1.
Why did you choose this topic, and how does it contribute to existing
literature?
I chose this topic due to the increasing relevance of sustainability in corporate governance and
the evolving nature of CSR in response to external environmental forces. This research addresses
a gap in how environmental dynamism moderates the effectiveness of sustainable practices on
CSR, offering a nuanced understanding of CSR's adaptability in volatile environments.
2. Explain key terms like 'Environmental Dynamism,' 'Sustainable Practices,'
and 'Corporate Social Responsibility.'
Environmental Dynamism: Refers to the degree of unpredictability and change within a
firm’s external environment.
Sustainable Practices: These are strategies that focus on long-term resource efficiency
and ecological responsibility.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Denotes corporate initiatives aimed at
positively impacting society beyond profit-making objectives.
The "moderating effect" implies that environmental dynamism influences the strength of the
relationship between sustainable practices and CSR outcomes.
3. Why is environmental dynamism important for CSR?
Environmental dynamism affects how firms adapt their CSR strategies, as highly dynamic
environments may require more agile, innovative responses to sustain competitiveness and CSR
alignment.
4. What research gap did your study address?
Previous research has largely focused on the direct effects of sustainable practices on CSR,
overlooking the moderating role of environmental dynamism. This study fills that gap by
exploring how external fluctuations reshape the CSR-sustainability nexus.
5. What are the primary objectives of your research?
The primary objectives were to examine how environmental dynamism affects sustainable
practices' impact on CSR and to provide insights into how firms can optimize CSR efforts under
varying environmental conditions.
6. Significance of studying environmental dynamism’s moderating role in CSR?
Understanding environmental dynamism’s role allows for a more flexible and resilient CSR
framework, enabling firms to better respond to external uncertainties while maintaining
responsible corporate practices.
7. What theoretical frameworks underpin your research?
This study is grounded in the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Contingency Theory, which
provide a lens for understanding how firms leverage internal capabilities and adapt to external
changes, particularly in CSR implementation.
8. How does your research differ from previous studies?
Most studies focus on direct relationships between sustainability and CSR; my research
incorporates environmental dynamism as a moderating variable, highlighting the conditional
nature of these relationships in different market contexts.
9. What key studies influenced your theoretical framework?
Key studies include work on dynamic capabilities in strategic management and CSR
frameworks that emphasize flexibility in response to external environmental shifts.
10. Explain your research design and methodology.
I employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating both qualitative case studies and quantitative
regression analysis to examine the moderating effect of environmental dynamism across various
industries.
11. How did you measure environmental dynamism and sustainable practices?
Environmental dynamism was measured through indicators like market volatility and regulatory
shifts, while sustainable practices were evaluated using metrics such as resource efficiency,
waste reduction, and long-term strategic investments in sustainability.
12. What challenges did you face during data collection?
A key challenge was acquiring longitudinal data in highly dynamic industries. I overcame this by
triangulating data from industry reports, firm disclosures, and market analysis.
13. Why did you choose your sample?
I selected industries with varying levels of environmental dynamism, such as technology and
manufacturing, to ensure diverse insights into how external volatility moderates CSR practices.
14. How did you analyze the data?
I employed hierarchical regression to assess the moderating effect, complemented by thematic
analysis for qualitative insights, ensuring a robust triangulation of findings.
15. What are the main findings of your research?
The findings reveal that in highly dynamic environments, sustainable practices exert a stronger
influence on CSR outcomes, as firms are compelled to innovate and adapt more rapidly to
maintain their social and environmental commitments.
16. How does environmental dynamism moderate the sustainability-CSR
relationship?
In dynamic environments, the positive impact of sustainable practices on CSR is amplified, as
firms that can swiftly adjust to external shifts are better positioned to enhance their CSR
effectiveness.
17. Were there any unexpected findings?
Surprisingly, in low-dynamism environments, the relationship between sustainable practices and
CSR was less significant, suggesting that firms in stable contexts may not feel the same urgency
to innovate or expand CSR efforts.
18. How do your results compare to previous studies?
Unlike previous studies that show a linear relationship between sustainability and CSR, my
findings highlight the conditional role of environmental dynamism, adding a new dimension to
the existing body of work.
19. What statistical tools did you use?
I used hierarchical regression to examine the interaction effects between environmental
dynamism and sustainable practices on CSR outcomes, providing a clear view of the moderating
role.
20. Practical implications for businesses?
Firms operating in volatile markets should prioritize adaptable and resilient CSR strategies that
allow for quick responses to environmental shifts, thereby sustaining both corporate reputation
and profitability.
21. Theoretical contributions of your research?
The research extends contingency theory by demonstrating how environmental volatility
moderates the relationship between sustainable practices and CSR, contributing to a more
dynamic understanding of CSR strategy.
22. Policy implications of your findings?
Policymakers could use these insights to create more adaptive CSR regulations, recognizing the
varying needs of firms in different environmental contexts.
23. Most significant contribution?
The most significant contribution is the integration of environmental dynamism into the CSR
discourse, revealing the contextual nature of CSR effectiveness in different market
environments.
24. What are the limitations of your study?
Limitations include the industry-specific focus, which may not generalize across all sectors, and
the reliance on self-reported data, which can introduce biases.
25. What would you do differently?
I would expand the sample to include more global industries and explore longitudinal impacts
over a longer timeframe to capture deeper insights into sustainability transitions.
26. Areas for future research?
Future research could explore how technological innovations or regulatory changes mediate the
sustainability-CSR relationship in various global contexts.
27. What was the most challenging aspect of this research?
The complexity of capturing environmental dynamism and its interplay with CSR across diverse
industries was challenging, requiring meticulous data collection and methodological rigor.
28. How has your understanding of CSR evolved?
This research deepened my understanding of CSR as a fluid, context-dependent strategy, where
firms must adapt their social and environmental commitments to align with external market
forces.
29. Future trends in CSR?
With increasing regulatory pressures and societal demands, I foresee greater integration of digital
tools and AI in CSR reporting and monitoring, alongside more adaptive strategies to tackle
climate change and social inequalities.
