1.099 0.195 1.163 0.389
Valid N (listwise) 154

Source: Research Data—SPSS software.