The objective of the chapter is to take a multilevel perspective to better understand how CSR practices are developed inside a cluster. The authors aim to describe how CSR practices are developed comparing both firm's characteristics (e.g., innovative capacity, marketing innovation, international activities) and local interactions inside the cluster. In particular, they evaluate how internal dynamics of the cluster, defined by the networks of relationships that are developed with supporting organizations, along with leading firms in the cluster, shape a new institutional framework that locally legitimates CSR practices.
TopIntroduction
The agglomeration of firms, providers, clients and supporting organization in specific locations has attracted the attention of scholars late in the 19th century. The concept of clusters of economic activity dates back to Marshall (1890, 1920), who was the first scholar to investigate the concentration of specialized activities in certain localities. He explained such cluster of firms in related activities by the existence of external economies: specialized labour, specialized related trades, and specialized firms in different stages of the production cycle. Since them, abundant research has evaluated these benefits in terms of higher economic performance for firms localized in those spaces (Díez-Vial, 2011; Hervás-Oliver and Albors-Garrigos, 2009; Kukalis, 2010; Molina-Morales and Martínez-Fernández, 2009).
In general, it has been broadly considered that much of the agglomeration benefits are a consequence of knowledge exchange and knowledge creation between collocated agents in the cluster (Owen-Smith and Powell, 2004). Physical proximity facilitates the transfer of knowledge through formal means, such as technology partnership, strategic alliances, or supply contracts with other firms or institutions in the same location (Belso-Martinez et al., 2018). Also, proximity foster face-to-face contact and informal interactions, which has turned to be even more relevant than formal interactions in explaining firm performance (Belso-Martinez et al., 2015; Zaheer and Bell, 2005). Moreover, these clusters are considered local communities where shared standings, norms, and rules favour mutual understanding and learning (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005). Knowledge tends to be tacit and it requires certain cognitive proximity in order to communicate, understand and process knowledge successfully (Boschma, 2005). A firm’s capacity to learn is conditioned by the specific investment and complementary assets it possesses, or has possessed in the past, its social context and culture, and the portfolio of activities, technologies and markets in which it has been involved. All of these conditions propel firms towards a specific learning path determined by the prior and historical knowledge of the firm and reflected in their specific routines and procedures (Teece et al., 1997; Zahra and George, 2002).