Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Business Group Affiliation and Corporate Sustainability Strategies of Firms: An Investigation of Firms in India

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In spite of an overwhelming importance of business groups (BG) in the economic development of many countries, systematic inquiry on how the BGs and their affiliated firms approach and contribute to shared value creation and sustainable development is rare. In this paper we address this research gap by investigating two related questions—do BG-affiliated firms differ from non-BG firms in their corporate sustainability strategy (CSS) and how does BG affiliation influence the relationship between stock of fungible resources and CSS of firms? Drawing from the BG literature we theorize that BG-affiliated firms tend to adopt of both environmental and social sustainability strategies more than non-BG firms. We also argue that although according to resource-based view, the stock of fungible resources of firms positively influences CSS, BG affiliation negatively moderates the relationship between stock of fungible resources and CSS of firms. Stock of fungible resources matters less for BG-affiliated firms in undertaking CSS as they have access to resources of the BG network. We test our theoretical predictions using a proprietary data set of 163 Indian publicly listed firms, out of which 76 are BG-affiliated firms belonging to 74 BGs. The data for corporate environmental and social sustainability strategies have been obtained by administering a survey instrument among the top level executives of the participating firms. We find support for our theoretical predictions that signify that BGs and their affiliates make important contributions to shared value creation and sustainable development in emerging economies like India.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. (1998). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 641–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, H., & Wolfenzon, D. (2006). A theory of pyramidal ownership and family business groups. Journal of Finance, 61, 2637–2681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amato, L. H., & Amato, C. H. (2007). The effects of firm size on corporate giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, J., & Singh, H. (1997). Asset redeployment, acquisitions and corporate strategy in declining industries. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. H. (2008). Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network opportunities: A study of managers’ information gathering behaviours. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29, 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28, 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(8), 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainability development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 21(1), 70–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., Gao, J., & Qureshi, I. (2014). The extensiveness of corporate social and environmental commitment across firms over time. Organizational Studies, 1–14.

  • Bansal, P., Jiang, G. F., & Jung, J. C. (2015). Managing responsibly in tough economic times: Strategic and tactical CSR during the 2008–2009 global recession. Long Range Planning, 48, 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 705–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, A., & Ostry, J. (2011). Inequality and unsustainable growth: Two sides of the same coin? IMF Staff Discussion Note No. 11/08, International Monetary Fund.

  • Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 82–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 891–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., Mehta, P., & Mullainathan, S. (2002). Ferreting out tunnelling: An application to Indian business groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 121–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beschorner, T. (2013). Creating shared value: The one-trick pony approach—a comment on Michael Porter and Mark Kramer. Business Ethics Journal Review, 17(1), 106–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S., Klemm, A., Newton-Smith, R., Syed, M., & Vlieghe, G. (2004). The roles of expected profitability, tobin’s q, and cash flow in econometric models of company investment.Institute for Fiscal Studies Working paper series, WP04/12. London, UK: Institute for Fiscal Studies.

  • Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2016). Building theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 293–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borland, H., & Lindgreen, A. (2013). Sustainability, epistemology, ecocentric business, and marketing strategy: Ideology, reality, and vision. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 173–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S. J., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 435–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., Heugens, P. P., Van Essen, M., & Van Oosterhout, J. (2011). Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 437–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, G., & White, P. (2004). Sustainable development: Finding the real business case. International Journal for Sustainable Business, 11(2), 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chacar, A., & Vissa, B. (2005). Are emerging economies less efficient? Performance persistence and the impact of business group affiliation. Strategic Management Journal, 26(10), 933–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarty, S., & Wang, L. (2012). The long-term sustenance of sustainability practices in MNCs: A dynamic capabilities perspective of the role of R&D and internationalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 205–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. J., & Hong, J. (2000). Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: Intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 429–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittoor, R., Kale, P., & Puranam, P. (2015). Business groups in developing capital markets: Towards a complementarity perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1277–1296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittoor, R., Sarkar, M. B., Ray, S., & Aulakh, P. S. (2009). Third-world copycats to emerging multinationals: Institutional changes and organizational transformation in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Organization Science, 20(1), 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 267–293.

  • Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., Fan, J. P., & Lang, L. H. (2006). The benefits and costs of group affiliation: Evidence from East Asia. Emerging Markets Review, 7, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colpan, A. M., Hikino, T., & Lincoln, J. R. (2010). Introduction. In M. Asli, T. Hikino, & J. R. Lincoln (Eds.) Oxford handbook of business groups, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of ‘Creating shared value’. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Acedemy of Management Journal, 29(4), 847–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., & Edwards, D. (2006). Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 301–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., Diekman, K., & Tinsley, C. H. (1994). The decline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the 1980s: The deinstitutionalization of an organizational form. American Sociological Review, 59, 547–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb, P., David, P., & O’Brien, J. (2017). When is cash good or bad for firm performance? Strategic Management Journal, 38, 436–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow, P. M., Kothari, S. P., & Watts, R. L. (1998). The relation between earnings and cash flows. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25(2), 133–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and the sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504–1511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elango, B., & Pattnaik, C. (2007). Building capabilities for international operations through networks: A study of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 541–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society: Stony Creek. CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Encarnation, D. J. (1989). Dislodging multinationals: India’s strategy in comparative perspective. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D. C. (2017). Red lights to green lights: From 20th century environmental regulation to 21st century sustainability. Environmental Laws, 47(1), 1–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J., Jin, L., & Zheng, G. (2016). Revisiting the bright and dark sides of capital flows in business groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 134, 509–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisman, R., & Khanna, T. (1998). Facilitating development: The role of business groups. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisman, R., & Khanna, T. (2004). Facilitating development: The role of business groups. World Development, 32, 609–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., Kumar, V., & Singh, D. (2014). Institutions, resources, and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, M. L. (1992). Alliance capitalism: The social organization of Japanese business. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Haynes, K., Nuñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socio- emotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 106–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1995). Coase revisited: Business groups in the modern economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4(1), 93–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (2005a). Business groups and social organization. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (2nd edn., pp. 429–450). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (2005b). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioural sciences, (4th edn.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubbi, S. R., Aulakh, P. S., & Ray, S. (2015). International search behaviour of business group affiliated firms: Scope of institutional changes and intragroup heterogeneity. Organization Science, 26(5), 1485–1501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillén, M. F. (2000). Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 362–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul, F. A., & Tsui, J. S. (1998). A test of the free cash flow and debt monitoring hypotheses: Evidence from audit pricing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24, 219–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanison, M., & Hudalis, J. (2006). The relationship between the risk management practices and financial performance of the Nigerian listed banks. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 15(3), 565–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Berman, S. L. (2016). Corporate social performance and economic cycles. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 279–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20, 986–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 66–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). A natural resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haushalter, D., Klasab, S., & Maxwell, W. F. (2007). The influence of product market dynamics on a firm’s cash holdings and hedging behaviour. Journal of Financial Economics, 84, 797–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hentenryk, G. K. (1997). Structure and strategy of Belgian business groups (1920–1990). In T. Shiba & M. Shimotani (Eds.) Beyond the firm: Business groups in international and historical perspective. Oxford University Press, pp. 88–108.

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytic concepts. St. Paul: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, K. H., Busse, C., Bode, C., & Henke, M. (2014). Sustainability-related supply chain risks: Conceptualization and management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23, 160–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julian, S. D., & Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. (2013). Financial resource availability and corporate social responsibility expenditure in sub-Saharan economy: The institutional difference hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 1314–1330.

  • Jung, H. J., & Kim, D. O. (2016). Good neighbors but bad employees: Two faces of corporate social responsibility programs. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keister, L. A. (1998). Social ties and the formation of Chinese business groups. Sociological Analysis, June, 1(2), 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (1998). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kets de Vries, M. F. (1993). The dynamics of family controlled firms: The good and the bad news. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. (2000). Business groups and social welfare in emerging markets: Existing evidence and unanswered questions. European Economic Review, 44, 748–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (1999). Policy shocks, market intermediaries, and corporate strategy: The evolution of business strategy in Chile and India. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 8(2), 271–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 268–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 45–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. (2005). Business groups and risk sharing around the world. Journal of Business, 78, 301–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. (2007). Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, 45, 331–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., & Bettis, R. A. (2014). Cash is surprisingly valuable as a strategic asset. Strategic Management Journal, 335, 2053–2063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E., & Lee, S. H. (2015). Why strategic factor markets matter: ‘New’ multinationals’ geographic diversification and firm profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 518–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd edn.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. (2002). Strategic alliances as social capital: A multidimensional view. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9), 795–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, M., Wright, P., & Heiens, R. A. (1999). The contribution of product quality to competitive advantage: Impacts on systematic variance and unexplained variance in returns. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 375–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Mahapatra, P. K., & Chandrasekhar, S. (2009). India’s global powerhouses: How they are taking on the world. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D., & Harrington, T. (1990). Measuring nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Business Logistics, 11(2), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamin, A. (2013). Business groups as information resource: An investigation of business group affiliation in the Indian software services industry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1487–1509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampikoski, T., Westerlund, M., Rajala, R., & Moller, K. (2014). Green innovation games: Value-creation strategies for corporate sustainability. California Management Review, 57(1), 88–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leff, N. (1978). Industrial organization and entrepreneurship in the developing countries: The economic groups. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 26, 661–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehn, K., & Poulsen, A. (1989). Free cash flow and stockholder gains in going private transactions. Journal of Finance, 44, 771–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitas, E., & McFadyen, M. A. (2009). Managing liquidity in research-intensive firms: Signalling and cash-flow effects of patents and allied activities. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 659–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P., & Thomas, H. (1990). The linkage between strategy, strategic groups, and performance of the UK retail grocery industry. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, J. R., & Gerlach, M. L. (2004). Japan’s network economy: Structure, persistence, and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. R. (1993). Do firm strategies exist? Strategic Management Journal, 14, 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, I. P., & Zhu, H. (2015). Whether and how network structure shapes the value of firm capabilities? Review of Economics & Institutions / Economia, 6(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, I. P., Zhu, H., & Zaheer, A. (2017). Centralization of intergroup equity ties and performance of business group affiliates. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 1082–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manikandan, K. S., & Ramachandran, J. (2015). Beyond institutional voids: Business groups, incomplete markets, and organizational forms. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 598–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannor, M. J., Shamsie, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2016). Does experience help or hinder top managers? Working with different types of resources in Hollywood. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1330–1340.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review, XIX(1), 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 571–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., & Nakamura, M. (2005). A frog in a well knows nothing of the ocean: A history of corporate ownership in Japan. In R. Morck (Ed.), A history of corporate governance around the world: family business groups to professional managers (pp. 367–459). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 56–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, J. P., & Folta, T. B. (2009). A transaction cost perspective on why, how, and when cash impacts firm performance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 30(7), 465–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ognibene, P. (1971). Correcting nonresponse bias in mail questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 233–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1997). The influence of institutional and task environment relationships on organizational performance: The Canadian construction industry. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 99–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opler, T., Pinkowitz, L., Rene, S., & Williamson, R. (1998). The determinants and implications of corporate cash holdings. Journal of Financial Economics, 52, 3–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattnaik, C., Chang, J. J., & Shin, H. H. (2013). Business groups and corporate transparency in emerging markets: Emerging evidence from India. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 987–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perotti, E. C., & Gelfer, S. (1999). Red barons or robber barons? Governance and financing in Russian financial-industrial groups. New York: Mimeo, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pojasek, R. B. (2010). Is sustainability becoming a regulatory requirement? Environmental Quality Management, 19, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, December, 142–154.

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 79–92.

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value (pp. 62–77). January–February: Harvard Business Review.

  • Porter, M. E., & Van Der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 121–134.

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, September, 4–11.

  • Radhakrishnan, S. (1960). A sourcebook in Indian philosophy (vol 1). Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, J., Manikandan, K. S., & Pant, A. (2013). Why conglomerates thrive (outside the US). Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 111–119.

  • Reinhardt, F. L. (1999). Bringing the environment down to earth (pp. 149–157). July–August: Harvard Business Review.

  • Reinholt, M., Pederson, T., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central network position is not enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277–1297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V. (1991). The multidivisional structure as an enabling device: A longitudinal study of discretionary cash as strategic resource. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 718–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity ‘begins at home’. Business and Society, 42, 169–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakhartov, A. V., & Folta, T. B. (2014). Resource relatedness, redeployability, and firm value. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1781–1797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2), 385–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complimentary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business and Society, 47, 148–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R., & Meyer, J. W. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: propositions and early evidence. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 108–142). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business and Society, 43, 135–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretation and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 729–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. (2008). Resource management in dyadic competitive rivalry: The effects of resource bundling and deployment. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 919–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra- and extra-industry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 97–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strachan, H. (1976). Family and other business groups in economic development: The case of Nicaragua. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taani, K. (2013). Capital structure effects on banking performance: A case study of Jordan. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 1(5), 227–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Z., & Tang, J. (2016). The impact of competitors: Firm power divergence on Chinese SMEs’ environmental and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 136, 147–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intra-firm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N., & Grant, J. H. (1986). Construct measurement in organizational strategy research: A critique and proposal. Academy of Management Review, 11, 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeeten, F., & Boons, A. (2009). Strategic priorities, performance measures, and performance: An empirical analysis of Dutch firms. European Management Journal, 27(2), 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2002). Pace, rhythm, and scope: Process dependence in building a profitable multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7), 637–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vissa, B., Greve, H. R., & Chen, W. R. (2010). Business group affiliation and firm search behaviour in India: Responsiveness and focus of attention. Organization Science, 21(3), 696–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., Morgan, R. E., & Autry, C. W. (2009). Product market strategy and the marketing capabilities of the firm: Impact on market effectiveness and cash flow performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1310–1334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from? Ivey Business Journal, 1–5.

  • Wong, G. (1996). Business groups in a dynamic environment: Hong Kong 1976–1986. In G. G. Hamilton (Ed.), Asian business networks (pp. 87–112). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press; Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, K., Maesschalck, J., Peeters, C., & Roosen, M. (2014). Methodological issues in the design of online surveys for measuring unethical work behaviour: Recommendations on the basis of a split-ballot experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 275–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, D. W., Lu, Y., Bruton, G. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2007). Business groups: An integrated model to focus future research. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1551–1579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family vs. non-family firms: A resource based analysis of the effect of organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 363–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R., Nordqvist, M., & Brush, C. (2013). Why do family firms strive for nonfinancial performance? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 229–248.

  • Zhu, H., & Chung, C. N. (2014). Portfolios of political ties and business group strategy in emerging economies: Evidence from Taiwan. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 599–638.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Joka, Kolkata, India

    Sougata Ray & Bikramjit Ray Chaudhuri

Authors
  1. Sougata Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bikramjit Ray Chaudhuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sougata Ray.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Sougata Ray and Bikramjit Ray Chaudhuri authors declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

We administered a survey instrument which was responded by company executives. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Research Involving Human and Animal Participants

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ray, S., Ray Chaudhuri, B. Business Group Affiliation and Corporate Sustainability Strategies of Firms: An Investigation of Firms in India. J Bus Ethics 153, 955–976 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3917-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3917-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation