The authors support this thesis with the opinion that the desire to improve corporate image and reputation is the typical driving factor in implementation of CSR strategies, within an organization. Secondly, this development of strategies to enhance the company's image then leads to greater industry understanding, which is then utilized to increase competitiveness. Third, the authors surmise that the corporation's enhanced reputation is a significant driver in increased opportunities for innovation, further increasing their competitiveness. Three Opposing Opinions/Reasons:

The three opposing opinions/reasons to Villanova, Lozano, and Arenas' (2009) thesis all center on paradoxes. The first is the strategy paradox. The strategy paradox occurs when corporate mission, vision and objectives are not compatible with CSR strategies and as such negatively affect competitiveness. Increased accountability is a facet of CSR and also a source of paradox in that "the more the company aims to be transparent and dialogue through different communication channels with its stakeholders, the more it looses the capacity to transmit a coherent and central message about the company and its vision" (p. 65), which can negatively impact competitiveness. Lastly, is the competitiveness paradox itself in that adopting certain CSR strategies, although improving competitiveness in some areas, will reduce competitiveness in other areas.

Summary:

Villanova, Lonzano and Arenas (2009) look simply beyond the valuation method of determining competitiveness in an industry to bring to light the nature of the relationship between CSR and organizational...

Their push/pull relationship between the two concepts clearly demonstrates the dynamic that can develop, with CSR being originally perceived by an organization as the end means of improving competitiveness, yet it becoming then the driving force in innovation that then leads to increased competitiveness. The authors do clearly state the challenges, however, to the adoption of CSR strategies. It is not simply a matter of businesses adopting CSR practices to improve their reputation and a smooth and challenge-free path to competitive advantage. There are paradoxes involved in employing CSR strategies that have to be carefully considered to determine if the benefits of adopting such strategies outweigh the deterrents.
One facet the authors failed to address, however, is the moral component of CSR strategies. Villanova, Lozano and Arenas (2009) surmised that CSR strategies were adopted to promote corporate image and reputation. However, they failed to investigate those organizations who adopt CSR strategies for it simply being the "right thing to do," rather than it being a component of marketing. Numerous organizations have centered their entire business concept around CSR to fall in line with the moral desires of the founders, often understanding that it may reduce their competitiveness. This article would have been more complete had it investigated these organizations who were built on CSR and their competitiveness.