Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 11, Nos.

2/3, 2017 213

The power of the social domain in sustainable

development: non-market strategies for generating
sustainable competitive advantage

Monica Thiel
School of Business,
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies,
Higher Education Mega Center,
Guangzhou, 510006, China
Email: mt5721@yahoo.com

Abstract: This paper critically reflects on the assumptions and assertions of the
social aspects in non-market strategies. There are few papers discussing
the social-specific issues and challenges of human and social competition in
non-market strategies. The primary objective of this literature review is to
investigate the potential of the social domain in non-market strategies to create
sustainable competitive advantage. The social domain plays a critical and
strategic role to drive competition in non-market and market strategies in
comparison to the economic and political domains. Critically reviewing the
social aspects in non-market strategies permits reasonably sound inferences
about unmeasured social conditions or situations; thus, permitting greater
understanding of not only what is happening and where it is happening, but also
why it is happening. This paper identifies societys capacity to drive sustainable
competitive advantage in comparison to government and business.

Keywords: business; government; non-market strategies; social responsibility;

sustainable development; competitive advantage; environment.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Thiel, M. (2017)

The power of the social domain in sustainable development: non-market
strategies for generating sustainable competitive advantage, Int. J. Innovation
and Sustainable Development, Vol. 11, Nos. 2/3, pp.213229.

Biographical notes: Monica Thiel is a Member of the Academy of

Management and the European Group for Organizational Studies. Her research
articles and case studies have been published in the American Journal of
Economics and Business Administration, International Journal of Business and
Globalization, World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development, Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, Elsevier Ltd.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, and the International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation. She is an editorial board member for
Frontiers Journal, Organizational Psychology and a co-editor and author of
books about corporate responsibility and sustainable development. Prior to her
pursuit of a PhD in Social Science at the Tilburg School of Social and
Behavioral Sciences, she worked in multinational corporations, non-profit
organisations, government, military, and small-medium enterprises in business
management and social responsibility initiatives. Her current research interests
include corporate responsibility, sustainable development, competitiveness and
cross-sector partnerships.

Copyright 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

214 M. Thiel

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled Unlocking the
social domain in sustainable development presented at the 3rd International
Symposium on Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development,
Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada, 711 June, 2015.

1 Introduction

Firms are continually looking for ways to innovate and compete effectively worldwide.
In the market, firms compete with other firms strategies and in the non-market, firms
compete within social strategies to gain competitive advantage. Sustainable development
is often implemented by governments and corporations to develop a common strategy to
increase economic, social and environmental growth that will benefit and sustain future
generations. Furthermore, it is often employed as a method and tool for competitive
advantage in many corporations and governments (Petkoski and Twose, 2003). Although
sustainable development (Thiel, 2015a; Ratiu and Anderson, 2015; Kroly, 2013) and
competitive advantage (Porter, 2002; Krugman, 1993) are considered contested terms by
scholars, corporations and governments are exploring different ways to create sustainable
value and competitive advantage for public and private benefits. The critique of the paper
is directed towards society. Social strategies pose many challenges for firms and
governments. Society is an underplayed actor that may be a result of depicting society as
non-competitive in economic advancement and competition and a socio-economic
category. The paper proposes that society plays a much more integral role in non-market
and market strategies. Society is defined as formal and informal organisations,
individuals, groups and local communities. Local communities are defined as local
governments, local businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and citizens.
Society often shapes and closely monitors firms social and environmental activities
omitting similar social and environmental responsibility towards society (Thiel, 2015b).
Further to this, society is competing at differing levels and strategies, thereby creating
changing social and environmental contexts within firms that can limit firm competitive
advantage. Thus, current non-market strategies in literature neglect the potential of
society to drive sustainable competitive advantage in non-market strategies and to better
equip firms to manage social and environmental contexts of competition in non-market
and market strategies.
The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect on the social aspects in non-market
strategies. Since market and non-market strategies impact each other (Baron, 1995), it is
an imperative to critically evaluate societal impacts in firm competition. The social
domain in sustainable development contains a multitude of definitions and social
categories in sustainable development. For example, the social domain is often depicted
as socio-economics, health and safety, diversity, inclusion, well-being, local community,
civic engagement, labour relations, human rights, human resource management, societal
taxes, child labour, co-determination, stakeholders, equal opportunity and so on, resulting
in any terms and categories involving people in society. Consequently, the social domain
is ambiguously thrown about within the theories, models and methods of sustainable
development omitting critical information about the role and impact of society in
non-market strategies. Sustainable competitive advantage is determined and measured in
many different ways such as productivity, performance, economic development, resource
 The power of the social domain in sustainable development 215

management and human and social capital competencies. Furthermore, many countries
compete on the basis of productivity, economic growth and development and do not
consider the strategic role of the social domain to create sustainable competitive
advantage. Moreover, most studies evaluate the social domain in sustainable competitive
advantage and non-market strategies as economic, socio-economic and environmental
economics. As a result, there are few studies examining the potential of the social domain
in non-market strategies to drive sustainable competitive advantage. The aim of this
paper is to address this gap and to establish greater understanding of the role of society in
non-market strategies and competition.

1.1 Non-market strategies

Non-market strategies are discussed broadly and across disciplines in literature.
Examples of non-market issues range from environmental protection, corporate
responsibility, sustainability, health and safety, technology policy, international
trade policy, legislative politics and regulation. Baron (2009) describes non-market
strategies as existing outside of the marketplace to help firms gain competitive advantage.
On the other hand, Lux et al. (2011) define non-market strategies as business attempts
to manage social and institutional impacts of economic competition. Doh et al.
(2012) describe the market environment as primarily competitors, suppliers and
customers and the non-market environment as ethical behaviour, policy attainment and
social responsibility (p.6). Since governments establish the rules for market actors
(Lindblom, 1977), firms seek to influence policy processes (Stigler, 1971; Shaffer, 1995;
Hillman and Hitt, 1999). However, in the non-market arena, some firms are examining
the issues, actors and institutions to implement multi-domestic strategies in individual
countries (Baron, 1995).
Non-market strategies are often portrayed by scholars as social, political and
environmental domains. Nevertheless, each domain may often act separately creating
fragmentation in non-market strategies. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
sustainability are often implemented as non-market strategies in many firms (Minor,
2015). Many studies discuss and analyse non-market strategies within CSR (McWilliams
et al., 2006; Husted and Allen, 2007; Weber, 2008; Amaeshi and Adi, 2007; Berger et al.,
2004) to improve firm competitive advantage. The social domain in non-market strategies
is often portrayed as CSR (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012) and the political domain as
corporate political strategy (CPS) (Hillman and Hitt, 1999; Schuler, 1996; Keim and
Zeithaml, 1986; Schuler et al., 2002; Hillman et al., 2004; Zelner et al., 2009; Lawton
et al., 2013a, 2013b). The domains of non-market strategies operate outside of private
interests in economic transactions and contracts and consist of broad stakeholders within
political, legal, environmental, social and culture for public benefits (Baron, 1995).
For many firms market success depends not just on their products and services, the
efficiency of their operations, their internal organisation, and the organisation of their
supply chains, distribution channels, and alliance networks. Success also depends on how
effectively firms deal with governments, interest groups, activists, and the public
(Baron, 1995, p.73). Clearly, non-market and market strategies shape each other through
strategic pursuits among corporations, government and society. Consequently, effective
non-market strategies can improve firm competitive advantage through integration of
market opportunities.
216 M. Thiel

Rational, intuitive and relational thinking are important skills to develop solid
principles in non-market strategies. Fehr and Fischbacher (2002) describe social
preferences as reciprocal, inequity aversion, pure altruism, spiteful or envious and
suggest critical examination of how the heterogeneity of motives at the individual level
can be captured by parsimonious models and how the different individual motivations
interact (p.4). Scheinkman (2008) proposes, social interactions are sometimes called
non-market interactions to emphasise the fact that these interactions are not regulated by
the price mechanism (p.1). As a result, social relations and interactions are closely
linked to competition. Further to this, Non-market interactions are important because
they may create a social multiplier or multiple equilibria (Glaeser and Scheinkman,
2000, p.1). Business is increasingly playing a role with society to manage civil society
actions and political strategies. The increasing power of activist groups and the media in
pluralist western societies can be expected to make organisations non-market strategies
even more important (Orlitzky et al., 2003, p.403). Nevertheless, the social aspects are
particularly difficult to verify and implement in non-market strategies. CSR, business
ethics and non-market strategies may appear similar, yet different depending on the
political, environmental and social issue and context. Overall, integrating non-market and
market strategies requires clear principles that fit the firms core values and business
mission.

1.2 Sustainable competitive advantage

Competitiveness continues to be a central preoccupation of government and industry. It is
a holistic concept that includes social and cultural aspects, and the qualities of human
capital and environmental governance (The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2013).
Many companies implement sustainability for competitive advantage (Makower, 1994;
Gladwin et al., 1995). Sustainability is often defined as environmental and social
domains, and/or economic, ecological and social domains (Littig and GrieBier, 2005;
Wiersum, 1995) or development that meets the needs of future generations (United
Nations Bruntland Report, 1987). However, it is not currently known if organisations can
equally sustain all three areas (economic, social and environmental) of sustainable
development simultaneously (Mersereau and Mottis, 2011). In addition, sustainability is
generally understood to develop economic, social and environmental growth that will
benefit future generations. Sustaining competitive advantage is crucial for meeting the
needs of present and future generations. Sustainable competitive advantage is defined as
advancing long-term economic, social and environmental performance to meet the needs
of future generations. Moreover, sustainable competitive advantage is not confined to
market actors. Market definitions are always evolving (European Commission, 2015),
and non-market actors such as local communities can influence and shape the behaviour
and function of market actors due to vicarious learning, symbols, forethought, self-
reflection, self-efficacy and self-regulation (Pajares, 2002).
Governments and corporations worldwide are increasingly looking for ways to
increase competitive advantage through sustainable development. Sala-I-Martin et al.
(2012) suggest, Sustained structural reforms aimed at enhancing competitiveness will be
necessary for countries to stabilise economic growth and ensure the rising prosperity of
their populations going into the future (pp.34). Thus, sustaining advantage requires
change (Azmi, 2006, p.5) in how government and business determine and measure
human societys role in sustainable competitive advantage. It is generally understood that
 The power of the social domain in sustainable development 217

corporations are a strong driver of sustainable development. However, governments also

drive sustainable development (Moon, 2004; Waldman et al., 2006; Aguilera et al., 2007;
Barnett, 2007; Moon and Vogel, 2008; Thiel, 2010) through regulation and establishing
legal forms, provisions, public policies and programs in partnerships with business and
civil society. Although the concept and definition of sustainable competitive advantage
may appear obvious, Coyne (1986) proposes a differentiation gap to describe sustainable
competitive advantage:
The most important condition for sustainability is that existing and potential
Competitors either cannot or will not take the action required to close the
(differentiation) gap. If the competitors can and will fill the gap, the advantage
is by definition not sustainable (p.58).
The differentiation gap must remain open for sustainable competitive advantage in
products and services. Likewise, governments are also seeking differentiation within
sustainability for national, regional and local competitive advantage. Webb (2005)
proposes sustainable governance recognises and draws on the largely untapped potential
of the private sector, the third (voluntary) sector and individual citizens to assist in
governing (p.249) through multivariate collaborative governance approaches and
public-policy development and implementation (p.278). Consequently, thousands of
citizens and their governments are embracing a new way of thinking and acting about
their future (Roseland, 2012, p.2). Furthermore, sustainable competitive advantage
within the social domain of sustainability is interconnected in cooperative decision-
making between business and government. However, millions of people suffer as a
result of the failure of governments to effectively cooperate to handle new global
challenges (Woods and Mahbubani, 2010, p.2) and foster national competitiveness.
Moreover, lies the question of corporate capability and resources to effectively resolve
societal problems in lieu of government oversight and engagement. Thus, businesses and
governments deeper investigation of social responsibility differentiation gaps worldwide
in non-market strategies is crucial to evaluate societys role in creating sustainable
governance because human society will affect the shape of future market behaviour
(Pawel, 2009, p.34). For example, direct personal agency; proxy agency that relies on
others to act on ones behalf to secure desired outcomes; and collective agency exercised
through group action (Bandura, 2002, p.1) depict volatile social direction. Vicarious
learning may permit individuals to learn a novel behaviour without undergoing the trial
and error process of performing it (Pajares, 2002, p.1). Nevertheless, within competitive
social conditions, individuals and local communities may distort behavioural
observations as a way to alter temporary control and change social conditions and human
functioning in non-market strategies.
Institutional cues are vital for implicit and explicit understanding of rules and
direction for legitimacy among governments, society and firms (North, 1990).
Institutional environments and interactions can easily morph and become legitimatised
due to a void of line of demarcation between informal societal competition and formal
institutional competition. In addition, there are scant antecedents of informal societal
competition and institutional competition within non-market strategies. Furthermore, the
role of governments as cooperating agents with firms in non-market strategies requires
cooperative contexts that are often diffused in social responsibly concepts such as
promoting sustainable development abroad, or promoting democracy (The White
House, 1994). Furthermore, the emphasis on a countrys economic power as a primary
218 M. Thiel

driver for establishing political influence (Betts, 2004, p.10) omits any distinguishing
feature of how society can be a primary driver for economic prosperity and national
progress. Likewise, many people focus on personal economic benefits and often relocate
within a country or abroad for greater economic well-being and disregard the impact and
influence of differing ethnic, cultural, and societal structures and relationships within
economic well-being. Consequently, society has the most significant effect to positively
or negatively shape and drive government and firm cooperative contexts in non-market
strategies. Thus, the social domain in non-market strategies plays a vital role in
sustainable competitive advantage.

2 Societal competitiveness

Corporate responsibility and sustainable development is associated with competitiveness

for improvement (Makower, 1994; Scott, 2004; Rothman, 1992; Dutta et al., 1995;
Gladwin et al., 1995; Collins and Porras, 1996; Reinhardt, 1998; Hoppe and
Lehmann-Grube, 2001), advantage (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000) and responsible
resource strategies (Hart, 1995; McWilliams et al., 2002). As a result, competitive
advantage is primarily described as an economic driven phenomenon in sustainable
development, omitting competitiveness as a social phenomenon in non-market strategies.
For instance, society does require corporations and governments to drive national and
economic competitiveness and not local communities. Some countries such as China are
incorporating CSR as a national strategy for soft competitiveness within social,
environmental and economic development (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)
Blue Book on Corporate Responsibility, 2013). Therefore, societal competitiveness is an
integral part of competing and cooperating within multiple layers of responsibility among
government, business and local communities in non-market strategies. Winning or
win-win partnerships do not imply you are competitive or sustainable. Rather, it is a
short-term snapshot focusing on external comparisons to determine individual and group
advantage. Competition is more than achieving short-term goals; it is about sustaining
long-term progress and advancement. Furthermore, sustainable development is driven by
relationships (Carroll and Shabana, 2010). Therefore, the relationships of human
evolution and culturally adaptive systems are competing and strategically played in
sustainable development. For instance, human and environmental systems play a strategic
role in resilience to natural and human activity disturbances (Mayer, 2007). Likewise,
competing human and social systems are integrated within non-market strategies.
Human and social competition exists in differing and fluctuating contexts and often
considers preferences instead of rules. Moreover, competitive advantage may be obscured
where the impact of competition in markets in which effort or quality is not enforced
exogenously (Fehr and Fischbacher, 2002, p.12). The pursuit of societal freedom and the
common good sustains informal societal competition that blurs transparency among
governments, society and business. Cooperation may appear to be a better non-market
strategy. However, people often cooperate to compete to sustain their preferences and
goals in various contexts outside of cooperation (Bengtsson and Kock, 2000). Further to
this, complexity in non-market strategies may present legitimacy cues in different forms
within different countries, conditions, and contexts (Keig et al., 2015). Although,
cooperative arrangements have offered firms the opportunity to develop non-market
competitive strategies that complement market strategies within the context of global
 The power of the social domain in sustainable development 219

strategy (Boddewyn and Doh, 2011), this may blur non-market governance mechanisms.
For instance, firms non-market strategies may persuade activists and regulatory bodies to
join a firm on a specific issue. Thus, governance within the firm cannot be viewed
simply as a formal organisation, but also must be understood as having the essential
elements of any social community Granovetter, 2005, p.43). Figge et al. (2002)
suggests, the necessity for an additional non-market perspective arises when
environmental or social aspects that cannot be reflected according to their strategic
relevance within the four standard balanced scorecard perspectives at the same time
significantly influence the firms success from outside the market system (p.269).
Therefore, social and environmental aspects are integrated according to their strategic
relevance. Further to this, it is important to note that a non-market perspective may take
freedom of action, legitimacy, and legality, and leading or lagging indicators from
financial, customer, process and learning and growth perspectives (Figge et al., 2001) as
an approach towards integration of all perspectives. However, strategies and rule-making
may diffuse power among governments, firms and society on a specific issue or project.
Hence, firms recognise that society may continue their strategies and preferences outside
of the current project. Moreover, market and non-market aspects may not complement
each other (Bonardi, 2004). Therefore, competition among business, society and
governments are continually evolving, and in transition, and require separation of
non-market analyses from market analyses (Ghemawat, 2002).
Competitiveness is associated with and examined by social aspects. Social value
systems and social motivation are significant factors in the implementation and success
for organisational and local, regional, and national competitiveness (Garelli, 1997; Wise,
2014). The traditional views of competitiveness such as productivity, human and social
capital, technology, social innovation and socio-economic development lack evaluation
of human societys ability and capacity to shape and direct sustainable competitive
advantage. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between cultural dimensions and
competitiveness (Mihaela et al., 2011, p.3061). It is widely argued that social
inequalities, disconnectedness and disorder negatively affect the competitiveness of cities
and their economic performance (Eraydin, 2008, p.1665). Moreover, cultural aspects
and human and social capital are inadequate to secure a citys future competitiveness
(The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2013). Therefore, the social domain in non-
market strategies can be evaluated for its impacts and strategic role in generating
competitiveness because
these connections between economic policies and social goals are very
important for the sustainability of development in many developing countries,
where social exclusion and political polarisation are rooted in the incapacity of
the modern economy to provide jobs and sources of income to a substantial
part of the population. The social effectiveness of a competitiveness policy
must pass this test. (Corrales-Leal, 2006, p.8)
Social cooperative decision-making processes in sustainable competitive advantage
and non-market strategies may result in greater performance of individuals and
groups (Johnson, 1999). In addition, there is a relationship between social cooperative
decision-making and social ethics because ethics are socially constructed, and they will
vary according to the cultural ethics in which they are formulated (Christakis, 1992,
p.1080). Although economic growth is important for sustainable competitive advantage,
without evaluation of human societys ability and capacity to construct sustainable
220 M. Thiel

competitive advantage, current measures of socio-economic and human and social capital
competencies are inadequate for non-market strategies.

2.1 Social responsibility challenges in non-market strategies

Building on neo-institutional perspectives (Boddewyn and Doh, 2011; Husted and Allen,
2010; Yaziji, 2010; Hotho and Pedersen, 2012) firms social and environmental
obligations, strategies, and interactions with stakeholders such as local communities,
individuals and governments can increase competitive advantage in non-market
strategies. How can firms pursue equal opportunities and outcomes when the voluntary
nature of stakeholders permits social responsibility to be individually driven, but socially
determined and constructed? As depicted in Figure 1, individuals and local communities
reciprocate social responsibility within informal relationships, while the government
plays a formal static role supporting local community social responsibility, and
corporations are the primary drivers of universal and formal social responsibility,
supporting societal goals and expectations (Thiel, 2015b). Different rules for different
groups can lead to limited transparency and trust, resulting in pretence of CSR and CPS.
The primary social domain relationship challenges exist within formal or public
relationships and collaboration, while the informal society drives social responsibility
through individual and societal preferences (Thiel, 2015b) as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1 Social responsibility model

Source: Thiel (2015b)

As the economy is increasingly becoming a challenge to manage for firm success, non-
market strategies are becoming increasingly important for competitive advantage in
markets and non-markets. Depending upon quantitative measures omits the role of human
judgement (Radin, 2015). As a result, firms may often make quick decisions to increase
competitive advantage in market strategies based upon quantitative measures that can
lead to decreasing competitive advantage in market and non-market strategies. The fact
of executing things together does not mean that you share the identical right mindset.
Competitors can be considered as external reference points for firms commitment
decisions and may be more ignorant to unsupportive cues on the prospect of the current
course (Hsieh et al., 2015, p.53). Without examination of the informal society, the
embeddedness of formal social responsibility within sustainable development efforts and
non-market strategies can remain detached. Social and personal responsibility may
 The power of the social domain in sustainable development 221

appear truistic and it is much more complex than what is generally understood and is
often practiced as normative conformity in society. For instance, social responsibility can
also be driven by social approval (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982) or social proof. How firms
and governments examine individual and societal fractal narratives (Perey, 2014) play an
integral role in sustainable development initiatives and non-market strategies. Therefore,
the local community can be viewed as a competitor by corporations and governments
through differing social performance logics and competitive dynamics in non-market
strategies. Consequently, social responsibility in market and non-market strategies
incorporate multiple levels and perspectives for strategy as practice and cross-sector
social partnerships (Athanasopoulou and Selsky, 2015, p.325). As a result, society may
use selected corporations and governments differently within varying social
responsibility performance and situations. This requires forward thinking of corporations
and governments beyond simply reputation management and economic development for
enhanced understanding of how competitors can positively or negatively impact
sustainable development and non-market strategies, because not everyone will do best
when everyone receives equal or equitable opportunities.

Figure 2 Reciprocation of informal and formal societies in the social domain system

Source: Thiel (2015b)

3 Discussion and conclusion

Society has the potential to generate and increase competitive advantage apart from firms
and governments. However, there is little discussion in non-market strategies about how
society competes with and against firms and governments while firms are implementing
non-market strategies. Despite the term non-market, market and non-market strategies are
not easily parsed within an organisation and in relationships or partnerships. Non-market
strategies and market strategies intersect into sustainable competitive advantage. Savvy
firms will re-evaluate confidence and contentment in social and political relationships to
better understand differences of local, regional, national and global norms and values,
and uncertainty and certainty in market and non-market strategies. Stakeholder
accountability is necessary due to how local communities create meaning and power to
222 M. Thiel

express and maintain their self-interest, reliability and competitive advantage over other
groups. Are responsible societies found where strong markets and strong societies (UN
Global Compact, 2015, p.29) coexist near the locations of social and environmentally
responsible companies? Prakash (2002) suggests that household consumer attitudes and
behaviours may conflict and decrease firms economic justification to manufacture
greener products than the competition and simply comply with environmental laws.
Furthermore, societys dependence upon institutions to generate economic power and
peace may undermine multiple social responsibility realities due to conflicting national
values and ideals (Mearsheimer, 1994). Moreover, differing regional and local
governance mechanisms within NGOs can generate values that invite anti-business
values and societal disengagement from firm and national competitiveness (Thiel, 2013).
Therefore, how can governments and businesses succeed in sustainable development
without transforming society (Turnbull, 2015)? Moreover, how does a company operate
sustainably within a global context when governance mechanisms of the nation-state
have lost some of their regulatory powers (Scherer et al., 2015, p.474) and has had
little independent effect on state behaviour and viable solutions, especially in
mixed-ownership state-owned enterprises? Benn et al. (2014) propose a linear
sustainability phase model for guidance on how to move an organisation from rejection,
non-response, compliance, efficiency, proactivity to sustainability, and to new sustainable
business models. This model is useful to gauge societal and state actions for increasing or
decreasing competitive advantage in non-market strategies. In addition, firms can
evaluate the social domain separate from the economic and environmental domains to
examine the factors and detriments that promote and sustain social fragmentation within
a variety of social responsibility domains (Scruggs and Buren, III, 2014, p.32).
Clearly, there are internal and external limitations to firms non-market strategies and
activities (Bonardi, 2008). Non-market strategies can simply become a truistic and
innovative approach to providing public benefits and private benefits simultaneously. It is
important for business and government leaders to recognise how to cooperatively
integrate market and non-market strategies sustainably for competitive advantage within
fluctuating geographies of political, social, economic, cultural, environmental and
technological change. Firms efforts to address systemic social and environmental issues
with key stakeholders may be short lived. Unlike the rules of the market, the rules of the
non-market can easily change. Stakeholders may interact differently when integrating
non-market strategies with corporations and governments. For instance, stakeholders may
compete separately on the same issue that firms and governments are addressing with
such stakeholders. Evaluating potential conflicting values and underlying motivations and
intentions in local communities through examination of historical environmental and
social norms, anti-business and anti-government values and norms will help firms to
better address conflicting societal expectations. Savvy business and government leaders
recognise
differing expectations among, corporations, government and civil society
differing outcomes
understand that individuals and groups often compete against each other while
helping and serving each other.
 The power of the social domain in sustainable development 223

Overall, without responsible and competitive stakeholders, non-market strategies will not
produce sustainable value locally, nationally, regionally and globally, and reduce
capacity, efforts, and engagement of individuals, local communities and organisations to
examine the interdependence of people, organisations and the social and environmental
systems in their context (Linnenluecke et al., 2014, p.11). Re-evaluating confidence and
control in social and political relationships will help to prevent overconfidence and
contentment from prior partnership and collaborative experiences to monitor social and
political risk. Therefore, society, business and government are in a constant state of
competition within competing interests that surrounds market and non-market strategies.
It is important to note that such competing interests operate at different levels. For
instance, stakeholders may appear to agree on the information of a non-market issue, and
mis-use information for self or group interest and pursuits. Thus, the social domain
provides firms and governments deeper and strategic ways to assess and modify value
creation within governments, corporations and local communities. A more critical
understanding and practice of the social domain beyond human and social well-being in
sustainable development and non-market strategies is warranted. Modifying corporate
responsibility and sustainable development practices with a focus on the social domain
can better address social responsibility gaps among local communities, governments and
corporations, resulting in intelligent and innovative non-market strategies.

4 Implications for further research

Non-market strategies require new integrated approaches to address and strengthen

social, political and environmental integration. Further research should examine political-
social-ecological non-market strategies to evaluate how differing cultures compete
nationally for context and comparison within corporate and government responsibility.
Moreover, the concept of societal competitiveness requires further research due to
societys potential impact to decrease and constrain firm competitive advantage.
Although non-market strategies are primarily implemented for firm competition, further
research of societal competitiveness in non-market and market strategies will help firms
to increase competitive advantage. Lastly, companies and governments can more
effectively influence societal value creation with academic partnerships to conduct
further research and educate society in a framework that includes academic, government,
business and local community partnerships.

References
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J. (2007) Putting the S back in
corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.836863.
Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012) What we know and dont know about corporate social
responsibility: a review and research agenda, Journal of Management, Vol. 38, No. 4,
pp.932968.
Amaeshi, K.M. and Adi, B. (2007) Reconstructing the corporate social responsibility construct in
Utlish, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.318.
224 M. Thiel

Athanasopoulou, A. and Selsky, J.W. (2015) The social context of corporate social responsibility:
enriching research with multiple perspectives and multiple levels, Business and Society, Vol
. 54, No. 3, pp.322364.
Azmi, R.A. (2006) Business Ethics as Competitive Advantage for Companies in the Globalization
Era, http://ssm.com/abstract=1010073. (Accessed 12 September, 2013).
Bandura, A. (2002) Social Learning Theory, www.cogs.indiana.edu/spackled/2012readings/
bandura.pdf (Accessed 5 September, 2013).
Barnett, M.L. (2007) Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to
corporate social responsibility, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.794816.
Baron, D.P. (1995) The non-market strategy system, Sloan Management Review, Fall95, Vol. 37,
No. 1, pp.7385.
Baron, D.P. (2009) Business and Its Environment, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S. (2000) Coopetition in business networks to cooperate and compete
simultaneously, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.411426.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D. and Griffiths, A. (2014) Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability,
Routledge, UK.
Berger, I.E., Cunningham, P.H. and Drumwright, M.E. (2004) Social alliances: company/nonprofit
collaboration, California Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.5890.
Betts, R.K. (2004) U.S. national security strategy: lenses and landmarks, Paper presented for the
Launch Conference of the Princeton Project Toward a New National Security Strategy,
www.princeton.edu/-ppns/papers/betts.pdf (Accessed 4 May, 2015).
Boddewyn, J. and Doh, J.P. (2011) Global strategy and the collaboration of MNEs, governments
and NGOs for the provisioning of collective goods in emerging markets, Global Strategy
Journal, Vol. 1, pp.345361.
Bonardi, J.P. (2008) The internal limits to firms nonmarket activities, European Management
Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.165174.
Bonardi, J-P. (2004) Political and international strategies of former telecom monopolies: the
asymmetric behaviors of former monopolies, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25,
February, No. 2, pp.101120.
Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010) The business case for corporate social responsibility: a
review of concepts, research and practice, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.85105.
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) Blue Book on Corporate Responsibility (2013)
www.globaltimes.cn, 15 November, (Accessed 23 August, 2014).
Christakis, N.A. (1992) Ethics are local: engaging cross-cultural variation in the ethics for clinical
research, Soc. Sci. Med., Vol. 35, No. 9, pp.10791091.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1996) Building your companys vision, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 74, No. 5, p.65.
Corrales-Leal, W. (2006) Competitiveness Revisited: A Policy Approach for Achieving
Development Objectives in the Economic, Social and Environmental Spheres, www.unctad.
org/sections/wcmu/docs/wernercorralesleal.pdf (Accessed 7 September, 2013).
Coyne, K.P. (1986) Sustainable competitive advantage What it is, what it isnt, Business
Horizons, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.5461.
Doh, J.P., Lawton, T.C. and Rajwani, T. (2012) Advancing nonmarket strategy research:
institutional perspectives in a changing world, Academy of Management Perspectives,
Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.2239.
Dutta, P.K., Lach, S. and Rustichini, A. (1995) Better late than early: vertical differentiation in the
adoption of a new technology, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 4,
pp.563589.
 The power of the social domain in sustainable development 225

Eraydin, A. (2008) The impact of globalization on different social groups: competitiveness, social
cohesion and spatial segregation in Istanbul, Urban Studies, Vol. 45, No. 8, pp.16631691.
European Commission (2015) Market Definition in a Globalized World, Competition Policy Brief,
Issue 2015-12, March.
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2002) Why social preferences matterthe impact of non-selfish
motives on competition, cooperation and incentives, The Economic Journal, Vol. 112,
No. 478, pp.C1C33.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2001) Sustainability Balanced Scorecard.
Wertorientiertes Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement mit der Balanced Scorecard, Center for
Sustainability Management, Lueneburg.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard
linking sustainability management to business strategy, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp.269284.
Garelli, S. (1997) The Four Fundamental Forces of Competitiveness, The World Competitiveness
Yearbook 1997, 17th ed., IMD, Switzerland.
Ghemawat, P. (2002) Notes on Non-Market Strategy, Harvard Business School Globalization Note
Series 2002 Porter Attributed his Decision not to Include Nonmarket Factors as a Sixth Force
to the lack of a Monotonic Relationship between the Strength and Influence of Government
Power and the Profitability of Industry, Quoted in Nicholas Argyres and Anita, M. McGahan,
An Interview with Michael Porter, 16 ACAD.MGMT. EXEC.43, 46(2002).
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T.S. (1995) Shifting paradigms for sustainable
development: implications for management theory and research, Academy of Management,
Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.874907.
Glaeser, E. and Scheinkman, J.A. (2000) Non-Market Interactions, NBER Working Paper Series
Number 8053, www.nber.org/papers/w8053 (Accessed 15 January, 2016).
Granovetter, M. (2005) The impact of social structure on economic outcomes, The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, No. 1, Winter, pp.3350.
Hart, O (1995) Corporate governance: some theory and implications, The Economic Journal,
Vol. 105, No. 430, pp.678689.
Hillman, A.J. and Hitt, M.A. (1999) Corporate political strategy formulation: a model of approach,
participation and strategy decisions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, pp.825842.
Hillman, A.J., Keim, G.D. and Schuler, D. (2004) Corporate political activity: a review and
research agenda, Journal of Management, Vol. 30, pp.837857.
Hoppe, H. and Lehmann-Grube, U. (2001) Second-mover advantages in dynamic quality
Competition, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 10, pp.41933.
Hotho, J.J. and Pedersen, T. (2012) Beyond the rules of the game: Three institutional approaches
and how they matter for international business, in Demirbag, M. and Wood, G. (Eds.):
Handbook of Institutional Approaches to International Business, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
UK.
Hsieh, K., Tsai, W. and Chen, M. (2015) If they can do it, why not us? Competitors as reference
points for justifying escalation of commitment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58,
No. 1, pp.3858.
Husted, B. and Allen, D.B. (2010) Corporate Social Strategy: Stakeholder Engagement and
Competitive Advantage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Husted, B.W. and Allen, D.B. (2007) Strategic corporate social responsibility and value creation
among large firms: lessons from the Spanish experience, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40,
No. 6, pp.594610.
Johnson, N.L. (1999) Diversity in Decentralized Systems: Enabling Self-Organizing Solutions,
http://CollectiveScience.com/Documents_1.html (Accessed 4 September, 2013).
226 M. Thiel

Kroly, K. (2013) Rise and fall of the concept sustainability, Journal of Environmental
Sustainability, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.112.
Keig, D.L., Brouthers, L.E. and Marshall, V.B. (2015) Formal and informal corruption
environments and multinational enterprise social irresponsibility, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp.89116.
Keim, G.D. and Zeithaml, C.P. (1986) Corporate political strategy and legislative decision
making: a review and contingency approach, Academy Management Review, Vol. 11,
pp.828843.
Krugman, P.R. (1993) Competitiveness - a dangerous obsession, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 2,
pp.2846.
Lawton, T., McGuire, S. and Rajwani, T. (2013b) Corporate political activity: a literature review
and research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15, No. 1,
pp.86105.
Lawton, T., Rajwani, T. and Doh, J. (2013a) The antecedents of political capabilities: a study of
ownership, cross-border activity and organization at legacy airlines in a deregulatory context,
International Business Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.228242.
Lindblom, C. (1977) Politics and Markets, Basic Books, New York.
Linnenluecke, M., Verreynne, M.L., de Villiers Scheepers, R., Grnum, S. and Venter, C. (2014)
Planning for a shared vision for a sustainable future: a Guide for Executives, Network for
Business Sustainability, South Africa, www.nbs.net (Accessed 15 December, 2015).
Littig, B. and GrieBier, E. (2005) Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism
and social theory, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 8, Nos. 12,
pp.6579.
Lux, S., Crook, R. and Woehr, D.J. (2011) Mixing business with politics: a meta-analysis of the
antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity, Journal of Management, Vol. 37,
No. 1, pp.223247.
Makower, J. (1994) Beyond the Bottom Line, Simon and Schuster, London.
Mayer, A.L. (2007) Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for
multidimensional systems, Environment International, Vol. 34, pp.277291.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2000) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance:
correlation or misspecification?, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.603609.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, P.M. (2006) Corporate social responsibility: strategic
implications, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.118.
McWilliams, A., Van Fleet, D.D. and Cory, K. (2002) Raising rivals costs through political
strategy: an extension of the resource-based theory, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39,
pp.707723.
Mearsheimer, J.J. (1994) The false promise of international institutions, International Security,
Vol. 19, No. 3, Winter, 19941995, pp.549.
Mersereau, A. and Mottis, N. (2011) Corporate Social Responsibility and Management Control, 29
Research Center ESSEC Working Paper 1114, pp.137.
Mihaela, H., Claudia, O. and Lucian, B. (2011) Culture and national competitiveness, African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5, No. 8, pp.30563062.
Minor, D. (2015) The organization of non-market strategy, Academy of Management
Proceedings, Vol. 2015, No. 1, p.15796.
Moon, J. (2004) Government as a driver of corporate social responsibility, in Matten, D. (Ed.):
Research Paper Series, International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, ISSN
1479-5116.
Moon, J. and Vogel, D. (2008) Corporate responsibility, government and civil society,
in Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J. and Siegel, D. (Eds.): Oxford Handbook
of Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
 The power of the social domain in sustainable development 227

North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003) Corporate social and financial performance: a
meta-analysis, Organizational Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.403441.
Pajares, F. (2002) Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self-Efficacy, http://www/emory.
edu/EDUCATION/mpf/eff.html (Accessed 14 September, 2013).
Pawel, U. (2009) Competitiveness and company motives for pro-ethical actions slovak students
opinion, Journal of Competitiveness. www.cjournal.cz/files/4.pdf (Accessed 12 September,
2013).
Perey, R. (2014) Organizing sustainability and the problem of scale: local, global, or fractal?,
Organization and Environment, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.215222.
Petkoski, D. and Twose, N. (2003) Public Policy for Corporate Social Responsibility, WBI Series
on Corporate Responsibility, Accountability, and Sustainable Competitiveness, World Bank
Institute, http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/57434/publicpolicy_econference.pdf
(Accessed 12 September 2015).
Porter, M.E. (2002) Building the Microeconomic Foundations of Prosperity: Findings from the
Microeconomic Competitiveness Index, World Economic Forum (WEF), 2002, The Global
Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Prakash, A. (2002) Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies, Business Strategy
and the Environment, Vol. 11, pp.285297.
Radin, B.A. (2015) Baltimore: When good intentions bring negative consequences, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp.511512.
Ratiu, C. and Anderson, C.B. (2015) The multiple identities of sustainabity, World Journal of
Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.194205.
Reinhardt, E.L. (1998) Environmental product differentiation: Implications for corporate strategy,
California Management Review, Vol. 40, pp.4373.
Roseland, M. (2012) Toward Sustainable Communities: Solutions for Citizens and Their
Governments, New Human societys Publishers, Canada.
Rothman, H. (1992) Companies with a Conscience: Intimate Portraits of Twelve Firms that Make a
Difference, Citadel, New York.
Sala-I-Martin, X., Bilbao-Osorio, B., Blanke, J., Crotti, R., Drzeniek Hanouz, M., Geiger, T. and
Ko, C. (2012) The Global Competitiveness Index 2012-2013: Strengthening Recovery by
Raising Productivity, www.weforum.org/gcr (Accessed 4 September, 2013).
Scheinkman, J.A. (2008) Social interactions, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, p.2.
Scherer, A.G., Baumann-Pauly, D. and Scheider, A. (2015) Democratizing corporate governance:
compensating for the democratic deficit of corporate political activity and corporate
citizenship, Business and Society, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp.473514.
Schuler, D. (1996) Corporate political strategy and foreign competition: the case of the steel
industry, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp.720737.
Schuler, D., Rehbein, K. and Cramer, R. (2002) Pursuing strategic advantage through political
means: a multivariate approach, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp.659672.
Scott, M. (2004) Corporate social responsibility: a burning issue for recruits, Financial Times,
2004, 18 October, www.ft.com (Accessed 1 May, 2013)
Scruggs, C.E. and Buren III, H.J. (2014) Why leading consumer companies develop proactive
chemical management strategies, Business and Society, pp.141, http://bas.sagepub.com/
content/early/2014/06/21/0007650314536393 (Accessed 5 September, 2014).
Shaffer, B. (1995) Firm-level response to governmental regulations, Journal of Management,
Vol. 21, pp.495514.
Stigler, G. (1971) The theory of economic regulation, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 2, pp.321.
228 M. Thiel

The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (2013) Hot Spots 2025: Benchmarking the Future,
www.citigroup.com/citi/citiforcities/pdfs/hotspots2025.pdf (Accessed 7 September, 2013).
The White House (1994) In Betts, R.K. U.S. National Security Strategy: Lenses and Landmarks.
Paper presented for the launch conference of The Princeton Project Toward a New National
Security Strategy, 2004. Available online: www.princeton.edu/-ppns/papers/betts.pdf
(Accessed 4 May, 2015). A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement
(Washington DC: The White House, July 1994) includes fourteen entries for non-military
interests for example, The Environment, Partnership with Business and Labor,
Promoting Sustainable Development Abroad, or Promoting Democracy as many as for
traditional security concerns like Maintaining a Strong Defense Capability, Combatting
Terrorism, or Strong Intelligence Capabilities. On the alleged Minor Role of Military
Force see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little,
Brown, 1977), pp.2729. Keohane and Nye modified this argument in the Afterword to
second and third editions in 1989 and 2001).
Thiel, M. (2010) Innovations in corporate social responsibility from global business leaders at
Panasonic, Thomson Reuters and Nanyang Business School, American Journal of Economics
and Business Administration, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.18.
Thiel, M. (2013) NGOs in India: the challenge of womens empowerment and accountability by
Patrick Kilby, Special Issue: Fortune at the base of the pyramid. South Asian Journal of
Global Business Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.149152.
Thiel, M. (2015a) Unlocking the social domain in sustainable development, World Journal of
Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.183193.
Thiel, M. (2015b) The Social Domain in Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability,
Routledge, UK.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K. (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-
implementation: a meta-analysis of findings, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. EM-29, No. 1, pp.2843.
Turnbull, S. (2015) Sustaining society with ecological capitalism, Human Systems Management,
Vol. 34, pp.1732.
United Nations Bruntland Report (1987) Our Common Future. From One Earth to One World,
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, www.un-documents,
net/our-common future.pdf (Accessed 19 September, 2013).
United Nations Global Compact (2015) Guide to Corporate Sustainability: Shaping a Sustainable
Future, www.unglobalcompact.org (Accessed 7 April, 2015).
Waldman, D.A., Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N., House, R.J., et al. (2006) Cultural and
leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top management:
a global study of 15 countries, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37, No. 6,
pp.823837.
Webb, K. (2005) Sustainable goverancne in the twenty-first century: moving beyond instrument
choice, in Eliadis, P., Hill, M.M. and Howlett, M. (Eds.): Designing Government: From
Instruments to Governance, McGill-Queens University Press, London.
Weber, M. (2008) The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company-level
measurement approach for CSR, European Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4,
pp.24726.
Wiersum, K.F. (1995) 200 years of sustainability in forestry: lessons from history, Environmental
Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.321329.
Wise, S. (2014) Can a team have too much cohesion?: The dark side to network density,
European Management Journal: Publ. Twice a Year for the Scottish Business School, Vol. 32,
No. 5, pp.703711.
 The power of the social domain in sustainable development 229

Woods, N. and Mahbubani, K. (2010) Building Effective Institutions in an Empowered Human

Society, www.3.webforum.org/docs/WEF-GRI-StrengtheningInternationalCooperation-Book-
2010.pdf (Accessed 11 September, 2013).
Yaziji, M. (2010) Corporate-NGO collaboration: co-creating new business models for developing
markets, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, pp.326342.
Zelner, B.A., Henisz, W.J. and Holburn, G.L.F. (2009) Contentious implementation and
retrenchment in neoliberal policy reform: the global electric power industry, 19892001,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp.379412.