






































78 

Building Strong Global Brands: Impact of Cross-
Sector Alliances, Sustainable Innovations  

and Strategic CSR    

Shiva Nandan, Ph.D. 
Missouri Western State University 

Monica Nandan, Ph.D. 
Kennesaw State University 

A conceptual framework is proposed to investigate three key dimensions that have an impact on 
multiple stakeholders and can enhance the value of global brands. These are: (i) Cross-Sector Alliances 
(CSA), (ii) Sustainable Innovations (SI), and (iii) Strategic CSR. Five global brands have been selected 
that appear both in the Forbes list of  “Most Sustainable Companies” and the Interbrand list of  “Best 
Global Brands” in 2017. Data has been gathered through documentary research.  Content analysis of  
this data-set has led to the compilation of  five case studies. Key findings and managerial implications 
are discussed. The contribution of this research is that it adopts a new approach to studying global 
brand management by incorporating CSA, SI and strategic CSR. It focuses not only on the economic 
aspects of global branding but also on potential societal and environmental outcomes for enhancing 
brand value. 

Keywords: Global Brands; Brand Value; Cross-Sector Alliance; Sustainable Innovations; Strategic CSR 

Introduction 
Brand management in a global environment presents a myriad of challenges (Talay et al., 2015). 

Maturation of globalization and the financial crisis of the last decade has led to severe criticism of the 
strategies of global brands. Global brands and MNCs including Apple, McDonald’s, Nike, Coke, and 
Google have encountered resistance relating to product acceptance, negative perceptions with regard 
to cultural influences, degradation of the environment and adverse impact on local communities. 
Indeed, for many consumers there may be a love/hate relationship with global brands – they may 
have a positive attitude towards a company’s products but have a latent dislike for the company 

http://journals.sfu.ca/abr ADVANCES IN BUSINESS RESEARCH 
2019, Volume 9, pages 78-100 



79 

 

(Nandan & Nandan, 2014). Brands have by and large focused on customers and investors with the 
intention of maximizing profit. This has resulted in loss of faith from communities at large (Porter & 
Kramer, 2011).  For the purposes of this research, global brand is defined as “a brand that uses the 
same name and logo, has awareness, availability, and acceptance in multiple regions, derives at least 5 
percent of its sales from outside the home region and is managed in an internationally coordinated 
manner (Steenkamp, 2014, p. 7). 

A conceptual framework is proposed to build a connection between the increase in global 
brand value and three types of business activities (Cross-Sector Alliances, Sustainable Innovations, 
and strategic CSR) via the impact on multiple shareholders. Steenkamp (2014) has proposed the “4V-
model” to explain how global brands create value at each successive stage in the brand value chain. 
The author further states that global brands take advantage of economies of scale and scope to create 
value. Ozsomer and Altaras (2008) and Holt et al., (2004) highlight the cultural dimensions by asserting 
that global brands are symbols of global consumer culture. 
This paper seeks to build on prior studies by adopting a stakeholder framework to investigate global 
brand management. Inherent in this approach is the notion that brands have to broaden their focus 
and appeal to a multiplicity of stakeholders in addition to its consumers. This research investigates 
three key dimensions, Cross-Sector Alliances (CSA), Sustainable Innovations (SI), and Strategic 
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) that have an impact on different stakeholders, and can enhance 
the value of global brands. We are not suggesting that activities associated with these three dimensions 
will always outweigh endeavors in other areas. It is to be expected that in the context of a digitally 
connected world, customers and other stakeholders expect that global brands will increasingly engage 
in CSA, SI, and strategic CSR. 

In order to be competitive on a long-term basis, global brands have to differentiate themselves 
by incorporating “Strategic CSR” as part of  their overall business plan. CSR activities are strategic in 
nature where a company can address specific social or environmental issues in ways that fit strategically 
with its long-term, vision, core-competencies, intellectual properties, and other resources. A firm can 
make a significant social impact as well as secure business benefits through strategic CSR (Porter & 
Kramer, 2006). Strategic CSR would lead to mutually beneficial outcomes for the companies as well 
as its stakeholders.  

Based on a literature review, a set of propositions are offered for future empirical testing. Five 
global brands have been investigated with respect to their engagement with different stakeholders 
through CSA, SI and strategic CSR, and the results are presented as case studies. Key findings and 
managerial implications are discussed along with limitations and suggestions for future research. 
 
Stakeholder Orientation 

The importance of a stakeholder orientation for business entities has been emphasized 
(Brower & Mahajan, 2013; Peloza & Shang, 2011; Bhattacharya, 2010; Ferrell et al., 2010). According 
to Freeman (1984), a stakeholder is defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected 
by the achievement of an organization’s objectives” (pg. 46). The stakeholder theory, therefore, 
expands the focus of the firm beyond its shareholders and customers to include a multiplicity of 
constituents. Broadening the scope of a firm’s focus can be justified from both a normative and 
instrumental standpoint. The normative implication is that firms have a moral obligation towards their 
stakeholders (Matten et al., 2003). From an instrumental perspective, firms should cater to the needs 
of stakeholders because this contributes to the success of the firm (Bhattacharya & Korschum, 2008).  
The instrumental perspective, in as much as it includes other stakeholders, is still profit and firm-
centric as the stakeholders are seen to be entities that have to be managed for the benefit of the firm.  

Stakeholder orientation provides a valuable frame of reference for assessing the relationship 
of a firm to its stakeholders. Ferrell et al. (2010) offer a preliminary definition of Stakeholder 
Orientation as “the organizational culture and behaviors that induce organizational members to be 



80 
 

continuously aware of and proactively act on a variety of stakeholder issues” (pg. 93). Admittedly, the 
interests and priorities of stakeholders will not always converge. In fact, many stakeholders may view 
a firm’s activities to be in conflict with their interests and philosophies. It is unrealistic to expect a firm 
to meet the expectations of all stakeholders at all times (Jawahar & McLaughlin 2001). However, 
effective stakeholder management entails that firms demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the 
multiplicity of stakeholders and incorporate their needs and expectations in corporate decision 
making.  

Literature Review and Research Propositions 
Prior studies on global brand value include: consumer’s perception of brand “globalness” 

(Steenkamp et al., 2003), influence of global consumer culture (Holt et al., 2004; Akaka & Alden, 
2010), economies of scale and scope (Yip & Hult, 2012), CSR and global brand equity (Torres et al., 
2012) international market segmentation (Papadopoulos & Martin, 2013), and institutional 
environments across markets (Randrianasolo, 2017). Steenkeamp (2014) has outlined the 4 V model 
for value-creating activities.  

There has been increased attention with respect to themes relating to cross-sector alliances 
(Clarke & Crane, 2018), sustainable innovations (Boons et al., 2013; Varadarajan, 2015), and CSR 
(Malik, 2015; Fatma & Rahman, 2015). Research in these areas has been multi-disciplinary spanning 
the fields of management, marketing, public administration/policy, environment, sustainability, social 
work, sociology, and information technology. Hartman and Dhanda (2018) have investigated the 
success factors in cross-sector alliances between multi-national corporations and non-profit 
organizations. CSA research has also focused on co-creation of value (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012), social 
responsibilities of business (Seitanidi & Crane 2009, 2014), and the impact of cross-sector partnerships 
on beneficiaries (Clarke & MacDonald, 2016). The literature on sustainable innovations encompasses 
definitions and frameworks (Vardarajan, 2015), environmental sustainability drivers (Markusson, 
2011; Levidow et al., 2016) and development of sustainable business models (Boons & Lüdeke-
Freund, 2013). Marcon et al. (2017)  found that process and organizational innovations were more 
popular than marketing and product innovations for multinationals that aim to balance business 
interests and environmentally sustainable growth. Studies pertaining to value-enhancing capabilities 
of CSR include: costs and benefits of CSR (Sprinkle & Maines, 2010), customer satisfaction (Lee & 
Heo, 2009; Carvalho et al., 2010), employee productivity (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008), capital 
market benefits (Dhaliwal et al. 2011), and earnings quality (Hong & Anderson, 2011). Strategic CSR's 
impact on brand image, brand equity, and stakeholder expectations have also been investigated 
(Popoli, 2011). 

The literature review indicates that although prior research has been conducted on brand value 
as well as on CSA, SI and Strategic CSR, no research has combined these concepts using a stakeholder 
framework. The present study seeks to address this lacuna through an investigation of the following 
variables that go beyond individual brand characteristics and attributes. 
 
Cross-Sector Alliances 

Global brands can create value by forming cross-sector alliances (CSAs) especially with non-
profit organizations (NPOs). Companies may have built relationships with customers, investors, and 
supply chain members, but they may not have the skills needed to expand their sphere of influence to 
communities or the environment. Thus, partnering with experts such as non-profit organizations may 
become necessary. Such partnerships are called cross-sector alliances (CSA) and are defined as 
collaborations between for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations (NPOs). These are also 
called social alliances (Sakarya, Bodur, & Öktem, 2012) or cross-sector partnerships (Schuster & 
Holtbrügge, 2014). Resource dependency theory suggests that collaborations can occur when 
organizations seek to obtain externally what they do not possess (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).  In a 
complex and rapidly evolving socio-economic environment, global brands can develop partnerships 



81 

 

with stakeholders in non-profit organizations. These partnerships themselves can help global brands 
develop sustainable competitive advantage as the resources, skills, and capabilities generated through 
collaboration would not have been possible for the firm to have developed on its own (Zaheer & Bell, 
2005).  

CSAs can seek to address social problems of mutual concern (Sakarya, Bodur, & Öktem, 2012) 
through a shift from adversarial to collaborative relationships (Hartman & Danda, 2018). Such 
partnerships have the potential to create transformational collaboration and social change (Stafford & 
Hartman, 2001). CSAs can also enable and encourage global brands and multinationals to adopt and 
practice codes of conduct benefitting local communities and society at large, which helps the firm 
succeed as it learns to create and maintain relationships with multiple stakeholders and create value 
through CSAs. Successful CSAs would be able to leverage the core competencies of each partner.  For 
example, businesses share their technology, marketing, or finance-related expertise with NPOs that 
could, in turn, provide access to local communities and projects. It follows from the above discussion 
that CSAs would have a higher likelihood of impacting a plurality of stakeholders in addition to 
existing consumers.  Hence: 
 
P1: Global brands that form Cross-Sector Alliances are more likely to impact multiple stakeholders in their ecosystem. 
 
Sustainable Innovation  

Sustainable innovations are being recognized as an essential component of sustainable 
development and growth. According to Varadarajan (2015) “sustainable innovation is a firm’s 
implementation of a new product, process, or practice, or modification of an existing product, process, 
or practice that significantly reduces the impact of the firm’s activities on the natural environment” 
(pg.17). Boon, Montalvo, Quist, and Wagner (2013) describe sustainable innovation as “a process 
where sustainability considerations (environmental, social, and financial) are integrated into company 
systems from idea generation through to research and development (R&D) and commercialization. 
This applies to products, services, and technologies, as well as to new business and organizational 
models” (pg. 3).   Clearly, this is a complex process as firms that focus on sustainable innovation have 
to consider the needs of many stakeholders, not just consumers and shareholders. Notably, 
sustainability-driven innovations do not necessarily lead to higher costs in the long run. Sustainable 
innovations yield both “bottom-line and top-line returns” by reducing input costs as well as generating 
additional revenues through superior products or new businesses (Nidumolu, Prahalad, & 
Rangaswami, 2009).  

The creation of new business models based on sustainable innovations can be a source of 
competitive advantage that can ensure long-term success. A global brand has to link its sustainability 
initiatives with its business model along the dimensions of (i) the value proposition, (ii) supply chain 
management, (iii) customer interface and (iv) a financial model (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). An 
innovation can create socio-ecological value for multiple stakeholders and at the same time achieve 
above-average financial returns for the organization (Dyck & Silvestre, 2018). According to Hutchins 
et al. (2019), resource-efficient technologies have been used to cut down the usage of gasoline (fuel-
efficient and battery-operated cars), water (single-rinse and cold-water formulations of laundry 
detergents), paper and plastic (through recycling and digitizing). Clearly, the incorporation of a 
sustainability strategy will impact multiple stakeholders. Previous studies (Dahan et al., 2010; Stanton 
& Burkink, 2008; Bordewijk, 2006) have highlighted the participation of supply chain members and 
stakeholders such as government, NGOs, media and academics in the enhancement of sustainability 
programs of companies. Hence: 
 
P2: Global brands that utilize sustainable innovations are more likely to impact multiple stakeholders in their ecosystem. 
 



82 
 

Strategic CSR 
Many global brands are increasingly accepting CSR to be an important component of their 

business strategies (Homburg et al., 2013).  Prominent global business leaders including Bill Gates 
(founder and chairman of Microsoft) and John Mckay (CEO of Whole Foods) have incorporated CSR 
as a business philosophy for creating sustainable value for key stakeholders (Williams, 2014).   

Consciousness of the socio-environmental consequences of a global brand’s actions 
necessarily entails incorporating Strategic CSR as part of the branding strategy.  In addition to engaging 
in Strategic CSR, global brands have to communicate their effectiveness as good corporate citizens to 
their stakeholders, such as consumers, investors, government agencies and social activists. More 
importantly, a firm has to have a clear vision regarding what it stands for and what are its core brand 
values (CBV).  The core values summarize the corporate brand identity and are fundamental principles 
around which all the activities of the company are based (Urde, 2003).  The core values of a corporate 
brand form the basis of a company’s business strategy (Louro & Cunha, 2001). Ideally, consistency 
between the Core Brand Values (CBVs) espoused by the company and its CSR activities is desirable 
(Nandan & Nandan, 2014).  This is a strategic imperative and the essence of Strategic CSR. A company 
will be able to differentiate itself from its competition and find enhanced acceptability if it can 
communicate the congruence of CBV and CSR to different audiences. Hence: 
 
P3: Global brands that incorporate strategic CSR are more likely to impact multiple stakeholders in their ecosystem. 
 
Brand Value 

Brand value, from a financial perspective, is determined by “the incremental capitalized future 
earnings and cash flow achieved by linking successful, established brand names to a product” (Kerrin 
& Sethuraman, 1998, p. 262). Tiwari (2010) describes brand value as the difference between net 
present value of future cash flows from a branded product vis-à-vis a similar unbranded product.  
According to Bloomsbury Business Library - Business & Management Dictionary (2007), brand value 
is defined as “the amount that a brand is worth in terms of income, potential income, reputation, 
prestige, and market value” (p. 1066).  Thus, brand value can be considered to be the financial worth 
of the brand. Interbrand publishes brand values of the top 100 global brands every year and highlights 
the relative increase or decrease in brand value over previous years. The company uses proprietary 
brand valuation methodology that includes an analysis of financial performance of the brand, the role 
of brand in purchase decisions, and a brand’s competitive strength (Interbrand, 2018). Prior research 
has shown that CSR impacting various stakeholders has a positive effect on global brand equity 
(Torres et al., 2012). Clearly, through cross-sector alliances, sustainable innovations and strategic CSR 
global brands have the potential to positively influence multiple stakeholders. Strong global brands 
can leverage their brand value into a source of sustainable competitive advantage (Interbrand, 2015). 
Hence: 
 
P4: Global brands utilizing sustainable innovations, cross-sector alliances, and strategic CSR are more likely to enhance 
their brand value over a period of time. 

 
A conceptual model of global brand value in a stakeholder ecosystem is provided in Figure 1.  

 

  

javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~bth%7C%7Cjdb~~bthjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Bloomsbury%20Business%20Library%20-%20Business%20%26%20Management%20Dictionary%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');


83 

 

Figure 1 - Global Brand Value in a Stakeholder Ecosystem 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

METHODOLOGY 

 
 
The methodology most appropriate for this research was Qualitative Case study. There are 

conceptual as well as empirical gaps in the literature pertaining to global brands, cross-sector alliances, 
sustainable innovations, and strategic CSR. So, there is sufficient justification for the exploration of  
the concepts and their potential relationships through qualitative case study (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2003). 
Purposeful sampling was utilized, suitable for studying underexplored phenomenon (Yin, 2003).  Five 
global brands in diverse industries were selected that appeared in the Forbes list of  “Most Sustainable 
Companies” as well as in the Interbrand list of  “Best Global Brands” in 2017. Criteria for sample 
selection included: (i) involvement in CSR and sustainable innovation, and (ii) multiple cross-sector 
alliances. Data has been gathered through documentary research utilizing sustainability reports, project 
reports, corporate websites, published periodicals, and journal articles. Content analysis of  this data-
set led to the compilation of  five case studies along the key research dimensions discussed above.  
 
Case 1: Siemens 
Sources for Case: Siemens (2018a), Siemens (2018b)  

Siemens is one of the world’s largest producers of energy-efficient, resource-saving 
technologies. It is a leading supplier of systems for power generation and transmission as well as 
medical imaging and laboratory diagnostics. The company generated revenue of €83.0 billion and net 
income of €6.2 billion in 2017 (Siemens, n.d.). Siemens was ranked number 50 on Interbrand’s 100 
Global Brands and number 1 on Forbes Most Sustainable companies in 2017. Table 1 provides an 
overview of the company’s involvement and activities relating to Cross-Sector Alliances, Sustainable 
Innovations, Strategic CSR and change in brand value.   
  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Brand Ecosystem 

Cross-

Sector 

Alliances 

Sustainable 

Innovations Global 

Brand 

Value 

Stakeholder 

Orientation 

Strategic 

CSR 



84 
 

Table 1 - Siemens: CSA, SI, Strategic CSR and Change in Brand Value 
 

Cross-Sector Alliances: 

Alliance Project Goal/Outcomes Stakeholders 

Con Edison (NYC 

Utility) 

Installation of 

technology for 

continuation of 

service during severe 

weather 

Increased resiliency 

of power system to 

unexpected weather 

events and flooding 

Customers, 

community 

Blue Lake Rancheria 

(Native American 

reservation) 

Utilization of 

Siemens intelligent 

micro-grid 

management software 

to launch low carbon 

community and 

deliver cleaner power 

Energy savings to 

local community of 

$200,000 in annual 

energy costs and 

reduction of 150 tons 

of carbon per year 

Tribal, federal, state, 

and local 

governments, 

technology providers, 

community 

Numerous start-ups “next-47” (Siemens’ 

unit for partnership 

with start-ups) 

Commercialization of 

emerging 

technologies in the 

area of 3D printing, 

robotics and drones, 

artificial intelligence 

and virtual reality 

Entrepreneurs, 

customers in the area 

of health care, 

manufacturing, and 

renewable energy 

Aspen Institute Technical Scholars 

project for STEM 

education at top 

community colleges 

Increased 

opportunities in 

STEM education and 

careers for students 

pursuing alternatives 

to 4-year universities 

Community, students 

Darktrace (leader in 

enterprise and 

industrial immune 

system technology) 

Provides cutting-edge 

cyber defense to 

utilities and the oil 

and gas industry 

Increase cyber-

security 

Clients in utilities and 

oil and gas industry 

 

Sustainable Innovations: 

Innovation Benefit Area Objectives/Outcomes  Shareholders 

DAQRI augmented 

reality helmet 

technology (smart 

helmet technology) 

Digitalization in gas 

turbine training and 

field service 

operations 

Increases speed, 

efficiency and 

accuracy of 

technicians; enhances 

productivity 

customers 

Development of 

intelligent 

infrastructure 

(technology and 

software)  

Integration of traffic 

management systems 

in urban areas 

through digitalization 

Reduction of 

congestion, traffic 

incidents on existing 

roads; Improved 

operational efficiency, 

energy and cost 

savings for rail 

Customers, 

community members 



85 

 

operators; Build smart 

cities of the future; 

creation of “internet 

of Trains” 

Medical imaging, 

molecular testing 

Life-saving health 

technology 

Improve patient 

outcomes; enhanced 

efficiency; early 

detection of Zika 

virus 

Customers, medical 

partners, patients 

Incorporation of 

cybersecurity in all 

aspects of technology 

development 

Cybersecurity and 

anti-terrorism 

Enhanced protection 

of infrastructure and 

security of military 

Customers, 

community 

 

Strategic CSR 

Areas Activities/Projects Goals/Outcomes Stakeholders 

Technology Integration of 

innovative 

technologies such as 

water solutions, AC 

drives and renewable 

energy solutions  

Community 

development; 

improve quality of 

life of marginalized 

communities by 

providing electricity, 

clean drinking water 

and basic health care 

Local community 

Education Provides education in 

science, technology, 

engineering and 

mathematics 

Improve educational 

level; training of 

work force; enhanced 

employee satisfaction 

Local community; 

employees 

Cultural Supporting values 

and culture of local 

communities 

Humanitarian 

emergency aid 

Local communities 

 

 
Change in Brand Value (2012 -2017) 

Brand Forbes 

Sustainability 

Rank (2107) 

Interbrand 

Rank (2017)) 

Brand Value (in 

billion) 

 

% Change in 

Brand Value 

(2012-2017) 

2012 2017  

Siemens 1 50 $7.53 $9.98 33% 

 
Case 2: CISCO 
Sources for Case: Cisco (2018a), Cisco (2018b) 

Cisco System is a multinational company that develops, manufactures and sells networking 
hardware, telecommunications equipment and other high-technology services and products. It is the 
largest networking company in the world. The company generated revenue of $48 billion and net 
income of $9.6 billion in 2017. Cisco was ranked number 16 on Interbrand’s 100 Global Brands and 
number 3 on Forbes Most Sustainable companies in 2017. Table 2 provides an overview of the 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Networking_hardware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Networking_hardware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_equipment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-technology


86 
 

company’s involvement and activities relating to Cross-Sector Alliances, Sustainable Innovations, 
Strategic CSR and change in brand value.   
    

Table 2 - Cisco: CSA, SI, Strategic CSR and Change in Brand Value 
 
Cross-Sector Alliances 

Alliance Project Goals/Outcome Stakeholders 

Shawnee Mission 
School District 

Enterprise License 
Agreement for security, 
collaboration and one-
to-one digital learning 
initiative 

Enhanced safety and 
effectiveness with respect to 
student and teacher 
engagement; positive shift in 
student performance; increase 
in attendance 

Local 
community, 
teachers, 
students, 
educational 
institution 

Mozhugongka 
Hospital, Tibet 

Installation of Cisco 
collaboration 
equipment in hospitals 
in Mozhugongka and 
Nanjing 

Use of video-conferencing for 
instant access to medical 
experts and research 
benefitting patients in remote 
and high mountainous areas.  

Patients, 
hospitals, local 
communities 

BC Hydro and 
Power Authority, 
Vancouver 

Automating and 
analyzing the electric 
grid 

Increased data collection from 
once every two months to 
twice a day; controlled power 
outages; improved visibility 
for remote devices across the 
grid 

Local 
community, 
public utilities 

Milton Keynes 
University Hospital 
NHS Foundation 
Trust, UK 

Enable digital 
healthcare 

Improved patient outcomes; 
reduction in IT costs 

Patients, 
hospitals, local 
communities 

 
Sustainable Innovations 

Innovation Benefit Area Objectives/Outcomes Stakeholders  

Intent-based 
network (software 
that helps to plan, 
design and operate 
networks) 

Enterprise 
networking that 
allows network 
operators greater 
control over 
running the 
network 

Scalable and secure 
networking technology; IT 
automation for businesses; 
reduction of operational 
costs (projected to 
positively impact one 
billion people by 2025) 

Governments, 
educational 
institutions, 
customers, NGOs 

Encrypted Traffic 
Analytics  

Network security; 
innovative methods 
of using the 
network to detect 
and stop malware 

Protection of private data 
for businesses 

Clients, community 

IoT management 
solution 

Enhanced 
digitization of 
supply chain 

Accelerated decision 
making, easy connectivity, 
lower costs and increased 
customer engagement 

Clients, community 

 
  



87 

 

Strategic CSR 

Areas Activities/Projects Goals/Outcomes Stakeholders 

Social 
Entrepreneurship 

2017 Global Problem 
Solver Challenge – 
supports entrepreneurs 
who create breakthrough 
technologies, products 
and services that address 
social and environmental 
issues. 

Grants (including 
$100,000 Grand Prize) 
to multiple social 
entrepreneurs who 
used their innovations 
to solve problems in 
their community; for 
example, affordable 
speech-generating 
device for children 
and adults who are 
unable to speak 

Local community 

Financial Services Collaborates with 
Opportunity 
International to provide 
seed funding for mobile 
financial services in three 
countries in Africa; 
subsequent expansion to 
provide cash grants and 
donation of Cisco 
technology. 

Assist Opportunity 
International’s goal of 
creating 20 million 
jobs worldwide 
primarily among poor 
women, farmers, and 
rural young people. 

Local community; 
socially and 
economically 
vulnerable sections of 
society 

Education Cisco Networking 
Academy – integration of 
technology and education 
in order to prepare 
students for entry-level 
jobs and industry-
recognized certification 

Empowerment of 
students with vision, 
hearing, and physical 
disabilities; upward 
trend in female 
participation rates 
particularly in Oman, 
Peru, UAE, Nigeria 
and Tunisia 

Students, local 
communities, 
employers, clients 

 
Change in Brand Value (2012 -2017) 

Brand Forbes 
Sustainability 
Rank (2107) 

Interbrand 
Rank (2017)) 

Brand Value (in 
billion) 
 

% Change in 
Brand Value 
(2012-2017) 

2012 2017  

Cisco 3 16 $27.19 $31.93 17% 

 
Case 3: ADIDAS 
Sources for Case: Adidas (2018a); Adidas (2018b); Adidas (2018c) 

Adidas is a multinational corporation that designs and manufactures shoes, clothing and 
accessories. It is the largest sportswear manufacturer in Europe, and the second largest in the world, 
after Nike. It employs nearly 57,000 people worldwide and produces over 900 million sports and 
sports lifestyle products with independent manufacturing partners every year. The company generated 
revenue of $€ 21.2 billion and net income of €6.2 billion in 2017. (Adidas, n.d.). Adidas was ranked 
number 55 on Interbrand’s 100 Global Brands and number 49 on Forbes Most Sustainable companies 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportswear_(activewear)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike,_Inc.


88 
 

in 2017. Table 3 provides an overview of the company’s involvement and activities relating to Cross-
Sector Alliances, Sustainable Innovations, Strategic CSR and change in brand value.   
 

Table 3 - Adidas: CSA, SI, Strategic CSR and Change in Brand Value 
 
Cross-Sector Alliances 

Alliance Project Goals/Outcome Stakeholders 

SOS Children’s 
Village, Syria 

Availability of clean 
water 

700 local families in the region 
provided access to water on a 
daily basis 

Local 
community 

Parley for the 
Oceans 

Ocean Plastic Program Reduction of marine plastic 
pollution 

Society, local 
communities 

Maersk Line 
(shipping 
company; 
transportation and 
logistics partner for 
Adidas) 

Environmental 
Program 

Reduction of Carbon 
footprint 

Society, 
partners, 
collaborators 

NGO Baidaire 
(non-government 
and non-profit civil 
society 
organization in 
Pakistan) 

Women’s 
Empowerment 
Program 

1000 female workers in Sialkot 
area of Pakistan were 
provided job opportunities in 
the workplace 

Local 
communities, 
vulnerable 
sections of 
population 

 
Sustainable Innovations 

Innovation Benefit Area Objectives/Outcomes Stakeholders  

Futurecraft 4D (use 
of Digital Light 
Synthesis in 
production) 

High- performance 
footwear; 
elimination of the 
use of traditional 
prototyping or 
molding 

Company aims to produce 
100,000 pairs by end of 
2018 

Community, 
suppliers, customers 

‘Cotton + Corn’ 
Sustainable 
Products Initiative 

Eco-friendly 
footwear 
production; 
components include 
organic cotton and 
industrial grown 
corn, which is a non-
food source 

Company aims to market 
plant-based footwear by 
2018 

Community, supply 
chain, customers 

Recycle ocean 
plastic into yarn for 
shoes 

Reduction of marine 
plastic pollution; use 
of recycled PET 
material in 
production 

Company aims at creating 
one million pair of shoes 
made with Parley Ocean 
Plastic 

Society, supply chain, 
customers 

 
 
 



89 

 

 
 
 
Strategic CSR 

Areas Activities/Projects Goals/Outcomes Stakeholders 

Energy conservation Programs in energy 
efficiency, demand 
reduction, & 
renewable energy; 
divestment of some 
high energy-
consuming sites 

3% reduction in CO2 
emissions (baseline 
2015) and enable 
carbon neutrality 

Community, society 

Water efficiency Holistic approach to 
water management 

Reduction of 
incremental water 
consumption 

Community, 
employees 

Waste management Innovative waste 
diversion methods; 
timely and cost-
effective recycling of 
electronic waste 

Company aims to 
achieve a 50% waste 
diversion rate at all 
owned operation 
facilities by 2020 

Society, local 
communities 

Sustainability in retail 
stores 

Construction of new 
stores incorporates 
sustainability 
fundamentals based 
on LEED certification 
program 

Company aims to 
have all new key 
corporate 
construction projects 
and key retail stores as 
LEED (Leadership in 
Energy and 
Environmental 
Design) certified 

Society, local 
communities, 
employees, customers 

 
Change in Brand Value (2012 -2017) 

Brand Forbes 
Sustainability 
Rank (2107) 

Interbrand 
Rank (2017)) 

Brand Value (in 
billion) 
 

% Change in 
Brand Value 
(2012-2017) 

2012 2017  

Adidas 49 55 $6.69 $9.21 38% 

 
 
Case 4: BMW 
Sources for Case: BMW (2018a); BMW (2018b) 

 BMW is an automobile and motorcycle manufacturer that focuses all its brands on the 
premium segment. It has 30 production and assembly facilities in 14 countries and employs nearly 
130, 000 people. (BMW, n.d.). The company generated revenue of €98.7 billion and net income of 
€8.7 billion in 2017. BMW was ranked number 13 on Interbrand’s 100 Global Brands and number 16 
on Forbes Most Sustainable companies in 2017. Table 4 provides an overview of the company’s 
involvement and activities relating to Cross-Sector Alliances, Sustainable Innovations, Strategic CSR 
and change in brand value.   
 
  



90 
 

Table 4 - BMW: CSA, SI, Strategic CSR and Change in Brand Value 
 

 
Cross-Sector Alliances 

Alliance Project Goals/Outcome Stakeholders 

Brunp Battery recycling in 
China 

Reduction in pollution and 
waste sent to landfills; 
conservation of resources  

Community, 
customers 

Various 
stakeholders 
including cities and 
experts 

Urban mobility Enhanced individual and 
sustainable mobility in densely 
populated urban areas  

Communities in 
urban areas, 
public and auto-
transport users 

UNAOC (United 
Nations Alliance of 
Civilizations) 

Intercultural 
Innovation Award for 
innovative projects that 
seek solutions for 
intercultural tensions 
and conflict 

Contribution to enhanced 
inter-cultural understanding; 
project sponsored by BMW 
award had reached over two 
million people worldwide by 
2017 

Society, local 
communities 

 
Sustainable Innovations 

Innovation Benefit Area Objectives/Outcomes Stakeholders  

Autonomous driving Development and 
expansion of open 
platform for 
autonomous driving 

Goal is to achieve fully 
autonomous driving in 
fields ranging from 
software development to 
road testing 

Society, auto-
transportation users, 
employees, 
customers 

Connected Drive Increased interaction 
of driver, vehicle and 
outside world 
through digital 
integration 

Increased safety for 
drivers and road users; 
increased comfort for 
drivers 

Society, auto-
transportation users; 
customers 

Efficient Dynamics Development of 
efficient combustion 
engine, increasing 
electrification of 
drive-trains, and 
improved 
aerodynamics 

Optimization of energy 
efficiency of automobiles 
and motorcycles 

Society, auto-
transportation users, 
employees, 
customers 

 
Strategic CSR 

Areas Activities/Projects Goals/Outcomes Stakeholders 

Environmental 
protection 

Expansion of vehicle 
fleet with alternative 
drivetrains; innovative 
mobility service 

Substantial reduction 
of CO2 emissions; 
increased annual sales 
of electrified vehicles 

Communities, auto-
transportation users, 
customers 

Sustainability in 
supply chain 

Increased supplier 
accountability with 
respect to transparency 
and resource efficiency 

Increase supplier 
compliance with 
environmental and 

Communities, 
employees, suppliers, 
collaborators 



91 

 

social standards across 
the value chain 

Employees Investment in employee 
training and development 

Enhanced quality of 
life of employees; 
enhanced job-related 
skills of employees; 
enhanced employee 
loyalty and low staff 
attrition rate 

employees 

 
Change in Brand Value (2012 -2017) 

Brand Forbes 
Sustainability 
Rank (2107) 

Interbrand 
Rank (2017)) 

Brand Value (in 
billion) 
 

% Change in 
Brand Value 
(2012-2017) 

2012 2017  

BMW 16 13 $29.05 $41.52 43% 

 

Case 5: L’OREAL 
Sources for Case: L’Oreal (2018a); L’Oreal  (2018b) 

 L’Oreal is the world’s largest cosmetics company. It operates in 150 countries and has 
nearly 82,600 employees worldwide.  The company generated revenue of €26 billion and net income 
of €4.68 billion in 2017. L’Oreal was ranked number 45 on Interbrand’s 100 Global Brands and 
number 38 on Forbes Most Sustainable companies in 2017. Table 5 provides an overview of the 
company’s involvement and activities relating to Cross-Sector Alliances, Sustainable Innovations, 
Strategic CSR and change in brand value.   
 

Table 5 - L’Oreal: CSA, SI, Strategic CSR and Change in Brand Value 
 Cross-Sector Alliances 

Alliance Project Goals/Outcome Stakeholders 

Various research 
institutions, 
laboratories, 
startups and 
suppliers 

Open innovation New innovations for the 
beauty market and 
personalization according to 
customer needs 

Educational 
institutions, 
suppliers, 
entrepreneurs, 
customers, 
community 

Chinese Ministry 
of the 
Environment 

Green Consumption 
Initiative 

Sustainable production and 
reduction of environmental 
impact of formulas and 
packaging 

Employees, 
government, 
consumers, 
community 

Pur Project (fair 
trade-certified 
cooperative 
practicing organic 
farming in 
Thailand) 

Planting trees in north-
eastern Thailand 

Enrichment of soil and 
biodiversity; improved 
moisture retention; captured 
8,843 tonnes of CO2 
equivalent through planting 
trees  

Supply chain, 
farmers, local 
community 

Photon Website Factory 
Project in Chennai, 
India (use of digital 

Economic development of 
region; job opportunities for 
local, underprivileged 

Community, 
supply chain, 
employees 



92 
 

technology to 
implement and 
maintain websites) 

communities including women 
and minority groups 

NGO Shanshui 
Conservation, 
China 

Development of supply 
chain for honey (used 
as an ingredient in 
some beauty products) 

Production of high-quality 
honey; enhanced sustainable 
farming practices; positive 
impact of preservation of 
natural habitat of pandas in 
the region 

Community, 
supply chain, 
employees 

 
Sustainable Innovations 

Innovation Benefit Area Objectives/Outcomes Stakeholders  

Dermo-cosmetics Skincare that 
incorporates health, 
safety, well-being, 
and naturalness 

Immediate visibility of 
skincare results; combats 
environmental and life-
style factors 

Customers 

“Coalescent 
Innovations”  

Combination of 
existing technology 
to create new 
products and 
processes in the area 
of skincare and 
beauty 

Product application and 
skin reaction tests to 
combat ageing, UV 
exposure, and pollution 

Product users, 
community 

Collaborative 
Robots or “cobots” 

Assist in various 
steps in the 
production process 
as well as data 
management 

Simplification of logistics, 
and operational 
management in stores 

Employees, 
customers, suppliers 

Dry Factory Reduction of water 
consumption 

Company’s Burgos plant 
located in Spain uses 100% 
recyclable and reusable 
water 

community 

 
Strategic CSR 

Areas Activities/Projects Goals/Outcomes Stakeholders 

Environment Evaluation of 
environmental impact of 
raw materials used in 
production process along 
2 parameters: 
biodegradability and the 
absence of aquatic 
ecotoxicity 

99% of ingredients 
used to create hair 
care products are 
biodegradable; 70 to 
100% are of natural 
origin 

Community, 
consumers, suppliers 

Packaging  Stimulate the circular 
economy 

100% of the 
company’s plastic 
packaging is projected 
to be refillable, 
reusable or 
compostable 

Community, 
consumers 



93 

 

Environment Zero Deforestation 
policy 

The company projects 
that none of the 
ingredients and raw 
material used in its 
products would be 
linked with 
deforestation 

Community  

Environment Peatland restoration 
project in Borneo, 
Indonesia; training of 
local village communities 
on sustainable farming 
practices 

Project contributed to 
preventing the 
emission of more than 
31,700 tons of CO2 
equivalent in 2017 

Community, supply 
chain members 

 
Change in Brand Value (2012 -2017) 

Brand Forbes 
Sustainability 
Rank (2107) 

Interbrand 
Rank (2017)) 

Brand Value (in 
billion) 
 

% Change in 
Brand Value 
(2012-2017) 

2012 2017  

L’Oreal 38 45 $8.82 $10.67 21% 

 
Discussion 

In the current socio-economic climate global brands need to move beyond “business as usual” 
mind-set. Customers and other stakeholders have to be provided a broader array of activities through 
which they can enhance their association with global brands. It is apparent that all five companies – 
Siemens, Cisco, Adidas, BMW, and L’Oreal take a holistic approach to brand management. Through 
the integration of sustainable innovations, cross-sector alliances and strategic CSR, these companies 
are able to impact a wide variety of stakeholders, not just customers. The following are some of the 
key themes that emerge from this research. 
 
1. Cross-Sector Alliances: 

 Each of the companies were involved in CSA with partners in diverse fields all over the world. 
Siemens’ alliances included a utility company, a Native American reservation, multiple start-ups in the 
area of 3D printing, education institutions, and cyber-security enterprises. Cisco Systems had alliances 
with a school district, hospitals in Tibet and the USA, and Hydro-Power Authority. Adidas CSAs were 
in the areas of providing clean water, reduction of marine plastic pollution, reduction of carbon 
footprint, and women’s empowerment.  BMW had alliances with partners in battery recycling, urban 
mobility, and reduction of intercultural tensions. L’Oreal’s alliances were in the fields of innovations 
in the beauty market, sustainable farming, and economic development of underprivileged. Thus, P1 
was supported. 

The success of these companies is primarily because they were able to co-create synergistic 
value with their alliance partners. According to Austin and Seitanidi (2012), “synergistic value arises 
from the underlying premise of all collaborations that combining partners’ resources enables them to 
accomplish more together than they could have separately” (pg. 731). Further, based on the case, 
through the companies' endeavors, it is apparent that they regarded the costs associated with providing 
societal and environmental value to various stakeholders as an investment rather than an expense. 
 
 
  



94 
 

2. Sustainable Innovations:  
Each of the five global brands engaged in extensive sustainable innovations in diverse areas. 

These innovations were related to long-term sustainable development and were geared towards the 
fulfillment of stakeholder expectations. Siemens SIs encompassed smart helmet technology, life-
saving health technology, traffic management systems through digitalization, and cybersecurity. Cisco 
Systems was engaged in intent-based networks, encrypted traffic analytics, and enhanced digitization 
of its supply chain through SIs. Adidas initiatives included: use of digital light synthesis in production, 
eco-friendly footwear production, and reduction of marine plastic pollution. BMW focused on 
autonomous driving, digital integration, increasing electrification of drive-trains, and improved 
aerodynamics. L’Oreal’s SIs were in the areas of dermo-cosmetics (skincare incorporating health, 
safety, and naturalness), “cobots” (collaborative robots that assist in the production process and data 
management), and reduction of water consumption. 

The SIs created socio-environmental value for multiple stakeholders as well as contributed to 
the enhancement of the brand value for each of the companies over a five year period (2012 -2017). 
Stakeholder participation also led to the increased collaboration of supply chain members in some 
cases.  For example, Cisco Systems’ intent-based network that aims to increase IT automation and 
reduce operational costs involves the participation of stakeholders such as governments, educational 
institutions, various NGOs, and customers. Thus, P2 was supported.  
 
3.Strategic CSR: 

Global brands under investigation have used strategic CSR to build and strengthen 
relationships with multiple stakeholders including local communities, vulnerable sections of society, 
government organizations, supply chain members, students, employees, and customers.  
Siemens’ activities include community development and improving the quality of life of marginalized 
communities by providing electricity, clean drinking water, and basic health care; supporting the 
cultural values of local communities, and providing humanitarian emergency aid.  Cisco Systems is 
actively involved in social entrepreneurship relating to societal and environmental issues. In addition, 
the company provides seed funding for mobile financial services and empowerment programs for 
women and students with disabilities. Adidas’ strategic CSR initiatives are in the fields of energy 
conversation, water efficiency, waste management, and sustainability in retail sustainability. BMW’s 
efforts are targeted towards environmental protection, sustainability in supply chain, and improvement 
in the quality of life for employees. L’Oreal strategic CSR is geared towards environmental protection 
initiatives and stimulation of the circular economy through recycling. Thus, P3 was supported. 
 
4. Brand Value – Global brand equity: 

The increase in brand value for Siemens, Cisco, Adidas, BMW and L’Oreal over a five-year 
period (2012 to 2017) was 33%, 17%, 38%, 43%, and 21%   respectively, thereby lending support to 
P4. A causal relationship between the three variables (CSA, SI and strategic CSR) and global brand 
value is not being implied. However, correlation is being inferred. Clearly, global brands have to 
consider moving beyond just customer profitability to meeting and exceeding stakeholder 
expectations in order to enhance their brand value. 
 
5. Consistency with Core Brand Value Proposition: 
  It is also noteworthy that these global brands are engaging in multi-faceted activities in ways 
that are consistent with their respective core brand value propositions. In other words, CSAs, SIs and 
strategic CSRs are not carried out purely out of altruistic or philanthropic considerations but are 
designed around the companies’ core values. Table 7 emphasizes the linkages between core brand 
values and key activities. 
 



95 

 

Table 6 
Linkage between Core Brand Value and Key Activities of Global Brands 

 

Brand Core Brand Value Key Activities 
 

 
Siemens 

• Help power a sustainable future 
across the globe 

• Digital transformation 

• Reducing carbon footprint 

• Medical innovations  

 
Cisco 

• “change the world” 

• Customer focus 

• Mutual respect and care 

• Collaboration with CSAs in 
education, health, and 
hydropower 

• Enhanced enterprise networking 

• Digitization  

• World-wide job creation 
endeavors 

 
Adidas 

• Change life through sports 

• Sustainability 

• Collaboration with athletes, 
consumers, and partners 

• Innovations in high-performance 
footwear and sustainable product 
development 

• Energy conservation and water 
efficiency programs 

 
BMW 

• Shaping the future of mobility 

• Customer focus and service 

• Autonomous driving technology 

• Urban mobility and safety 

• Environmental protection 
accountability from supply chain 
members 

• Employee training and 
development 

 
L’Oreal 

• “sharing beauty with all” 

• Economic and social leadership 

•  Innovation in skincare and 
beauty 

• Digital superiority 

• Environmental and social 
collaborations with multiple 
CSAs 

 
 

Managerial Implications 
  Global brand strategy should be formulated on the basis of a multifaceted and multi-

stakeholder perspective. The contribution of this research is that it adopts a new approach to studying 
global brand management by incorporating sustainable innovations, CSA and strategic CSR. This 
paper demonstrates potential linkages between the three concepts and global brand value. It focuses 
not only on the economic aspects of global branding but also on potential societal and environmental 
outcomes in enhancing brand value.   

Global brands can differentiate themselves on the world stage by considering the priorities of 
local stakeholders. Alliances with NGOs and NPOs who are knowledgeable about local socio-cultural 
nuances can provide legitimacy and acceptability to international companies.  Further, high 



96 
 

congruence between value propositions of global brands and alliance partners can facilitate the 
formation of CSAs. This study reveals several examples of alliances that were based on mutually 
consistent value propositions. Adidas partnered with Parley for the Oceans to reduce marine plastic 
pollution. Cisco collaborated with a hospital in remote areas of Tibet for video-conferencing and 
instant access to medical experts for patients. BMW formed an alliance with Pur Project (fair trade-
certified cooperative practicing organic farming in Thailand) for planting trees in eastern Thailand for 
soil enrichment and biodiversity, thereby benefitting supply chain farmers and the local community. 

Firms can attract socially responsible consumers and stakeholders who want global brands to 
“do good” or engage in philanthropy on their behalf. Benabou and Tirole (2010) use the term 
“delegated philanthropy” for such actions wherein the firm is used as a channel for the expression of 
citizen values. Thus, global brands can target these consumer segments through their strategic CSR 
endeavors. 

Incorporation of sustainability principles including an emphasis on sustainable innovations 
has to be incorporated into the business model of global brands in order to ensure competitive 
advantage. The three principles of sustainable development have been identified as environmental 
integrity, social equity, and economic prosperity (Bansal, 2005; Elkington, 1999). According to Bansal 
(2005), environmental integrity ensures that resources of the planet are not irreversibly depleted by 
human activities; social equity implies equal opportunities for all sections of society as well as future 
generations; and economic prosperity refers to the achievement of an acceptable quality of life for 
individuals aided by production and distribution of products that help enhance standard of living. 
  The stakeholder perspective necessarily entails taking a long-term focus that includes company 
profitability while at the same time engaging in activities that have societal and environmental benefits. 
This recommendation is consistent with Porter and Kramer’s (2011) exaltation to create “shared 
value” as a consequence of interdependencies between business and society. Brand loyalty and brand 
value can be enhanced by building trust with consumers and stakeholders through positive socio-
economic actions. 
 
Limitations and Future Research 

The study has investigated only five global companies and has relied on secondary data.  
Further, there is no causal relationship being implied between sustainable innovations, CSA and 
strategic CSR activities and an increase of brand value. This study has not focused on the downsides 
of a firm’s actions and the potential for conflict with different stakeholders. This may be the case if 
alliance partners are chosen whose core value propositions may not necessarily reflect those of 
particular global brands. Similarly, brand value can be diluted if CSR activities are seen to be merely 
“window-dressing.” Further, the interactive effect of the three variables has not been investigated. 

The present research is an exploratory step to encourage investigation of global branding 
dimensions that have remained relatively uncharted till now. Future cross-disciplinary empirical 
research can investigate a wide range of global brands across many sectors and industries. In addition, 
comparisons can be made between those brands that are on the Forbes sustainability list and those 
that are not, to highlight best practice themes.  
 

References 
Akaka, M.A. and Alden, D.L. (2010) Global brand positioning and perceptions: International 

advertising and global consumer culture. International Journal of Advertising 29 (1): 37–56. 
Adidas (n.d.) Profile. Retrieved from https://www.adidas-group.com/en/group/profile/ 
Adidas (2018a) Annual Report 2017. Retrieved from https://www.adidas-

group.com/media/filer_public/6a/69/6a690baa-8430-42c5-841d-
d9222a150aff/annual_report_gb-2017_en_secured.pdf 

https://www.adidas-group.com/en/group/profile/
https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/6a/69/6a690baa-8430-42c5-841d-d9222a150aff/annual_report_gb-2017_en_secured.pdf
https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/6a/69/6a690baa-8430-42c5-841d-d9222a150aff/annual_report_gb-2017_en_secured.pdf
https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/6a/69/6a690baa-8430-42c5-841d-d9222a150aff/annual_report_gb-2017_en_secured.pdf


97 

 

Adidas (2018b) 2017 Green company performance analysis. Retrieved from https://www.adidas-
group.com/media/filer_public/cd/fe/cdfef902-4d6c-4720-a6fd-
12815ec169f8/adidas_green_company_report_2017.pdf 

Adidas (2018c) Adidas sustainability progress report 2016. Retrieved from https://www.adidas-
group.com/media/filer_public/08/7b/087bf055-d8d1-43e3-8adc-
7672f2760d9b/2016_adidas_sustainability_progress_report.pdf 

Austin, J. E. and Seitanidi, M. M. (2012) Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering 
between nonprofits and businesses: Part I value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. 
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5): 726-758. 

BMW (n.d.). Who we are. Retrieved from https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/company.html 
BMW (2018a). Annual Report 2017. Retrieved from https://annual-

report2017.bmwgroup.com/bmwgroup/annual/2017/gb/layout/pdf/en/Annual_Report_2
017.pdf 

BMW (2018b). https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw-group-
websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2017/BMW-Group-SustainableValueReport-
2017--EN.pdf 

Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable 
development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197-218. 

Benabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2010) Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305): 
1-19. 

Bhattacharya, C. B. (2010) Introduction to the special section on stakeholder marketing. Journal of 
Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1): 1-3. 

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korschun, D. (2008) Stakeholder marketing: Beyond the four Ps and the 
customer. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27 (Spring): 113-116.  

Bloomsbury Business Library – Business & Management Dictionary (2007) 1066.  
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J. and Wagner, M. (2013) Sustainable innovation, business models 

and economic performance: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45(April): 1-8. 
Bordewijk, J. (2006) Chains and networks for development. In: Ruben, R., Slingerland, M., Nijhoff, 

H. (Eds.), Agro-food Chains and Networks for Development Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 49-55. 
Brower, J. and Mahajan, V. (2013) Driven to be good: A stakeholder perspective on the drivers of 

corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 117: 313-331. 
Carvalho, S.W., Sen, S., Mota, M.D. and Lima, R.C. (2010) Consumer reactions to CSR: a Brazilian 

perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 91 (2): 291-310. 
Cisco (2018a). 2017 Annual Report. Retrieved from 

https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/annual-report/2017-annual-report-
summary.pdf 

Cisco (2018b). 2017 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Retrieved from 
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/assets/csr/pdf/CSR-Report-2017.pdf 

Clarke, A. and Crane, A (2018). Cross-sector partnerships for systemic change: Systematized 
literature review and agenda for further research. Journal of Business Ethics 150: 303-313. 

Clarke, A. and MacDonald, A. (2016). Outcomes to partners in multistakeholder cross-sector 
partnerships: A resource-based view. Business and Society. https ://doi.org/10.1177/00076 
50316 66053 4 

Dahan, M.N., Doh, J.P., Oetzel, J., Yaziji, M. (2010) Corporate-NGO collaboration: cocreating 
new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning 43, 326-342. 

Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A. and Yang, Y. G. (2011) Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and 
the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The 
Accounting Review 86(1): 59–100. 

https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/cd/fe/cdfef902-4d6c-4720-a6fd-12815ec169f8/adidas_green_company_report_2017.pdf
https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/cd/fe/cdfef902-4d6c-4720-a6fd-12815ec169f8/adidas_green_company_report_2017.pdf
https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/cd/fe/cdfef902-4d6c-4720-a6fd-12815ec169f8/adidas_green_company_report_2017.pdf
https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/08/7b/087bf055-d8d1-43e3-8adc-7672f2760d9b/2016_adidas_sustainability_progress_report.pdf
https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/08/7b/087bf055-d8d1-43e3-8adc-7672f2760d9b/2016_adidas_sustainability_progress_report.pdf
https://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/08/7b/087bf055-d8d1-43e3-8adc-7672f2760d9b/2016_adidas_sustainability_progress_report.pdf
https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/company.html
https://annual-report2017.bmwgroup.com/bmwgroup/annual/2017/gb/layout/pdf/en/Annual_Report_2017.pdf
https://annual-report2017.bmwgroup.com/bmwgroup/annual/2017/gb/layout/pdf/en/Annual_Report_2017.pdf
https://annual-report2017.bmwgroup.com/bmwgroup/annual/2017/gb/layout/pdf/en/Annual_Report_2017.pdf
https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw-group-websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2017/BMW-Group-SustainableValueReport-2017--EN.pdf
https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw-group-websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2017/BMW-Group-SustainableValueReport-2017--EN.pdf
https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw-group-websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2017/BMW-Group-SustainableValueReport-2017--EN.pdf
javascript:__doLinkPostBack('','mdb~~bth%7C%7Cjdb~~bthjnh%7C%7Css~~JN%20%22Bloomsbury%20Business%20Library%20-%20Business%20%26%20Management%20Dictionary%22%7C%7Csl~~jh','');
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/annual-report/2017-annual-report-summary.pdf
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/annual-report/2017-annual-report-summary.pdf
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/assets/csr/pdf/CSR-Report-2017.pdf


98 
 

Dyck, B. and Silvestre, B.S. (2018) Enhancing socio-ecological value creation through sustainable 
innovation 2.0: Moving away from maximizing financial value capture. Journal of Cleaner 
Production 17: 1593-1604. 

Fatma, M. and Rahman, Z. (2015) Consumer perspective on CSR literature review and future 
research agenda. Management Research Review, 38(2): 195-216. 

Ferrell, O.C., Gonzalez-Padron, T.L., Hult, T.M and Maignan, I. (2010) From market orientation to 
stakeholder orientation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1): 93-96. 

Freeman, R. E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall. 

Hartman, L.P. and  Dhanda, K.K. (2018) Cross-Sector partnerships: An examination of success 
factors. Business and Society Review, 123 (1): 181-214. 

Holt, D., Quelch, J.A. and Taylor, E.L. (2004) How Global Brands Compete. Harvard Business Review 
82 (9): 1–9. 

Hong, Y. and Andersen, M. L. (2011) The relationship between corporate social responsibility and 
earnings management: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 104: 461–471. 

Homburg, C., Stierl, M., & Bornemann, T. (2013). Corporate social responsibility in business-to-
business markets: how organizational customers account for supplier corporate social 
responsibility engagement. Journal of Marketing, 77(November), 54-72. 

Hutchins, J. Sinha M. and Nandan S. (2019). The sustainability route to corporate legitimacy. Journal 
of Global Marketing Scholars of Marketing Science, 29(1): 15-24. 
Interbrand (2018) Methodology retrieved from https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-

global-brands/methodology/ 
Interbrand (2015). Interbrand financial applications for brand valuations. 
https://www.interbrand.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Interbrand-Financial-Applications-

for-Brand-Valuations.pdf 
Jawahar, I.M. and McLaughlin, G.L. (2001) Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An 

organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 397-414. 
Kerrin, R. A. and Sethuraman R. (1998) Exploring the brand value-shareholder value nexus for 

consumer foods companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26(4): 260-273. 
Lee, S. and Heo, C.Y. (2009) Corporate social responsibility and customer satisfaction among US 

publicly traded hotels and restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management (28) 4: 635-
637. 

Levidow, L., Lindgaard-Jørgensen, P., Nilsson, Å., Skenhall, S.A. and Assimacopoulos, D. (2016) 
Process eco-innovation: assessing meso-level eco-efficiency in industrial water-service 
systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 110 54-65.  

L’Oreal (2018a) Annual Report 2017. Retrieved from https://www.loreal-finance.com/en/annual-
report-2017 

L’Oreal (2018b) Sustainability Progress Report 2017. Retrieved from 
https://sharingbeautywithall.loreal.com/sites/default/files/cms/sbwa_2017_progress_repor
t_eng_0.pdf 

Louro, M. J., & Cunha, V. P. (2001). Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 
17(7-8), 849-875. 

Malik, M (2015) Value-enhancing capabilities of CSR: A brief review of contemporary literature. 
Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2): 419-438. 

Marcon, A., Medeiros, J. and  Riberio, J. (2017) Innovation and environmentally sustainable 
economy: Identifying the best practices developed by multinationals in Brazil. Journal of 
Cleaner Production, 160: 83-97. 

Markusson, N., (2011) Unpacking the black box of cleaner technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 
(4): 294-302. 

https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/methodology/
https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/methodology/
https://www.interbrand.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Interbrand-Financial-Applications-for-Brand-Valuations.pdf
https://www.interbrand.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Interbrand-Financial-Applications-for-Brand-Valuations.pdf
https://www.loreal-finance.com/en/annual-report-2017
https://www.loreal-finance.com/en/annual-report-2017
https://sharingbeautywithall.loreal.com/sites/default/files/cms/sbwa_2017_progress_report_eng_0.pdf
https://sharingbeautywithall.loreal.com/sites/default/files/cms/sbwa_2017_progress_report_eng_0.pdf


99 

 

Matten, D., Crane, A. and Chapple, W. (2003) Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate 
citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2): 109-120. doi:10.1023/A:1024128730308 

Nandan, S., and Nandan, M. (2014) Aligning Core Brand Values (CBV) and Corporate Social 
Responsibility (CSR) to Enhance Corporate Brand Equity (CBE). Indian Journal of Marketing, 
44(8): 21-31. 

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

Ozsomer, A. and Altaras, S. (2008) Global Brand Purchase Likelihood: A critical synthesis and an 
integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4): 1-28. 

Papadopoulos, N. and Martin, O.M. (2013) International Market Selection and Segmentation: 
Perceptions and Challenges. International Marketing Review, (2): 132-149. 

Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Peloza, J. and Shang, J. (2011) How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for 

stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences. 39: 117-135. 
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence Perspective. 

New York: Harper & Row Publishers. 
Popoli, P., (2011) Linking CSR strategy and brand image: Different approaches in local and global 

markets. Marketing Theory, 11(4): 419-433. 
Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. (2006) Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive 

Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78-92. 
 Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. E. (2011) The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 

89 (1/2): 62-77. 
Randrianasolo, A. (2017) Global brand value in developed, emerging, and least developed country 

markets. Journal of Brand Management, 24: 489-507. 
Sakarya, S., Bodur, M. and Öktem , Ö. Y. (2012) Social alliances: Business and social enterprise 

collaboration for social transformation. Journal of Business Research, 65(12): 1710-1720. 

Schuster, T. and Holtbrügge, D. (2014). Benefits of Cross‐sector partnerships in markets at the base 
of the pyramid. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23 (3): 188-203. 

Seitanidi, M. M. and Crane, A. (2009) Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the 
selection, design and institutionalization of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business 
Ethics, 85: 413–429. 

Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (Eds.) (2014). Responsible business and social partnerships: A research 
handbook. London: Routledge. 

Siemens (n.d.). About Siemens. Retrieved from 
https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/company/about.html#Siemensworldwide 

Siemens (2018a). Annual Report 2017. Retrieved from 
https://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/Siemens_AR2017.pdf 

Siemens (2018b). Siemens Sustainability Information 2017. Retrieved from 
https://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/siemens_sustainability_inf
ormation2017.pdf  

Sprinkle, G.B. and Maines, L.A. (2010), The benefits and cost of corporate social responsibility. 
Business Horizon, 53: 445-453. 

Stafford, E. R. and Hartman, C. L. (2001). Greenpeace’s ‘Greenfreeze Campaign’: Hurdling 
competitive forces in the diffusion of environmental technology innovation. In K. Green, P. 
Groenewegen, & P. Hofman (Eds.), Ahead of the Curve: Cases of Innovation in Environmental 
Management. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Stanton, J.V. and Burkink, T.J. (2008) Improving small farmer participation in export marketing 
channels: perceptions of US fresh produce importers. Supply Chain Management, 13, 199-210. 

https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/company/about.html#Siemensworldwide
https://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/Siemens_AR2017.pdf
https://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/siemens_sustainability_information2017.pdf
https://www.siemens.com/investor/pool/en/investor_relations/siemens_sustainability_information2017.pdf


100 
 

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden (2003), “How Perceived Brand 
Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1), 53–65. 

Steenkemp, J.B. (2014) How global brands create firm value: The 4V model. International Marketing 
Review, 31(1): 5-29. 

Talay, M.B., Townsend, J.D. and Yeniyurt, S. (2015) Global brand architecture position and market-
based performance: The moderating role of culture. Journal of International Marketing, 23 (2): 
55-72. 

Tiwari, M. K. (2010) Separation of brand equity and brand value. Global Business Review, 11(3): 421–
434.  

Torres, A., Bijmolt T., Tribo, J., Tribo, J. and Verhoef, P. (2012) Generating global brand equity 
through corporate social responsibility to key stakeholders. International Journal of Research in 
Marketing, 29: 13-24. 

Urde, M. (2003) Core value-based corporate brand building. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8): 
1017-1040. 

Valentine, S. and Fleischman, G. (2008) Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility 
and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77: 159–172. 

Varadarajan, R. (2017)  Innovating for sustainability: a framework for sustainable innovations and a 
model of sustainable innovations orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 25: 
14-36. 

Williams, O. F. (2014) CSR: Will it Change the World? Hope for the Future: An Emerging Logic in 
Business Practice. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 53(March), 9-26. 

Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Yip, G. and Hult, G.T.M. (2012) Total Global Strategy, 3rd ed, Pearson, Boston, MA. 
Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005) Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, 

and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9), 809-825. 
 


