Search results

Considering that corporate social responsibility (CSR) addresses a wide range of claims from multiple stakeholders, companies must determine their CSR scope. This paper aims to examine what factors influence a firm’s decision in its scope of CSR. In exploring what factors influence CSR scope, the authors examine the relationship between a firm’s prosocial orientation and CSR and further examine its boundary conditions by the existence of CSR department.

This study uses a data set – the Social Value Survey – administered by the Center for Social Value Enhancement Studies based in the context of Korean firms. Based on 86 firm responses, statistical models were performed to test hypotheses.

The findings show that a firm’s prosocial orientation is positively associated with CSR scope. Further, this study shows that there is a negative moderating effect of the CSR department for the relationship between the prosocial orientation and CSR scope.

This study attempts to contribute to the extensive line of work on the antecedents of CSR by exploring the simultaneous existence of various drivers of CSR and the interplay between the drivers. And this study enhances the understanding on what factors influence the decision of CSR scope within a complex system of diverse stakeholder relationships. Additionally, this study has potentially shed light on the role of CSR departments to determine CSR scope.

The resource crisis in healthcare can be alleviated by engaging external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery. The authors use value and open innovation concepts to understand what motivates the stakeholders to join the healthcare innovation ecosystem and what value such an ecosystem brings to healthcare.

A systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework method was applied to reach the research objective. Out of a total of 509 identified articles published till 2021, 25 were selected as relevant for this review.

Six categories of actors were identified, including innovation intermediaries, which were so far neglected in the healthcare innovation literature. Furthermore, patients, healthcare providers, innovation suppliers, investors and influencers were described. The authors also distinguished internal and external stakeholders. The authors show why and how open innovation projects contribute to involving external stakeholders and resources in healthcare delivery by contributing to patient autonomy, relationship building, knowledge transfer, improving collaborative mindset and culture, advancing know-how and bringing additional finances.

This article is the first one to systematically describe the value of open innovation in healthcare. The authors challenge the positivist approach in value presented by value-based healthcare. The authors show how openness contributes to addressing the resource crisis by involving new stakeholders and resources in the care delivery process.