Capabilities Needed for Social Value Creation: A Multinational Enterprise Perspective

Increasingly, society looks at the business sector to play its role in creating social value (which consists of ESG, CSR and EDI), as organisations in general possess the financial, technological, and managerial resources needed for this. Multinational enterprises (MNEs), with their significant global and local influence, are especially well-positioned to serve as role models in this respect. The central question, however, is how MNEs can achieve this; specifically, what capabilities are essential for them to create and sustain social value. Current literature, unfortunately, lacks extensive research on these needed organisational capabilities. Therefore, our research aims to identify these capabilities by reviewing literature on social value and high-performance organisations (HPOs), known for their ability to excel across multiple areas, including social value. Using a combination of theoretical review and empirical research through focus groups with personnel from five MNEs, we developed an initial set of capabilities needed by MNEs to drive social value.

Introduction

The importance of sustainability has grown steadily this century (Montero-Navarroet al., 2021). Society increasingly expects businesses to contribute, as they have the financial, technological, and managerial resources to drive sustainability (Battilanaet al., 2019; Rygh, 2020). Due to corporate scandals over the past two decades, businesses are now expected to focus beyond shareholder value and create social value for all stakeholders (Weissbrod & Bocken, 2017; Rygh, 2020). Polman and Winston (2021) describe such companies as net positive businesses, which enhance well-being at every level—products, operations, regions, and stakeholders, including future generations. In practice, this means companies must develop competencies in social value creation, encompassing ESG (environmental, social, and governance), CSR (corporate social responsibility), and EDI (equality, diversity, and inclusion) (Government Commercial Function, 2020). Social value creation involves addressing social issues, altering social structures, and generating tangible societal improvements (Dacinet al., 2011). Achieving this requires robust management, leadership, and strategic and operational capabilities. The key question is: which capabilities enable successful social value creation?

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) play a crucial role in this area, with growing recognition of social value as a strategic priority (Ajwani-Ramchandaniet al., 2021; Mishra & Schmidt, 2018; Serafeim, 2020). Given their high impact, MNEs must not only avoid harming social value but actively foster it (Mishra & Schmidt, 2018). They require enhanced capabilities to succeed in this endeavor (Sinkovics & Archie-Acheampong, 2020; Van Tulderet al., 2021). While existing performance frameworks offer insights into organizational excellence, their relevance to social value creation remains underexplored (de Waalet al., 2023). Our research question, therefore, is: How can MNEs develop the capabilities needed for effective social value creation? This study does not focus on measuring social value but on the capabilities required to generate it. Our research unfolds in two phases: first, a literature review on social value creation in MNEs; second, empirical research at five MNEs to validate theoretical insights and refine the framework. We assess whether the High-Performance Organization (HPO) framework, traditionally linked to financial and operational success, can also support ESG, CSR, and EDI outcomes (Battilanaet al., 2019; Rygh, 2020). Additionally, with the rise of ESG reporting and compliance, we examine whether the HPO framework sufficiently captures the capabilities needed for effective social value reporting (Government Commercial Function, 2020). Our research contributes both theoretically—by expanding the literature on social value creation in MNEs—and practically—by helping businesses enhance their social value impact.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The next section lists the results of the literature review, followed by a description of the high performance organisation (HPO) framework (de Waal, 2012a, 2012b, 2021) with which an organisation can evaluate the capabilities it needs to achieve excellent results. Then, the research approach and the participating MNEs are described, and the theoretical and empirical research results are given and analysed. The article ends with a conclusion, research limitations and opportunities for future research.

Literature Review

We searched the literature databases EBSCO, Emerald and Google Scholar for relevant sources, using a combination of the keywords ‘social value,’ ‘social value creation’ and ‘capabilities’ in combination with ‘MNEs.’ We did not use the individual keywords ‘ESG,’ ‘EDI’ or ‘CSR’ because we were interested in capabilities MNEs need to create any type of social value, not just one specific type. We only looked at recent literature, i.e., not older than 15 years, because social value as an integrated concept of ESG, CSR and EDI is a relatively recent phenomenon. The literature review yielded only 9 literature sources dealing with social value creation and MNEs: Ajwani-Ramchandaniet al. (2021); Kolk and Pinkse (2008); Maksimovet al. (2022), Mishra and Schmidt (2018); Rygh (2020); Sinkovics and Archie-Acheampong (2020); Sinkovicset al. (2014); Van Tulderet al. (2021); and Yin (2021). However, none of these sources discussed the capabilities MNEs need to successfully generate social value. We therefore had to turn to more generic literature, in i.e., literature that discusses capabilities needed by organisations to generate social value, but not necessarily in the context of MNEs. This yielded 45 sources. Unfortunately, upon closer examination of these sources it turned out that they basically only gave generic information with regard to capabilities needed. Examples are: Serafeim (2020) who state that organisations should adopt strategic social value practices, create accountability structures for social value integration, make operational changes to ensure that the social value strategy is successfully executed, and commit to transparency and relationship building with investors; Battilanaet al. (2019) urging organisations to focus on four key management practices: setting and monitoring financial and social value goals, aligning activities and organizational structure to support both goals, hiring and socializing employees to embrace them, and practicing dual-minded leadership; Kramer and Pfitzer (2022) recommending organisations to collaborate with stakeholders, redesign organizational roles, and communicate with investors about the organisation’s social value approach; or Raiden and King (2022) proposing organisations to create favourable conditions of employment, provide much training, apply social procurement, adopt circular vision and business models, safeguard the environment, and use collaborative and participative designs.

The few studies that do go into actual day-to-day capabilities do not do so in the context of MNEs. For instance, Weissbrod and Bocken (2017) conducted a case study into the connection between lean start-up thinking, triple bottom line value creation, and organizational capabilities in at a clothing company; Urban and Gaffurini (2017) determined how different organisational capabilities are related to social innovation specifically in social enterprises; De Silvaet al. (2021) examined the role played by dynamic capabilities and business model innovation in international social purpose organizations; Wójciket al. (2022) investigated the micro-foundations of an organisation’s dynamic capability for social responsibility for a business-nonprofit collaboration; and Salimet al. (2019) made a systematic review of the internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms.

Due to the limited research on social value capabilities in MNEs, we turned to the HPO framework (de Waal, 2012a, 2012b, 2021), which enables organizations to assess the capabilities required for achieving outstanding performance. An HPO is characterized as an organization that consistently attains superior financial and non-financial results compared to its peers—organizations of similar nature—over a period of at least five years, by maintaining a disciplined focus on what is truly essential (de Waal, 2021). Since generating social value can be considered a specific type of organizational outcome, we propose that building the capabilities necessary to become an HPO will also facilitate the successful creation of social value. Previous studies have employed the HPO framework to explore the link between capabilities, high-performance organizations, and overall organizational success (Al-Shummaryet al., 2016; de Waal, 2012b). Additionally, it has been applied in the context of MNEs (de Waal, 2012b; de Waal & Hanna, 2016), making it the most suitable framework for advancing our research.

It has to be noted that, while the HPO Framework has been validated across diverse industries and regions for achieving superior financial and operational outcomes, its applicability to social value creation requires further examination. A key critique of applying the HPO framework in this context is that it was originally developed to assess high performance in traditional business operations rather than social value generation (de Waal & Orcotoma Escalante, 2011). The framework does not explicitly account for governance structures, stakeholder engagement models, or ESG risk mitigation strategies that are central to social value initiatives. However, we argue that many of the capabilities embedded within the HPO framework—such as fostering openness, promoting continuous improvement, and investing in long-term stakeholder relationships—are also critical enablers of effective social value creation (Ajwani-Ramchandaniet al., 2021; Yin, 2021). To address this theoretical limitation, this study examines the extent to which each HPO factor aligns with social value components. We develop a structured impact matrix mapping the HPO framework’s characteristics to ESG, CSR, and EDI requirements, assessing where gaps may exist and where refinements are necessary. Our empirical phase further explores whether additional organizational capabilities—beyond those identified in the HPO framework—are essential for effective social value creation and reporting.

The HPO Framework

The HPO Factors and Characteristics

The HPO Framework (de Waal, 2012a, 2012b) is a scientifically validated conceptual model (Do & Mai, 2020) that organizations can use to assess their level of high performance and determine which capabilities need enhancement to improve and sustain organizational success. The framework was developed over five years through an extensive review of 505 academic and practitioner publications on high performance, alongside a global survey. In this survey, participants evaluated their organizations’ performance based on theoretically identified HPO characteristics and compared their results to those of similar organizations. The collected data was then subjected to statistical analysis (de Waal, 2012a, 2021), which identified five key factors, all linked to competitive success. The five HPO factors are (with detailed characteristics outlined in Table I):

Table I. Matching the HPO Framework with the Components of Social Value

HPO factors/characteristics (= capabilities)	ESG	CSR	EDI
Continuous Improvement and Renewal
1. The organization has a strategy that sets it clearly apart from other organizations.	X	X	X
2. Processes are continuously improved.	X	X	X
3. Processes are continuously simplified.	X	X	X
4. Processes are continuously aligned.	X	X	X
5. Everything that matters to performance is explicitly reported.	X	X	X
6. Both financial and non-financial information is reported to managers and employees.	X	X	X
7. Core competencies are continuously innovated.	Y	Y	Y
8. Products, processes, and services are continuously innovated.	X	Y	Y
Openness and Action Orientation
9. Managers frequently engage in a dialogue with employees.	Y	X	X
10. Employees spend much time on communication, knowledge exchange and learning.	X	X	X
11. Employees are always involved in important processes.	X	X	X
12. Managers allow making mistakes.	Y	Y
13. Managers welcome change.	Y	Y	Y
14. The organization is performance driven.	X	X	X
Management Quality
15. Managers are trusted by organizational members.	Y	X	X
16. Managers have integrity.	Y	X	X
17. Managers are a role model for employees.	Y	X	X
18. Managers are fast decision makers.	Y	Y	Y
19. Managers are fast action takers.	Y	Y	Y
20. Managers coach employees to achieve better results.	X	X	X
21. Managers focus on achieving results.	X	X	X
22. Managers are very effective.	X	X	X
23. Managers are strong leaders.	Y	Y	Y
24. Managers are confident.	Y	Y	Y
25. Managers are decisive with regard to non-performers.	Y	Y	Y
Employee Quality
26. Managers always hold employees responsible for their results.	Y	Y	Y
27. Managers inspire employees to accomplish extraordinary results.	X	X	X
28. Employees are resilient and flexible.	X	X	X
29. The organization has a diverse and complementary workforce.	Y	Y	X
Long-Term Orientation
30. The organization maintains good and long-term relationships with all stakeholders.	X	X	Y
31. The organization is aimed at servicing the customers as best as possible.	X	X	X
32. The organization grows through partnerships with suppliers and/or customers.	X	X	Y
33. Managers have been with the company for a long time.	Y	Y	Y
34. The organization is a secure workplace for both managers and employees.	X	X	Y
35. New managers are promoted from within the organization.	Y	Y	X

• Continuous Improvement and Renewal: An HPO ensures outdated strategies are replaced or refined to maintain uniqueness. It consistently enhances, streamlines, and aligns its processes while innovating products and services to secure competitive advantages. Additionally, it optimally manages core competencies and outsources non-core functions.

• Openness and Action-Orientation: An HPO fosters an open culture where management values employee input and includes them in key processes. Mistakes are seen as learning opportunities, and employees actively engage in dialogue, knowledge-sharing, and learning to drive performance. Managers personally participate in experiments, promoting a culture of change.

• Management Quality: Trust, fairness, and integrity are central in an HPO. Managers demonstrate reliability, enthusiasm, and decisiveness, holding employees accountable for results. They effectively communicate organizational values and strategy, ensuring clarity and alignment across all levels.

• Employee Quality: An HPO builds a diverse, adaptable workforce with a strong management team. Employees are encouraged to develop their skills, take responsibility for their performance, and contribute creatively, leading to improved outcomes.

• Long-term Orientation: An HPO cultivates long-term partnerships with suppliers and customers and prioritizes internal candidates for leadership positions. It fosters a safe and supportive work environment—both physically and mentally—and resorts to dismissals only when absolutely necessary.

Research on HPOs confirms a direct and positive correlation between these five factors and competitive performance: higher HPO scores lead to stronger organizational results, whereas lower scores correspond with weaker performance. Since its initial development, the framework has been widely studied, applied in practice, and well-documented in academic literature (Do & Mai, 2020; Iqbalet al., 2022).

The HPO Framework and Social Value

The relation between the HPO framework and one component of social value, in this case CSR, has been previously studied (de Waal & Orcotoma Escalante, 2011). The premise of this study was that an organisation that is high performing applies CSR more fully and thus achieves better social results than an organisation that is average performing and uses CSR less in its business dealings. The review of the CSR and HPO literatures showed that there was a clear connection between the two concepts. This theoretical relation was subsequently explored at two mining companies in Peru. Comparison of these mines showed that the one with the highest HPO scores, scored higher on the CSR characteristics and enjoyed better financial performance. A direct consequence of this correlation is that it makes both social and economic sense for organisations to work on becoming an HPO in order to be better able to create social value.

Research Approach

Phase 1: Theoretical Review

To identify the organisational capabilities MNEs need for creating and sustaining social value, we linked the social value concept with the HPO framework, following the methodology of de Waal and Orcotoma Escalante (2011) in connecting CSR and HPO. We first split social value into its components: ESG (including net zero carbon), CSR, and EDI. Then, we constructed an impact matrix, analysing how each HPO characteristic could influence these components. The lead author drafted the matrix based on prior experience, after which the first two co-authors reviewed and refined it. The final matrix (Table I) showed strong theoretical links, with 25 of 35 HPO characteristics positively impacting social value (the ‘Xs’ in Table I). This suggests that becoming an HPO equips organisations with the capabilities needed to create social value effectively (de Waalet al., 2023).

Phase 2: Empirical Research

We expanded on the phase 1 findings by conducting a follow-up study at five MNEs, all actively engaged in social value creation and striving to become high-performing organisations. The lead author’s connections with managers facilitated access and ensured smooth participation. At each MNE, we organised a focus group with managers and employees to explore how they practically implemented the capabilities outlined in the HPO framework to enhance social value creation. Focus groups are a widely used qualitative research method involving small group discussions on specific topics (Wilkinson, 2004). They provide an efficient way to gather insights from multiple participants, allowing them to share experiences, refine their perspectives, and contribute new ideas. This method creates an open, non-threatening environment where participants feel safe to express opinions, fostering richer discussions and uncovering valuable solutions (Dubozet al., 2022; Stahlet al., 2011). During the focus groups, the impact matrix from phase 1 was reviewed and refined. Due to time constraints, each company focused on one social value component, while real-world examples of how HPO characteristics were applied in daily operations were collected. Sessions lasted between 2.5 and 3 hours, were recorded and transcribed, then sent to the MNEs’ contact persons for review and corrections. The collected data was subsequently analyzed and discussed by all authors, leading to the final conclusions.

The following MNEs participated in the focus groups:

• BAM DLP: BAM DLP operates within the BAM Netherlands division of the Royal BAM Group. As a leading construction and infrastructure company, BAM Group serves markets in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, offering a comprehensive range of services, including non-residential construction, mechanical and electrical engineering, real estate development, civil engineering, rail infrastructure, digital design and engineering, industrialization, circularity, modularity, energy transition, and emerging technologies. With approximately 16,000 employees, BAM Group is a key player in the industry. BAM DLP specializes in the execution and oversight of projects involving contaminated soil. The organization is a recognized expert in environmental and soil management, safety, quality assurance, and regulatory compliance. It ensures that clients adhere to relevant laws and regulations when handling contaminated soil. Known for its expertise in process control, BAM DLP became the first organization to achieve Step 5 on the Safety Culture Ladder in 2019.

• BASF’s Vegetable Seeds Business: BASF’s Vegetable Seeds Business, headquartered in the Netherlands, focuses on making healthy eating enjoyable and sustainable. The company offers vegetable solutions that meet and raise the consumer’s demands and expectations. This is achieved by creating improved varieties using state-of-the-art breeding practices and by working closely with partners throughout the vegetable value chain; pro-actively contributing to increasing and enriching vegetable consumption through innovations that are healthy, enjoyable, and sustainable. The company employs approximately 2100 employees. BASF’s vegetable seeds business is part of the German multinational BASF.

• KLM Royal Dutch Airlines: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) is a full-service airline based in The Netherlands, with its main hub located at Amsterdam Schiphol airport. Through three wholly owned subsidiaries KLM also operates a low-cost airline (Transavia), a regional airline (KLM Cityhopper) and a dedicated 747 freighter service (Martinair). KLM is part of the Air France-KLM Group. KLM focuses on three core activities: passengers, cargo, and engineering & maintenance. KLM’s network spans the globe, offering regional and international destinations to its customers. In 2019, before Covid impacted global aviation, KLM served 171 destinations and carried over 35 million passengers. The company employs 30.000 employees.

• Leidos UK: Leidos is a Fortune 500® information technology, engineering, and science solutions and services leader working to solve the world’s toughest challenges in the defence, intelligence, homeland security, civil, and health markets. The company’s 47,000 employees support vital missions for government and commercial customers. Leidos UK’s 1200 employees deliver digital solutions across public services, transportation, defence, national security, energy, and logistics clients. As a leader in IT, the company delivers complex change programmes to transform and secure critical national services from large-scale systems integration, to advanced development, and analytics.

• Swagelok Netherlands: Swagelok Nederland Sales & Service B.V. is an independent distributor of the USA Swagelok organisation with a focus on the Dutch region, of components for gas- and fluid systems. The company offers high quality Swagelok products and services like certified training programs, field surveys and assembly capabilities. The most important markets for the Dutch region are the Semiconductor-, Chemical-, and (green) Energy market. The Swagelok Nederland team consists of 47 employees and is located in Waddinxveen, The Netherlands. As a leader in gas- and fluid systems Swagelok Nederland is committed to support Dutch companies to solve their technical challenges in their energy transition with special focus on four areas: analytical instrumentation, high purity systems, gas distribution and hydrogen applications. The company provides seminars, practical solutions and training.

Addressing Empirical Rigor

This study employs a qualitative research design using focus groups to explore how MNEs develop capabilities for social value creation. Focus groups were chosen as they provide rich, exploratory insights that allow for the identification of nuanced organizational practices and challenges related to ESG, CSR, and EDI implementation (Dubozet al., 2022). However, we recognize the inherent limitations of qualitative research, particularly in terms of generalizability and empirical validation. To strengthen the methodological rigor, the study follows a structured approach in data collection and analysis. Five focus groups, each comprising managers and employees from different MNEs, were conducted to ensure diverse perspectives. Participants were selected based on their involvement in social value initiatives, ensuring that insights were drawn from individuals directly engaged in ESG, CSR, and EDI efforts. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and systematically coded to identify recurring themes and capability patterns (Stahlet al., 2011).

Despite the valuable insights gained, we acknowledge that focus groups alone do not provide a robust empirical validation of the proposed capability framework. Future research should complement these findings with quantitative methodologies, such as surveys or case study analyses, to statistically validate the relationships between high-performance capabilities and social value outcomes (Salimet al., 2019). Additionally, expanding the sample to include MNEs from diverse geographical and cultural contexts would enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Research Results

This section contains an overview of the results achieved during the focus group meetings. In Table I the input of the focus group participants is given. Basically all the theoretical X’s were confirmed by the participants. Additional characteristics were also deemed important by the participants for creating social value, these are indicated by Y’s in Table I.

Underneath, per HPO factor, an explanation is given by the focus group participants of the way the specific HPO characteristics of that factor influence the social value components. This is accompanied with examples as provided by the focus group participants (individual information per participating MNE is not given because of confidentiality reasons).

HPO factor continuous improvement and renewal:

1. The organisation must incorporate all components of social value into its strategy to ensure it receives the necessary attention. It is essential that the company maintains a unified vision and strategy regarding social value and communicates this clearly both internally and externally. The strategy cannot be generic; it must outline how the organisation will actively create social value. Employees in MNEs engage with various cultures, generating diverse ideas for social value creation, which they share with colleagues, leading to new initiatives. As social value efforts expand, a structured approach through vision, strategy, and policies becomes crucial.

2/3/4. The organisation must tailor its processes to better support all components of social value creation. Examples include replacing traditional on-site house construction with prefab elements to save time, energy, and noise; ensuring software and equipment accessibility for all employees; assisting people with barriers to employment; and anonymising CVs to reduce biases. While process alignment typically focuses on efficiency and cost reduction, social value creation often requires customised processes that may increase costs. In some cases, not aligning can even accelerate social value realisation. Additional measures include prioritising sustainable investments over cheaper options, conducting external audits with corrective actions, making processes measurable and acting on results, and applying the full PDCA cycle to embed social value into the organisation.

5/6. The organisation must develop key performance indicators (KPIs) for all components of social value and include them in reports for both managers and employees. Reporting should always be supported by action plans and trend analyses. External reporting focuses on demonstrating compliance with social value criteria, while internal reporting ensures employees see their progress and impact. Governance is addressed through reporting on mandated social value KPIs, but the organisation must recognise that its actual social value goals may not always align with these required indicators.

7. In order to improve/develop new processes, products, and services for social value creation, the employees have to do a lot of learning ánd development of (probably) new core competencies. In addition, checking the progress and results of social value creation processes require new skills and competencies.

8. The organisation innovates its products, services, and processes to support social value creation. Social value aspects are integrated into product development and production, with budget controls ensuring that products failing to meet social value criteria are halted, regardless of their potential profitability. New processes may be required to enhance inclusivity, such as adapting buildings for accessibility or incorporating multiple languages in product toolkits. Another example is an app allowing users to record their name’s pronunciation and attach it to emails, helping others pronounce names correctly.

HPO factor openness and action orientation:

9. Regular communication and dialogue are essential for positively influencing social value creation. Management must frequently discuss social value components to stay informed about developments within the organisation, while employees should be continuously updated. Given the diversity of perspectives—ranging from climate activists to climate deniers—managers must be capable of engaging effectively with all viewpoints.

10. Create platforms, such as the day-start every morning, newsletters, frequent employee meetings and client meetings, where social value issues are discussed. Put stories and examples about social value efforts and results on the intranet. Use the information to entice employees to discuss social value and to mobilise them to actually take action.

11. Employees are emphatically involved in discussing, making decisions, and taking action in regard to the various components of social value. Management should expect employees to come up with ideas, test the support base for the ideas in the organisation—on behalf of the employees who came up with the idea—and then embrace these ideas when more people are in favour of them.

12/13. These aspects are closely linked to psychological safety (characteristic 34), as an environment where people can speak up, experiment, and learn is essential for social value creation. If management resists change, employees will be less likely to develop new products and services supporting social value. Appointing a social value manager signals that management embraces change by having a dedicated person drive these initiatives. A root cause analysis process should be in place to investigate and correct mistakes without repercussions, except in EDI matters, where mistakes must be minimized due to their potential harm to individuals.

14. The organisation has to be active and action-driven in the area of social value: actions speak louder than words! In addition, achieving results by being performance-driven actually combats possible external opinions of greenwashing.

HPO factor management quality:

15/16. Management earns trust by being ethical, building relationships at all levels, demonstrating respect, fairness, and integrity. Leading by example through honesty and sincerity is crucial. Commitment, enthusiasm, and ethical conduct strengthen the organisation’s values, which must be clear, strong, and actively practiced. Decisiveness is key, especially in fundamental social responsibilities toward employees and stakeholders. Equal treatment signals integrity, while genuine passion for social value creation is essential for credibility. Employees quickly detect insincerity—actions must match words. Demonstrating integrity in social value efforts is also an effective way to combat perceptions of greenwashing.

17. It helps enormously when in particular the CEO starts to regularly talk about social value creation and shows to the organisation that s/he finds this important (= being a role model), so the lower levels start to also find social value important.

18/19. If management delays decisions on social value, it risks losing employees’ enthusiasm. Acting quickly allows for mistakes to be corrected more easily, making the organisation more flexible. Prioritising small, fast steps over slow, large ones is advisable—speed is beneficial, but haste is not. In EDI matters, swift action is especially crucial as it directly affects people.

20/21. Managers should be able to coach employees on a regular basis in achieving social value (in all its components). The organisation and its management emphatically want to achieve positive results in regard to the components of social value.

22. The HPO organisation and its management are actually very good in achieving positive results in regard to the components of social value.

23/24. Strong leadership and confidence are key to being a role model in achieving social value goals. Managers should support their teams, push through when necessary, but avoid becoming overly directive. They must convey the importance of social value with confidence and conviction to inspire employees. If leadership lacks confidence and enthusiasm, employees will too.

25. Setting social value goals allows for accountability, but they must be realistic within the organisation’s context. Employees should at least demonstrate serious effort through actions. If not, management must address this decisively. While disagreement with social value policy is acceptable, employees must still support it in practice. Otherwise, management should be prepared to let them go to retain those who are committed—ensuring the right people are on board.

HPO factor employee quality:

26. Employees in an HPO seek responsibility for social value creation and should be allowed to make mistakes but should also be held accountable for results. Failing to meet targets provides an opportunity to assess whether processes effectively support social value goals and identify areas for improvement.

27. Managers should be able to enthuse employees for supporting the achievement of social value (in all its components).

28. When employees get regular training aimed at dealing with ESG, CSR and EDI issues, it will make them more flexible and agile which helps the achievement of social value.

29. A diverse workforce signals inclusivity. To support this, job ads should include a diversity statement reinforcing the organisation’s commitment to non-discrimination. Innovation in social value benefits from diverse teams, as they perform better. A mix of younger and older employees is essential for varied perspectives, as homogeneous teams limit new ideas and creativity.

HPO factor long-term orientation:

30. Stakeholder theory is central to the debate on business responsibility, emphasizing an organisation’s role in responding to social pressures and creating social value. It argues that businesses serve not just shareholders but a broader group of stakeholders with legitimate interests. Treating stakeholders with trust builds competitive advantage by reducing costs and environmental impact. Effective stakeholder management requires leadership to empathetically consider their interests.

31. Social value is reflected in fair pricing and genuine customer engagement beyond transactions. Consumers are increasingly drawn to socially and environmentally responsible companies. Organisations that neglect environmental or human rights standards risk declining sales due to negative perceptions from customers and governments.

32. With globalisation, organisations operate within international supply chains, making partnerships essential for addressing environmental and social issues. Long-term alliances enable companies to influence partners toward social value and encourage investment in sustainable initiatives. Close collaboration with suppliers and customers fosters an understanding of their social value culture while reinforcing that business is about more than just products—it also involves employee well-being. Suppliers should be audited on their social value efforts, given warnings if needed, and dismissed if they fail to improve.

33/35. The management team needs a balance of short- and long-tenured members. Newer managers focus on learning the organisation, while experienced ones provide deep knowledge, cultural insight, and guidance on change, including social value initiatives. They also free up time for social value work by mastering daily operations—provided they remain open to new ideas. Promoting internally ensures fair opportunities for advancement and helps sustain a strong social value culture as employees transition into leadership roles.

34. Committing to CSR and EDI means ensuring high-quality working conditions that minimize liabilities and health risks. This aligns with a continuous environmental strategy to enhance efficiency and reduce workplace hazards. A compliance officer encourages reporting on social value issues, providing valuable learning opportunities. Additionally, a safe and open workplace is essential, where employees can challenge management, speak up without fear, and hold leadership accountable for social value efforts.

Analysis

The main differences between the theoretical findings and empirical results can be found in:

• The scope of the capabilities. The theoretical phase identified 25 HPO characteristics as related to social value creation, with 62 out of 105 potential connections (about 59%). In contrast, the empirical phase revealed that nearly all HPO characteristics impacted social value creation positively, achieving a match rate of 99% (104 out of 105).

• Practical relevance. The empirical findings introduced additional capabilities not initially found during the theoretical literature review.

• Nuances in the application of the capabilities. The focus group meetings highlighted specific practices and contextual factors that influenced how capabilities were applied in real-world settings. This level of detail was not present in the theoretical phase.

Possible causes of these differences can be found in:

• The complexity of real-world contexts. The empirical findings reflect the complexities and practical challenges of implementing social value capabilities in MNEs, which theoretical models may overlook. Real-world applications require customization and adaptability of generic capabilities, which can vary significantly across different organizational settings.

• Dynamic feedback from practitioners. Engaging practitioners in focus groups provided insights that went beyond theoretical assumptions, leading to the identification of additional capabilities and practices that are practically useful in fostering social value creation.

• Incomplete theoretical models. Theoretical literature often provides a broad understanding without delving into the specific actions needed for effective social value creation. The empirical research filled these gaps by incorporating actual experiences and practices from MNEs.

Thus, the research findings contribute to understanding social value creation in MNEs by providing a comprehensive set of capabilities and demonstrating the role of HPOs. Our research bridges the gap between the theoretical model and practical implementation, offering a holistic view of capabilities needed for social value creation. In addition, our study confirms that organizations with strong HPO characteristics are more successful at social value creation. This implies that focusing on building these capabilities enhances the social and economic outcomes of MNEs.

The research findings extend the HPO framework literature by demonstrating its relevance in the context of social value creation. The framework’s application to social value broadens its scope, confirming that high performance is not just about financial outcomes but also about creating broader societal impact. The study provides empirical evidence that strengthens the connection between HPO characteristics and social value, supporting the idea that becoming an HPO can enhance an organization’s ability to generate social value.

Conclusion, Limitations and Future Research

This research set out to obtain an answer on the question How can MNEs develop the capabilities needed to successfully create social value? Main finding of the research is that, although the current literature does not provide much information on these capabilities in the specific context of MNEs, the HPO Framework (de Waal, 2012a, 2012b) turns out to be a helpful tool in developing the desired organisational capabilities. In fact, based on a series of focus groups with personnel of several MNEs, is turns out that the higher performing the organisation is (i.e., the more characteristics of the HPO Framework a MNE satisfies) the better and more successful it is in the creation of social value. In addition, using the HPO framework to develop organisational capabilities will bring a MNE to pole position to create social vale. In this respect, our research has the theoretical contribution that both the social value and MNE literatures have been expanded with additional information on how the HPO framework can be fitted in both the creation of social value and the development of MNEs. The practical contribution is that the research findings provide a framework to MNEs that will help them becoming better in creating and sustaining social value.

There are several limitations to our study, that in itself provide opportunities for future research. Only five MNEs participated in the research, and sometimes these were not the complete enterprise but a subsidiary. This limited research population should be expanded in future studies by involving the complete MNE and also by adding more MNEs to the research population. Cultural contexts and differences were only barely touched upon, as there was one UK and four Dutch MNEs participating. Social value creation is highly context-dependent, influenced by national policies, stakeholder expectations, and corporate governance structures. Future research should extend this investigation to MNEs from regions such as North America, Asia, and emerging markets to assess whether the identified capabilities are universally applicable or require contextual adaptation. The focus group meetings—though they had a nice representation—were still limited in size and number, so in future studies more focus groups per company should be organised. While the study provides an initial exploration of how the HPO framework aligns with social value creation, it does not establish a causal relationship between high-performance capabilities and social value outcomes. Quantitative research, including statistical modeling and longitudinal studies, would be valuable in validating the proposed capability framework (Van Tulderet al., 2021). Additionally, integrating data from corporate sustainability reports could provide an empirical basis for assessing whether MNEs with higher HPO scores demonstrate stronger ESG, CSR, and EDI performance (Serafeim, 2020).

The study findings suggest that while the HPO framework provides a useful starting point for assessing social value capabilities, certain refinements may be necessary. For example, the framework does not explicitly address stakeholder engagement, ethical leadership, or ESG risk management—elements that are critical to sustainable social value creation (Weissbrod & Bocken, 2017). Future research should explore how the HPO framework can be adapted or expanded to more comprehensively capture these dimensions. Another opportunity for future research is to specifically look at the roles of departments in the organisation in creating social value. For example, the finance department which—in many organisations—will be tasked with the reporting of social value performance: should its role be just passively report or should it be actively play a frontrunner role in developing social value creation capabilities? Finally, the collaboration aspects of creating social value in a business ecosystem could be studied in more detail to identify where partners in this ecosystem can reinforce each other.