Next Article in Journal
Innovative Soil Management Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of 6 February 2023 Earthquakes on the Production and Marketing Process of Firms in the Agriculture and Food Sector: The Case of Malatya Province, Türkiye
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 21
10.3390/su16219480
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Boosting Competitiveness Through the Alignment of Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategic Management and Compensation Systems in Technology Companies: A Case Study

by
José M. Núñez-Sánchez
1,*,
Jesús Molina-Gómez
1,
Pere Mercadé-Melé
2 and
Santiago Almadana-Abón
1
1
Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Malaga, 29071 Malaga, Spain
2
Department of Applied Economics, University of Malaga, 29071 Malaga, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(21), 9480; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219480
Submission received: 26 August 2024 / Revised: 21 October 2024 / Accepted: 29 October 2024 / Published: 31 October 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the turbulent and dynamic post-COVID business environment, strategic management (SM) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) must increasingly adapt to meet the diverse needs of stakeholders and improve outcomes. Within this context, the total compensation (TC) system can play a pivotal role. This study aims to evaluate the importance of the TC system as a human resource management (HRM) tool that is mediated by the organisation’s strategy and a socially responsible factor in organisational behaviour. Our analysis explores various TC policies, including both financial and non-financial elements, and examines their relationship with SM and CSR policies. Using structural equation modelling on a sample of 205 employees from multinational technology companies based in Spain, we demonstrate a stronger relationship between SM and non-financial TC. Additionally, the indirect effect of SM on the social aspect of CSR is notably stronger through non-financial TC. These findings could have profound implications for practitioners, suggesting that the effective implementation of non-financial TC systems can enhance SM and foster socially responsible organisational behaviour. Moreover, aligning SM with CSR policies through robust compensation systems could enable companies to achieve competitive advantages by increasing workforce commitment and engagement.

1. Introduction

In today’s increasingly globalised and dynamic environment of continuous change, such as the recent challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, companies are forced to focus on surviving in the business world [1]. Organisations must adapt to create and maintain their competitive advantages through the analysis, formulation and implementation of strategic actions aimed at ensuring the survival or success of the company [2,3]. It is now more essential than ever to design an effective strategic management (SM) approach that enables the organization not only to adapt to this new environment but also to enhance its competitive position.
In this sense, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a fundamental objective in the creation of long-term value for investors, consumers and other stakeholders. This is achieved by taking advantage of business opportunities and comprehensive risk management linked to new economic, social and environmental challenges [4]. This is integrated into its values, culture, decision-making, strategy and operations to establish best practices within the company, create wealth and improve society [5].
This is an opportunity for the organisation to generate new revenue through innovation, differentiation or product design and distribution to new customers. Environmental management reduces costs and responsible HRM improves productivity. Moreover, being aware of the new corporate governance and the environmental and social risks of the globalised world in which we live makes it possible to anticipate new regulations or avoid reputational risks that damage the company’s image [4]. In addition, the scientific literature has shown that a company’s commitment to CSR positively influences its sustainable performance, mainly in its social aspects [6].
On the other hand, it is important to highlight the significance of employees in achieving a competitive advantage [7]. Also, according to important academic studies, employee performance, in line with the remuneration system, could bring benefits to the company [8]. In this sense, it should be noted that the main objectives of studies of total compensation (TC) in organisations as part of the organisations’ SM [9,10] would be to achieve maximum pay efficiency. This is understood as optimisation between the economic effort made by the organisation and the perception of this by each professional. For this reason, it will be necessary in this environment to determine the importance of the TC system as an organisational tool that is fully aligned and coherent with SM as a socially responsible factor in organisational behaviour.
There are studies that address how organisations should consider pay and its configuration as a priority, to ensure both the attraction and retention of staff, as well as improvements in the organisation’s results [11,12,13,14].
However, there are hardly any studies that integrate the concept of sustainability and corporate strategy [15,16] and convert CSR orientation into a source of competitive advantage [17] through a TC system. For this reason, the authors of the current study decided to carry out the present research in order to fill the gap in the scientific literature. For this purpose, an analysis was carried out to identify different TC policies, which, when applied strategically, would indicate the company’s CSR.
This research provides organisations with information to understand employee behaviour based on external stimuli related to TC through a more responsible form of management. The aim is to create long-term value for investors, consumers and other stakeholders, in a way that is consistent with the organisation’s CSR, generating a social impact.
Specifically, and based on the above, we conducted an analysis of the impact of SM on CSR through a TC system, in all its forms, both in terms of financial (FIN) and non-financial (NOFIN) remuneration.
For a better understanding of the analysis, a brief review of the existing literature is carried out and the hypotheses of the proposed model are presented. Through the research design, the subsequent analysis and results of this study are obtained and, finally, the discussion and main conclusions are set out with the practical implications, limitations of this study and future lines of research.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Strategic Management (SM)

Within the framework of an integrated system, companies must develop strategies and policies that are coherent with each other and adjusted to the business strategy, the environment, and the capabilities and particular characteristics of the organisation [18,19]. This will allow the organisation to achieve its objectives in a manner that is fully aligned with the other organisational aspects, to respond quickly to changes in the environment, to improve its competitive position and to increase its market position [20].
There are different classifications of strategies in the specialised literature, with the typology proposed by Miles and Snow [21] being the most commonly accepted and applied in diverse organisational settings. It has had strong empirical support for its reliability and validity and has been an extremely influential source for better understanding as the strategies of organisations [22,23].
This model views strategy as a form of alignment between the organisation and its environment. In addition, internal processes must be in line with the strategy to fit the environment and the organisation [24]. In other words, the organisational response to dynamic environmental conditions is critical.
Miles and Snow described four strategic orientations: prospective, defensive, analysing and reacting [21]. Through these orientations, the firm can address three different problems in organisations: entrepreneurial, technological and managerial. The four orientations are described below [21,25]:
First, prospectives are firms that aggressively pursue growth opportunities through new product development, marketing expertise and innovation with multiple technologies and flexible structures. Second, defensives place high priority on efficiency improvements and protect a narrow and stable product-market domain with cost-effective technologies and centralised structures. Third, analysers exhibit a combination of both forward-looking and defensive characteristics. They are organisations that seek to minimise risk while maximising profit opportunities. Finally, reactors lack a clear and coherent strategy, react inappropriately to environmental uncertainty and are generally not viable.
For Miles and Snow [21] and Blumentritt and Danis [26], the survival of the firm will depend on the quality of the alignment between the three problems of business, technology and management, that is, the quality of the internal fit between the organisational components and the external fit between the organisation and its environment [25].
In this sense, some authors highlight the key dimension underlying the typology as being the organisation’s response to changing environmental conditions [21,27]. This response occurs, above all, in prospective firms, a model applied to our study, as they are those that seek growth opportunities by developing new products, marketing experiences and innovation with multiple technologies and flexible structures. This is carried out in order to respond to constant change and create and maintain competitive advantages [28]. In addition, forward-looking companies take actions related to the environment that will affect the development of CSR [29]. Moreover, they are also more likely to create shared economic and social value in an integrated way than other strategic dimensions [17].
One of the key aspects of our study will be to observe whether in our current environment, CSR is a competitive approach that fits that model. Some studies integrate the concept of sustainability and corporate strategy [15,16] and turn the CSR orientation into a source of competitive advantage [17]. In fact, CSR can be as strategic as any profit-maximising business orientation [30].
In our study, the first objective is to develop a strategy aimed at responding to CSR concerning the different needs of stakeholders, and establishing global and specific objectives that will lead us to obtain the best results. In short, the aim is to assess the extent to which the needs of these stakeholders serve as an objective for determining the strategy.

2.2. Total Compensation (TC)

TC forms a fundamental part of the process of determining the strategic direction of human resources [9,10]. It aligns with the organization’s strategy, is regularly updated according to this strategy and its objectives, and is clearly defined [21]. This TC in an organisation must be part of an integral system that refers to the various components that make up the payment system, consisting mainly of two large blocks; financial retributions and non-financial rewards [9,31]
Financial retributions (FIN) are those extrinsic retributions of a fixed type (base salary or wage) or variable (incentives or bonuses) and indirect retributions (benefits or benefits in kind offered by organisations), i.e., any income received by a worker in exchange for the service provided [32,33].
Non-financial rewards (NONFIN) are those extrinsic rewards that refer to any type of award, recognition, or gratification that does not have an economic impact and is mainly related to the job, with the various aspects of environmental and working conditions [34]. This group includes intrinsic rewards (internal to the individual) derived from their involvement in certain activities, job satisfaction, commitment, autonomy, and growth and learning opportunities, related to the employees’ mindset at work [9,35].
There are studies that address how organisations should consider pay and its configuration as a priority, to ensure both the attraction and retention of staff, as well as improvements in the organisation’s results [11,12,13,14], and to motivate staff [35]. Furthermore, employee performance, in line with the remuneration system, could bring benefits to the company [8].

2.3. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

CSR aims to create long-term value; it is not only an opportunity for companies, but also a reflection of the expectations of customers, employees, society and other stakeholders, by taking advantage of business opportunities and comprehensive risk management linked to new economic, social and environmental challenges [4,36]. Stakeholders have been shown to react favourably to responsible business practices [37,38], with employees being a critical part of this group, generating a social impact [39].
Previous studies have focused on the link between CSR and firm performance [40,41]. Other research has focused on the impact of CSR on employees [42,43], on the preference of employment choice in socially responsible companies [44] and on the positive impact on engagement [17,45].
We know that employees play a vital role in addressing the new challenges faced by companies and in implementing CSR initiatives [46]. In this sense, compensation has powerful effects on employee behaviour [47]. This relationship is important because a socially responsible company can gain practical improvements in compensation due to employee attraction, developing the social part of CSR [48,49].
Sustainable development can be treated as a multidimensional construct [50], as argued by different studies that take into account various related dimensions [51,52]. Companies need to develop appropriate behaviour closely related to sustainability principles and to make decisions based on financial factors such as profits or dividends, but also based on the immediate and long-term social and environmental consequences of their activities [5,50,53].
Numerous authors have conducted studies on social factors as the organisation starts to require CSR practices by assuming broader responsibilities towards its stakeholders and its social environment to better meet the needs of stakeholders and ensure their loyalty to the company [50,54].
Social problem management can be defined as the process of addressing social problems [55]. In this sense, social development refers to a company’s management ability to reduce social inequality and divisions, improve quality of life and strengthen relationships with its various stakeholders [56,57]. Such actions by companies include paying attention to the health and safety of the community and employees [50]. CSR should include capital, social infrastructure, social justice and equity, and engaged governance [58].
The literature has investigated governance mechanisms to align corporate strategies and organisational processes with sustainability challenges [59,60]. In this sense, because of the weight that TC has on organisational behaviour, it could play a mediating role between corporate strategy and CSR. According to Venkatraman [61], a mediating perspective specifies the existence of a meaningful intervention mechanism (TC system, in this study) between an antecedent and the consequent variable.
In general, TC management is concerned with the design and implementation of strategies and policies that help to compensate employees fairly, equitably and consistently in accordance with their values for the organisation [9].
Gaps have been identified that indicate shortcomings in management and limitations in integration from a stakeholder approach to CSR, as socially oriented CSR policies have only recently been developed [62]. Consequently, this research aims to fill these gaps in policy studies more oriented to linking management and CSR from the social domain. Therefore, in our study, a relationship with the principles of sustainability is developed to make decisions based on social consequence factors. Could the concept of sustainability be integrated into corporate strategy [15,16]? Could it turn CSR orientation into a source of competitive advantage [17] through a TC system?
Based on our in-depth literature review, the following five hypotheses were formulated.
H1. 
SM significantly influences CSR.
H2. 
SM has a significant influence on NOFIN compensation.
H3. 
NOFIN remuneration significantly influences CSR.
H4. 
SM has a significant influence on FIN compensation.
H5. 
FIN remuneration significantly influences CSR.
Consequently, the researchers of this study propose the research model shown in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design

In order to answer the hypotheses put forward, the authors decided to carry out a quantitative study.
The Andalusia Technology Park (PTA) in Malaga (Spain) was chosen to design this research study, as it represents 7.98% of the GDP plus 8.27% of the total employment in the province of Malaga as of 2019. Moreover, it has a great predominance of national and multinational companies from the Electronics, Information, Computer and Telecommunications sector (63%). This presence of multinational companies represents a broad representation of this type of organisation for the purpose of this study. Specifically, the sample consists of 205 employees surveyed, belonging to companies with different numbers of employees, turnover and scopes of action. This research complies with the usual parameters in the field of social sciences [63,64].
The method developed for the analysis in this study is a structured questionnaire-type instrument concerning the type of organisation, SM, TC systems and CSR characteristics. The data collection was performed in a digital format and the type of sampling was convenience, according to the number of companies that responded to the questionnaire. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample.
Table 2 shows the data of the organisations.

3.2. Statistical Analysis

Validated instruments and scales were used in this research for each of the dimensions studied. All the items were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1—Strongly Disagree and 5—Strongly Agree):
In the SM dimension, four items were adapted from the competitive factors scale developed by Dess et al. [65] from Porter [66] to measure the three problems (business, technological and managerial) of Miles and Snow’s prospective strategy [21].
The TC system was based on the validated scales of the studies related to the Global Payoff Practices Scale (hereafter, PRG-13) and Specific Payoff Practices Scale (hereafter, PRE-21) by Boada-Grau et al. [67].
Finally, for the measurement of the CSR system, the validated scale of [55] on the principles underpinning sustainable development through social equity was adopted.
In order to analyse the proposed model, the structural equation methodology was used, employing variance-based equation modelling (VBM). The PLS technique allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple causal relationships between constructs or unobservable variables [68]. Structural equation modelling is a multivariate technique that has become widespread in the social sciences [69,70,71]. For the analysis of the model, we followed the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing [72], first analysing the goodness of fit based in a confirmatory factor analysis and then analysing the causal relationships. Table 3 below analyses the psychometric properties of the model.
The validity measures are adequate, both the standardised coefficients, which are greater than 0.5, and the means of its loadings, which are greater than 0.7 [68]. The composite reliability, the average extracted variance and the standardised root mean square residual also show optimal values [68]. In Table 4, discriminant validity is also confirmed, i.e., the items have to be correlated mainly with their construct and not so much with the others.

4. Results

Once the measurement model was evaluated, we moved on to analyse the structural model. In this model, we wished to analyse the structural coefficients that show estimates of the model’s relationships (see Table 5).
Table 5 shows that all causal relationships are significant except the direct causal relationship between SM and CSR. The strongest relationship is between SM and NOFIN (β = 0.672). Furthermore, the indirect effect between SM and CSR is stronger through FIN (β = 0.419) than in NOFIN (β = 0.114).
The model with structural relationships is represented in Figure 2.
Finally, Table 6 below includes the questions corresponding to each item of each construct with its values. These are the descriptive results of the different items that make up the measurement of each construct, i.e., SM, CSR and both factors, FIN and NOFIN, of the TC.
The highest-rated SM items are “Innovation in marketing techniques and methods” (0.815) and “Considering stakeholder needs when making investment decisions” (0.846). “Communicate the risks and environmental impacts of the activity to the general public” (0.836)” and “Improving facilities to integrate them into the environment in which the activity is carried out” (0.820) stand out in the CSR.

5. Discussion

Our literature review and empirical analysis indicate that there are different forms and intensities of relationship between the TC system and CSR depending on the organisational SM [73]. Specifically, higher outcomes are expected with a prospect orientation according to our results, which represents a strong change in orientation by monitoring trends in market evolution and new product development [74]. Firms with a higher CSR tend to align their compensation with the overall strategy, being more prospect-oriented [73].
Regarding the first hypothesis, our results confirm the indirect effect between SM and CSR through TC, being more intense through FIN (β = 0.419) than via NOFIN (β = 0.114), but not directly between SM and CSR. This provides new evidence on studies that integrate the concept of sustainability and corporate strategy [15,16] through trade-offs [75,76,77]. This offers, as an empirical novelty, a differentiating result between the prospector-type strategy effect and CSR through the TC effect, which is more intense through FIN in technological domains.
According to Franco-Santos and Gomez-Mejia [78], different combinations of rewards will generate different employer–employee relationships. In particular, the company can achieve its CSR objectives by establishing an appropriate TC system with different strategic orientations [21]. It is known that a firm’s CSR strategies can influence employees’ well-being and work outcomes during a crisis such as COVID-19 [39], so the contributions of this research can be of great help to organisations.
Regarding hypotheses 2 and 4, it has been shown that causal relationships are significant between SM and the different forms of remuneration of the TC system, thus verifying these hypotheses, confirming that TC, referring to the various components that make up the payment system, should be part of the fundamental process of formulating SM [9,10,31]. Specifically, the strongest relationship in our study is between SM and NOFIN (β = 0.672). In this sense, it is important to highlight these NOFIN employee wellness programmes, which are being promoted by companies of all sectors and sizes. Companies promote programmes that improve the well-being of workers, thereby increasing company performance [78]. Workers demand wellness programmes from their companies, health check-ups, work–life balance and flexible working hours, as well as stress management; therefore, organisations must respond to these demands [79].
On the other hand, there is a positive relationship between SM and FIN (β = 0.589). The structural relationships show higher intensity in the construct through “V3: A positive contribution is rewarded through variable compensation” (β = 0.817) and “ID3: Enables eligibility for funding schemes for development processes (e.g., courses, coaching)” (β = 0.813). This also confirms approaches that claim that FIN is more determinant [80,81,82].
Thirdly, the third hypothesis confirms the important relationship between NOFIN and CSR. This relationship is significant, and our results confirm the indirect effect between SM and CSR through it. NOFIN programmes that help to improve the well-being of organisations’ employees reduce absenteeism, increasing their performance and engagement [83]. The literature has shown that for the successful future of an organisation, it is critical to have engaged employees. According to Fan et al. [84], low work engagement can be negative for the company because it reduces employee well-being and productivity.
Finally, regarding the fifth hypothesis of this study, the relationship between FIN remuneration and CSR is confirmed (β = 0.193). This ratifies the results of previous studies that integrate the concept of CSR and compensation [75,76,77].

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study demonstrates the existence of two key aspects: the direct link between TC systems and SM, and the development of a TC system to achieve greater corporate sustainability (in the social domain). Following Shuck and Reio [85], in organisations that invest in their human resources and build an effective HRM system, a committed workforce is achieved and, in return, organisations improve their performance. On the other hand, employee engagement is a central and crucial element that helps transform a company’s CSR strategy [86]. This engagement can be enhanced, among other ways, through adequate CSR on the part of the company. Therefore, it could be argued that the effectiveness and sustainability of companies revolves around CSR [87] and the factors that influence it, such as adequate SM supported by an adequate TC system, especially NOFIN.

6.1. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This research is not without limitations. Firstly, the sample of companies was of an acceptable size and the response ratio was higher than that obtained in similar studies. However, the number of surveys obtained was lower than expected, mainly due to the difficulty of the questionnaire, which was made up entirely of validated scales that are difficult to read and interpret, making it extensive. Therefore, it would be advisable to increase the sample size to reduce sample error. In other words, this research focused only on companies in the technology sector, and the sample, although representative, should be larger in order to be able to generalise the conclusions of this research. Therefore, a future line of research is to broaden the number of responses obtained. Furthermore, this research was carried out only in the technological field, so future research should take into account other sectors, even in other countries with different cultural backgrounds.
Secondly, this research focused only on the prospective dimension, so in future research, there is the possibility of studying the different dimensions of SM according to the strategic orientations of Miles and Snow [21], as well as being able to differentiate the results according to different sectors and company size either by turnover or by the number of employees.
Another limitation of this study is that only the social dimension of CSR was analysed, so the economic and environmental dimensions should be analysed in the future. Future research should also analyse the different types of CSR.
With regard to other possible future lines of research, it could be interesting to carry out a detailed analysis of the elements of each type of remuneration, both FIN and NOFIN, to facilitate a more precise TC strategy, and to compare the results within the same companies. This would be achieved using a validated and revised questionnaire with more comprehensible scales, in different positions in the organisation, in order to understand distinct personal motivations. Organisations, on the other hand, are in a constant process of change; therefore, a dynamic approach determines how a company modifies its TC system strategy in a sustainable way. This is important, as the COVID-19 pandemic has revolutionised our lives, as well as the business environment and the priorities of employees, so it would be interesting to replicate this study in the post-pandemic era.
Finally, it might be interesting to conduct this analysis from a generational and gender perspective in case there are significant differences.

6.2. Implications for Management

The relationship between management and sustainability has been studied in depth in the literature, highlighting the importance of this issue for organisations, which should be taken it into account in their medium- and long-term strategies [87]. Furthermore, López-Concepción et al. [88], highlighted the positive impact of CSR on organisations and employees.
However, the authors have not found similar research that studies the mediating factor of remuneration policy between SM and CSR, which may be of considerable interest to companies. It is necessary to understand the factors that shape the organisation’s strategy and what compensation practices can be developed to enable the company to implement better sustainable development practices.
Research has shown a significant relationship between NOFIN and CSR, confirming the spill-over effect between SM and CSR through NOFIN. This could help companies to improve company performance because of the associated improvements they can have in the different aspects studied. According to Guzzo et al. [39], CSR can help improve employees’ feelings of well-being, which, in turn, improves their loyalty to the company. Therefore, companies could enhance their corporate social responsibility (CSR) in relation to their strategic management (SM) through HR policies that improve compensation, particularly non-financial rewards (NOFIN), which can create multiplier effects for the well-being of both their employees and the company itself. Moreover, this would help business success as a company’s employees are an essential foundation for developing a sustainable competitive advantage [7].
Furthermore, it could be concluded that companies should take into account that the relationship between SM and CSR is mediated by the TC system, both FIN and NOFIN. This means that the role of the TC system becomes more important because it promotes the development of the CSR required to successfully execute each type of strategy. In addition, we know that the scientific literature has shown that organisational commitment to CSR has a positive influence on companies’ level of sustainable performance [6]. In addition, the increasing uncertainty in the business environment and the rapidly changing labour landscape have made organisational diversity issues more complex and have led to changes in companies’ HRM while companies have become interested in promoting CSR to secure a competitive advantage [89].
Finally, according to Ibarnia et al. [62], gaps have been detected in the literature that indicate weaknesses in management, and limitations in integration from a stakeholder approach, such as employees or CSR. Therefore, this research could help to fill these gaps.
For all the above reasons, the authors believe that the present research could help companies to better compete in the market by improving the alignment of their SM with their CSR policies and using compensation systems as a tool to reinforce the workforce’s commitment and engagement, therefore achieving a competitive advantage.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, S.A.-A. and J.M.-G.; methodology, P.M.-M. and J.M.-G.; formal analysis P.M.-M.; investigation, J.M.N.-S.; writing—original draft, S.A.-A., J.M.N.-S., P.M.-M. and J.M.-G.; supervision, J.M.N.-S.; writing—review and editing J.M.N.-S., J.M.-G. and S.A.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki (voluntary, anonymous and confidential nature), and this study did not involve testing on humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Battaglia, D.; Paolucci, E.; Ughetto, E. The fast response of academic spinoffs to unexpected societal and economic challenges. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. R&D Manag. 2021, 51, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dess, G.; Eisner, A.; Lumpkin, G.T.; McNamara, G. Strategic Management: Creating Competitive Advantages; McGraw-Hill Higher Education: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  3. Guerras, L.A.; Navas, J. Fundamentals of Strategic Management; Civitas/Thomson Reuters: Madrid, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. Saavedera, I. Introducción a la Sostenibilidad y la RSC; Editorial Gesbiblo: Coruña, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Singh, K.T.; Singh, M.S. Ethics in Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 9, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mallah, M.F.; Jaaron, A.M. An investigation of the interrelationship between corporate social responsibility and sustainability in manufacturing organisations: An empirical study. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Manag. 2021, 22, 15–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kang, E.; Lee, H. Employee Compensation Strategy as Sustainable Competitive Advantage for HR Education Practitioners. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Purcell, J. The impact of corporate strategy on human resource management. In New Perspectives on Human Resource Management (Routledge Revivals); Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 67–91. [Google Scholar]
  9. Armstrong, M. A Handbook of Human Resources Management Practice, 11th ed.; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Milkovich, G.T.; Newman, J.M. Compensation, 8th ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyd, B.K.; Salamin, A. Strategic reward systems: A contingency model of pay system design. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 777–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rumpel, S.; Medcof, J.W. Total rewards: Good fit for tech workers. Res. Technol. Manag. 2006, 49, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pregnolato, M.; Bussin MH, R.; Schlechter, A.F. Total rewards that retain: A study of demographic preferences. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 15, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nguyen, C.M.A.; Ha, M.T. The interplay between internal communication, employee engagement, job satisfaction, and employee loyalty in higher education institutions in Vietnam. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Galbreath, J. Corporate social responsibility strategy: Strategic options, global considerations. Corp. Gov. 2006, 6, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maxfield, S. Reconciling corporate citizenship and competitive strategy: Insights from economic theory. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 8, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Porter, M.; Kramer, M.R. Strategy and society. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Gómez-Mejía, L.R.; Larraza, M. The human resources management process. In What You Should Learn in the Best MBAs; Garrido, F.J., Ed.; Gestión 2000: Barcelona, Spain, 2007; pp. 489–532. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cuesta-Valiño, P.; Rodríguez, P.G.; Núñez-Barriopedro, E. The impact of corporate social responsibility on customer loyalty in hypermarkets: A new socially responsable strategy. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 761–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alvarado-Mejía, M.; Rangel-Luquez, O. Ética Como Enfoque de la Responsabilidad Social: Direccionamiento Estratégico en Universidades Públicas; Omnia: Madrid, Spain, 2012; Volume 18, pp. 95–108. [Google Scholar]
  21. Miles, R.; Snow, C.C. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hambrick, D.S. On the Staying Power of Defenders, Analyzers, and Prospectors; Work. Pap, Pennsylvania State University: University Park, PA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ingram, T.; Krasnicka, T.; Wronka-Pospiech, M.; Głód, G.; Głód, W. Relationships between Miles and Snow strategic types and organizational performance in Polish production firms. Cent. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 24, 17–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aleksic, A.; Jelavic, S.R. Assessing characteristics and importance of organizational fit using Miles and Snow typology. Res. Commun. Psychol. Psychiatr. Behav. 2017, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  25. Snow, C.C.; Miles, R.E.; Miles, G. A configurational approach to the integration of strategy and organization research. Strateg. Organ. 2005, 3, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Blumentritt, T.; Danis, W.M. Business strategy and innovative practices. J. Manag. 2006, 18, 274–291. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gurkov, I.; Obel, B. Revisiting Miles-Snow Typology of Strategic Orientation Using Stakeholder Theory. SSRN 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Meier, K.J.; O’Toole, L.J., Jr.; Boyne, G.A.; Walker, R.M.; Andrews, R. Alignment and Results: Testing the Interaction Effects of Strategy, Structure, and Environment from Miles and Snow. Adm. Soc. 2010, 42, 160–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kong, D.; Yang, X.; Liu, C.; Yang, W. Business strategy and firm efforts on environmental protection: Evidence from China. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 445–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gallardo-Vázquez, D.; Sánchez-Hernández, M.I.; Corchuelo-Martínez Azúa, M.B. Validación de un instrumento de medida para la relación entre la orientación a la responsabilidad social corporativa y otras variables estratégicas de la empresa. Rev. De Contab. Span. Account. Rev. 2013, 16, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Madero Gómez, S.M. Impacto de los objetivos de la administración de compensaciones en los elementos de la compensación monetaria y no monetaria. Investig. Adm. 2016, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gómez-Mejía, L.R.; Balkin, D.B.; Cardy, R.L. Managing Human Resources; Pearson Educación: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chiavenato, I. Human Resources Management. The Human Capital of Organizations; McGraw Hill Interamericana Editores: Mexico City, Mexico, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  34. Madero Gómez, S.M. Factores de atracción y retención del mercado laboral, para empleados potenciales. Econ. Gest. Desarro. 2009, 7, 131–147. [Google Scholar]
  35. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic motivation. Corsini Encycl. Psychol. 2010, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Elkington, J. Enter the triple bottom line. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up; Henriques, A., Richardson, J., Eds.; EarthScan: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rhou, Y.; Singal, M. A review of the business case for CSR in the hospitality industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 84, 102330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xu, Z. CEOs’ early famine experience, managerial discretion and corporate social responsibility. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Guzzo, R.F.; Abbott, J.; Lee, M. How CSR and well-being affect work-related outcomes: A hospitality industry perspective. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 1470–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Garay, L.; Font, X. Doing good to do well? Corporate social responsibility reasons, practices and impacts in small and medium accommodation enterprises. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Singh, K.; Misra, M. Linking Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Organizational Performance: The moderating effect of corporate reputation. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2021, 27, 100–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Balmer, J.M.; Powell, S.M.; Hildebrand, D.; Sen, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B. Corporate social responsibility: A corporate marketing perspective. Eur. J. Mark. 2011, 45, 1353–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Greening, D.W.; Turban, D.B. Desempeño social empresarial como una ventaja competitiva para atraer una fuerza laboral de calidad. Empresa Soc. 2000, 39, 254–280. [Google Scholar]
  45. Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O.C. Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: An investigation of French businesses. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 51, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Revuelto-Taboada, L.; Canet-Giner, M.T.; Balbastre-Benavent, F. High-commitment work practices and the social responsibility issue: Interaction and benefits. Sustainability 2021, 13, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gupta, N.; Shaw, J.D. Employee compensation: The neglected area of HRM research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2014, 24, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Roberts, P.W.; Dowling, G. Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 1077–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sun, L.; Yu, T.R. The impact of corporate social responsibility on employee performance and cost. Rev. Account. Financ. 2015, 14, 262–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Baumgartner, R.J.; Ebner, D. Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bansal, P.; Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 717–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen AJ, W.; Boudreau, M.; Watson, R.T. Information systems and ecological sustainability. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2008, 10, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ness, B.; Evelin, U.P.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorizing tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ebner, D. Assessing Corporate Social Responsibility in Industrial Firms: The CSR-Assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Montanuniversität Leoben, Leoben, Austria, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  55. Bansal, P. Evolving sustainability; a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chow, W.S.; Chen, Y. Corporate sustainable development: Testing a new scale based on the mainland Chinese context. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 519–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Srimulyani, V.A.; Hermanto, Y.B. Organizational culture as a mediator of credible leadership influence on work engagement: Empirical studies in private hospitals in East Java, Indonesia. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022, 9, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cuthill, M. Strengthening the ‘social’ in sustainable development: Developing a conceptual framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hussain, N.; Rigoni, U.; Orij, R.P. Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 149, 411–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Montiel, I.; Cuervo-Cazurra, A.; Park, J.; Antolín-López, R.; Husted, B.W. Implementing the United Nations’ sustainable development goals in international business. J. Int. Bus. Stud 2021, 52, 999–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Venkatraman, N. The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 423–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ibarnia, E.; Garay, L.; Guevara, A. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the travel supply chain: A literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sirakaya, E.; Uysal, M.; Yoshioka, C.F. Segmenting the Japanese tour market to Turkey. J. Travel Res. 2003, 41, 293–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pérez, G.; Mercadé-Melé, P.; Almeida-García, F. Corporate image and destination image: The moderating effect of the motivations on the destination image of Spain in South Korea. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 24, 70–82. [Google Scholar]
  65. Dess, G.; Davis, P. Porter-1980-generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and organizational performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1984, 27, 467–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Porter, M.E. Industry structure and competitive strategy: Keys to profitability. Financ. Anal. J. 1980, 36, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Boada-Grau, J.; Costa-Solé, J.; Gil-Ripoll, C.; Vigil-Colet, A. Desarrollo y validación de dos escalas sobre las prácticas de retribución: PRG-13 y PRE-21. Psicothema 2012, 24, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult GT, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook; Springer Nature: Berlin, Germany, 2021; p. 197. [Google Scholar]
  69. Mercadé-Melé, P.; Molinillo, S.; Fernández-Morales, A. The influence of the types of media on the formation of perceived CSR. Span. J. Mark. ESIC 2017, 21, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mercadé-Melé, P.; Molinillo, S.; Fernández-Morales, A.; Porcu, L. CSR activities and consumer loyalty: The effect of the type of publicizing medium. J. Bus. Econ. Manag 2018, 19, 431–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mercadé-Melé, P.; Molina Gomez, J.; Garay, L. To Green or Not to Green: The Influence of Green Marketing on Consumer Behaviour in the Hotel Industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Peng, C.W. The role of business strategy and CEO compensation structure in driving corporate social responsibility: Linkage towards a sustainable development perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1028–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Walker, O.C., Jr.; Boyd, H.W., Jr.; Mullins, J.; Larreche, J.C. Marketing Strategy: Planning and Implementation, 4th ed.; Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Homewood, IL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  75. Callan, S.J.; Thomas, J.M. Executive compensation, corporate social responsibility, and corporate financial performance: A multi-equation framework. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 332–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fabrizi, M.; Mallin, C.; Michelon, G. The role of CEO’s personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 124, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jouber, H. How does CEO pay slice influence corporate social responsibility? US–Canadian versus Spanish–French listed firms. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 502–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Franco-Santos, M.; Gómez-Mejía, L.R. Reward System. Guest, D. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pronk, N.P.; Kottke, T.E. Physical activity promotion as a strategic corporate priority to improve worker health and business performance. Prev. Med. 2009, 49, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Chakraboty, A.; Mahanta, M. Employee Wellbeing-Are Organizations Addressing it the Correct Way. IRA Int. J. Soc. Sci. 2019, 14, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Carlson, D.S.; Upton, N.; Reaman, S. The impact of human resource practices and compensation design on performance: An analysis of family-owned SME’s. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2006, 44, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Moncraz, E.; Zhao, J.; Kay, C. An exploratory study of US lodging properties’ organizational practices en employee turnover and retention. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 21, 437–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Schlechter, A.; Hung, A.; Bussin, M. Understanding talent attraction: The influence of financial rewards elements on perceived job attractiveness. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 12, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fan, W.; Zhao, S.; Bin, Y.; Chen, Y.-M.; Wang, W.; Song, Z.-G.; Yi, H. A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature 2020, 579, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Shuck, B.; Reio, T.G., Jr. Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2014, 21, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tensay, A.T.; Singh, M. The nexus between HRM, employee engagement and organizational performance of federal public service organizations in Ethiopia. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Galpin, T.; Lee, W.J. Sustainability leadership: From strategy to results. J. Bus. Strategy 2012, 33, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. López-Concepción, A.; Gil-Lacruz, A.I.; Saz-Gil, I. Stakeholder engagement, Csr development and Sdgs compliance: A systematic review from 2015 to 2021. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Alshukri, T.; Seun Ojekemi, O.; Öz, T.; Alzubi, A. The Interplay of Corporate Social Responsibility, Innovation Capability, Organizational Learning, and Sustainable Value Creation: Does Stakeholder Engagement Matter? Sustainability 2024, 16, 5511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 09480 g001
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Sustainability 16 09480 g001
Sustainability 16 09480 g002
Figure 2. Model with structural relationships.
Figure 2. Model with structural relationships.
Sustainability 16 09480 g002
Table 1. Technical details of the sample.
Table 1. Technical details of the sample.
Data collection period18 November 2022–25 January 2023
Population24,396
Type of samplingConvenience
Sample size205 respondents
Type of surveyFace-to-face questionnaire and online
Sampling error6.82%
Level of confidence95%
Source: own elaboration.
Table 2. Personnel in organisations.
Table 2. Personnel in organisations.
Nº Workers Nº%
From 1 to 94120.00%
From 10 to 493919.02%
From 50 to 1002713.17%
From 101 to 2501507.32%
More than 2508340.49%
Table 3. Constructor reliability and validity.
Table 3. Constructor reliability and validity.
FactorItemsLoadsAverage LoadsαAVECRI
SMSM10.64100.7230.80900.5260.821
SM20.729
SM30.815
SM40.707
NOFINNOFIN10.7540.7260.87000.5280.871
NOFIN20.718
NOFIN30.673
NOFIN40.728
NOFIN50.752
NOFIN60.733
FINFIN10.6710.7170.84600.5210.843
FIN20.813
FIN30.643
FIN40.817
FIN50.642
CSRCSR10.8460.8190.92600.6750.926
CSR20.836
CSR30.806
CSR40.805
CSR50.82
CSR60.817
Goodness of fit
χ2 = 484.398SRMR
0.057
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
FactorSMNOFINFINCSR
SM0.726
NOFIN0.6800.727
FIN0.5860.7630.722
CSR0.6590.8480.7330.822
Note: The diagonal presents the square root of the AVE. HTMT ratios can are shown below the diagonal.
Table 5. Assessment of structural relationships.
Table 5. Assessment of structural relationships.
HypothesisStructural RelationshipCoef.f295CICheck
H1SM → CSR0.12900.0350(−0.062–0.287)Not Supported
H2SM → NOFIN0.672 ***0.8230(0.536–0.774)Supported
H3NOFIN → CSR0.613 ***0.4910(0.434–0.820)Supported
H4SM → FIN0.589 ***0.5300(0.459–0.703)Supported
H5FIN → CSR0.193 **0.0580(0.013–0.347)Supported
Specific Indirect Effects
SM → NOFIN → CSR 0.114 * (0.009–0.228)Supported
SM → FIN → CSR 0.4190 (0.271–0.550)Supported
* = p < 0.1; ** = p < 0.05; *** = p < 0.01.
Table 6. Items of each construct.
Table 6. Items of each construct.
ITEMS
SM1: Operational efficiency0.641
SM2: Brand identification0.729
SM3: Innovation in marketing techniques and methods0.815
SM4: Advertising0.707
F1: Salary levels are used to manage fixed compensation increases0.671
ID3: Eligibility for funding schemes for development processes (e.g., courses, coaching).0.813
V2: A system of variable remuneration based on individual objectives has been implemented0.643
V3: A positive contribution is rewarded through variable compensation0.817
V4: A variable remuneration system based on team objectives has been implemented0.642
I1: A sense of belonging is an element of payback0.754
I2: Belonging to a socially responsible company is an element of retribution0.718
I3: Belonging to a prestigious company is an element of retribution0.673
I4: Enables participation in projects for development and innovation0.728
NF2: Professional development practices are applied (e.g., knowledge management, recognition, participation in decision-making, career development, etc.)0.752
NF4: Workplace conditions are positive0.733
CSR-S1: Considering stakeholder needs when making investment decisions0.846
CSR-S2: Communicate the risks and environmental impact of the activity to the general public0.836
CSR-S3: Improving the health and safety of employees or society0.806
CSR-S4: Protecting society’s rights and claims0.805
CSR-S5: Improving facilities to integrate them into the environment in which the activity is carried out0.820
CSR-S6: Funding local community social initiatives0.817
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Núñez-Sánchez, J.M.; Molina-Gómez, J.; Mercadé-Melé, P.; Almadana-Abón, S. Boosting Competitiveness Through the Alignment of Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategic Management and Compensation Systems in Technology Companies: A Case Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219480

AMA Style

Núñez-Sánchez JM, Molina-Gómez J, Mercadé-Melé P, Almadana-Abón S. Boosting Competitiveness Through the Alignment of Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategic Management and Compensation Systems in Technology Companies: A Case Study. Sustainability. 2024; 16(21):9480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219480

Chicago/Turabian Style

Núñez-Sánchez, José M., Jesús Molina-Gómez, Pere Mercadé-Melé, and Santiago Almadana-Abón. 2024. "Boosting Competitiveness Through the Alignment of Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategic Management and Compensation Systems in Technology Companies: A Case Study" Sustainability 16, no. 21: 9480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219480

APA Style

Núñez-Sánchez, J. M., Molina-Gómez, J., Mercadé-Melé, P., & Almadana-Abón, S. (2024). Boosting Competitiveness Through the Alignment of Corporate Social Responsibility, Strategic Management and Compensation Systems in Technology Companies: A Case Study. Sustainability, 16(21), 9480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219480

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop